Page 26 - JSOM Winter 2022

Results
Descriptive statistics and mean score differences are displayed
in Table 1. No significant differences (p > .05) were discovered
between groups on any of the performance variables examined
in the HVTM task. However, small to moderate effect sizes
FIGURE 3 Bartley MSVT (d = 0.31–0.49) between users and nonusers were observed in
implementation guidelines. Score, PID Accuracy, Shot Accuracy, and Kill Shot with perfor-
mance favoring the user group in all categories. A trivial effect
size (d = 0.193) was observed between groups in Shot Time
with users performing this task 0.46 seconds faster on average
compared to nonusers.

Discussion
daily for roughly 20–30 minutes within a 60–90-minute human
performance training iteration, as MVST was integrated with The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences
their physical training program. This model was utilized in or- in an HVTM task performance between SOF Soldiers that
der to create an integrated approach and to optimize time. This participate in an MVST program compared to those that did
approach has also been found to result in significant improve- not participate. The results of this study revealed no statisti-
ments on Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) scores among con- cally significant differences in HVTM performance between
ventional Soldiers. Since Soldiers are encouraged to practice groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis that significant differ-
15
these skills independent of structured trainings, exact quanti- ence in performance would not exist was accepted. However,
fication of time devoted to MVST is difficult and for the pur- small effect sizes were observed between groups in Score, PID
pose of this study was not measured. A practitioner model and Accuracy, Shot Accuracy, and Kill Shot Score with users out-
guidelines for this form of training are displayed in Figure 3. performing nonusers in all categories. These findings may be
particularly important in tactical populations in which small
Statistical Analysis differences in performance may impact mission success, safety,
The collected data were entered in a computer file suitable for and mortality.
statistical analysis using a free and open source graphical pro- TABLE 1 Group Differences in HVT ID Performance
gram for statistical analysis (JASP version 0.9.2, https://jasp
-stats.org/). Prior to electronic transmission to the research- Group Mean ± SD p Cohen’s d
ers, all data were rendered anonymous by the Tactical Human Age (y) User 31.53 ± 4.2
Optimization, Rapid Rehabilitation and Reconditioning 3 .397 0.162
(THOR3) Human Performance Program (HPP) training. Each Nonuser 30.87 ± 4.1
Soldier was given a unique identification number. Only mem- Overall score (%) User 66.7± 41.8 .152 0.447*
bers of the THOR3 HPP training staff had access to specific Nonuser 47.8 ± 42.7
identifiers for the data analyzed. The THOR3 HPP training PID accuracy (%) User 80.0 ± 40
staff were responsible for ensuring compliance of all standard Nonuser 62.2 ± 50 .222 .356*
operating procedures to maintain the confidentiality of this
information during data transmission were followed. Shot accuracy (%) User 66.7 ± 50 .323 .378*
Nonuser 51.1 ± 50
A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to determine Kill shot score (%) User 53.3 ± 50
the mean scores and standard deviations for the total sample Nonuser 30.0 ± 50 .114 0.493*
of Operators. The data were then subdivided by those that
used MVST services provided by the THOR3 HPP (i.e., users Shot time (s) User 7.00 ± 2.4 .532 –0.193
[n = 15]) and those that did not use these services (i.e., non- Nonuser 7.46 ± 2.4
users [n = 37]). A series of independent samples t-tests were *Small-moderate effect size.
then conducted to determine if significant mean score differ-
ences existed between users and nonusers on age, Score, PID While statistically significant differences in the HVTM per-
Accuracy, Shot Accuracy, Kill Shot Accuracy, and Shot Time. formance task were not discovered between groups, this does
Significance for each test was set at the a priori p ≤ .05 level. not necessarily mean that MVST is ineffective. Elite Soldiers
However, it has been suggested that this approach of report- may represent a relatively homogeneous group in terms of the
ing probability value alone can be highly influenced by sample skills assessed in the HVTM task. Due to the criticality of ex-
size and may be inadequate for assessing the practical impor- ecuting these tasks efficiently and effectively, even the smallest
tance of research findings. Instead it has been suggested that differences in performance may be worthwhile. According to
16
reporting the smallest worthwhile amount of change (i.e., Hopkins et al., an effect size of 0.20 would represent a small
d = 0.2) may be of more use for practitioners and clinicians but potentially worthwhile difference in performance. The
17
when seeking to determine the value of an intervention. For findings of this study suggest users of MVST may have had a
these reasons a Cohen’s d effect size calculation was also con- small advantage in such tasks compared to nonusers. None-
ducted to measure the magnitude of difference between groups theless, based on the dire consequences associated with the
on the HVTM task. Subsequently, these results were then in- SOF Operator’s military occupational specialty, even small ad-
16
terpreted in line with the suggested scale by Hopkins et al., vantages in performance may be of value and warrant further
in which <0.2 = trivial; 0.2–0.6 = small; 0.6–1.2 = moderate; investigation into the use of MVST to improve occupational
1.2–2.0 = large; 2.0–4.0 = very large; and >4.0 = near perfect. 17 performance in this population.

24 | JSOM Volume 22, Edition 4 / Winter 2022