Page 29 - JSOM Fall 2022

health). 37­39 Increased resilience over time reflects the capacity increase the possibility of type II error in findings. We do not
to learn from previous adaptation to various other stressors or believe this to be the case, based on the medium effect size.
to adapt more efficiently (physiologically and/or affectively). However, replicating our findings with a larger sample size
Thus, our results may reflect that maintaining active combat would confirm these relationships.
service is associated with resilience growth, partially because
25
of sustaining sufficient recovery after both training and com­
bat operations. Conducting longitudinal observational stud­ Conclusion
ies on SOF combat Servicemembers may identify aspects of The present study is the first, to our knowledge, to look exclu­
military training and experiences that facilitate and/or inhibit sively at SOF combat Servicemember resilience. Researching
resilience. This information would directly inform future resil­ resilience can help scientists and stakeholders gain founda­
ience interventions that have shown limited effectiveness in the tional understanding about SOF combat Servicemember stress
current literature. 8,40,41 adaptation, but little is known about measuring or describing
this construct in this population. The SOF combat Servicemem­
Although researchers have found statistically significant neg­ bers’ ER89 scores were moderate, on average, and this metric
ative relationships between mTBI history and trait resilience displayed preliminary evidence that it is sufficiently sensitive
in veterans, the present study failed to reject null hypothe­ to detect resilience differences when accounting for mTBI his­
27
ses regarding mTBI history effects. Discrepancies between our tory and total military service. Future research regarding the
results and prior work may be the result of the limited range differences in SOF combat Servicemember resilience dynamics
of histories reported (zero to six mTBIs) in the present study. with military service (i.e., evaluating psychological, physio­
It should be noted that we used a retrospective self­reported logical, and performance resilience dynamics based on opera­
measure of one’s lifetime mTBIs. Though self­report mTBI tional environments) more granularly over time is warranted.
history measurement may have been a limitation, it has been
noted that self­reported recall of mTBI history is reliable and Funding
particularly useful when medical records cannot be accessed. This project was funded in part with contract grant support
42
All other study variables were also self­reported and subjec­ from the United States Army Special Operations Command
tive measures. The greatest threats to validity in our study fall (USASOC) to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
under information or observation biases, with measurement (Chapel Hill, NC, USA). This work was also supported by
error being the greatest potential threat. In addition to poten­ funding secured by the Preservation of the Force and Family
tially inflated CD­RISC and RSES scores, reported negative Program at US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
mental health symptoms were near the metrics’ floors and re­ and executed as a subaward issued to the University of North
lated to very high RSES scores, indicative of a strong desirabil­ Carolina at Chapel Hill by the Henry M. Jackson Founda­
ity effect. This points to the need for resilience measurements tion under a cooperative agreement (No. HU0001­15­2­0053)
beyond self­report, whether biological (e.g., stress reactivity, with the Uniformed Services University. This work is also sup­
blood hormone levels), behavioral (e.g., days of missed work), ported by the US Army Medical Research and Development
or other (e.g., peers, superiors, spouses), that are used to index Command under Contract No. W81XWH­20­C­0022.
these constructs. These recall and social desirability biases
43
can be mitigated by creating a quiet testing space to optimize Disclaimer
recall and by reminding participants that their responses were The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report
confidential, in that their colleagues and superiors will not are those of the authors and should not be construed as an
have access to all of their responses. In line with American official Department of the Army position, policy or decision
Psychological Association best practices, we employed only unless so designated by other documentation.
28
valid and reliable psychometric assessments and ensured par­
ticipant confidentiality. Disclosure
Coauthors Bailar­Heath and Burke were employed by Air
Limitations Force Special Operations Command for the study period. Au­
There were other limitations to this study’s methods. We were thors DeLellis, Depenbrock, Kane, Lynch, and Means were
unable to account for all potentially influential factors, such as employed by USASOC for part or all of the study period.
environmental (i.e., heat or cold) and personal (i.e., training,
sleep) factors that can contribute to Servicemember readiness References
44
and resilience. The present study also used a cross­sectional 1. Block J, Kremen AM. IQ and ego­resiliency: conceptual and em­
design to infer long­term resilience change in SOF combat pirical connections and separateness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70
Servicemembers. Our study aimed to describe information (2):349–361.
necessary to guide future surveillance studies, which we ac­ 2. Palmer B, Tepe V. Introduction. In: Lukey BJ, Tepe V, eds. Bio-
knowledge would also benefit from a broader inclusion of Spe­ behavioral Resilience to Stress. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor &
Francis; 2008:xiii–xxi.
cial Operations Forces across all US military Servicemembers 3. Simmons A, Yoder L. Military resilience: a concept analysis. Nurs
beyond the convenience sample of Army and Air Force SOF Forum. 2013;48(1):17–25. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf
Servicemembers. Future studies using a longitudinal design /10.1111/nuf.12007. Accessed August 27, 2019.
should employ more appropriate statistical analyses, such as 4. Windle G, Bennett KM, Noyes J. A methodological review of re­
linear mixed­effect models, to account for the latent hetero­ silience measurement scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9
45
geneity between Servicemembers because not all factors can (8):1–18.
feasibly be controlled or accounted for. Finally, the prevailing 5. Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience
COVID­19 pandemic limited access to study participants, ren­ scale: the Connor­Davidson Resilience Scale (CD­RISC). Depress
Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82.
dering a small sample size for our study, especially for SOF 6. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 4th ed.
mid­career Servicemembers (n = 20). Small sample sizes can Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2017.

Active Warfighter Resilience | 27