The charge to the committee requested the recommendation of a basic research agenda, for implementation by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), that might in time lead to improvements in the Army enlisted soldier selection process. In developing the recommended research agenda and considering an implementation strategy that includes the necessary funding level, the committee excluded possible methods of improving selection that were, in the committee’s judgment, beyond the basic research stage. However, the committee recognizes that aspects of the research topics identified in this report are already under investigation by ARI and other entities to varying degrees, while other aspects may be in the process of being developed and implemented.
As described in the report’s first chapter, throughout its work the committee recognized the importance of developing selection systems based on criteria of interest to organizational values. However, the Army’s currently used selection tools and systems apply to multiple missions, environments, and criteria that represent its organizational values, and the Army is also forward-looking in considering jobs, environments, and selection in the future. Thus the committee was instructed to think broadly about the selection of military personnel across all occupational specialties rather than to consider selection issues that might be unique to any specific outcome or function. The research recommendations, as compiled and restated in this chapter, reflect the committee’s requirement that a conceptual or empirical link could be identified between an attribute under consideration and one
or more outcomes that constitute a component of overall individual or team effectiveness. (The reader is referred back to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 for the grid presenting the links between the research domains included in this report and many of the outcomes identified by the committee as potentially of importance to the Army.)
In considering the implementation of the research agenda, the question of the necessary funding level for future ARI basic research is of key import. Because the committee recognized that it lacked critical expertise and insight into the Army organization and missions, this report was developed on the basis that the Army would need to identify the outcomes strategically of greatest value to its mission(s), then basic research domains linked to those outcomes would become higher in priority. Funding allocations would be impacted by such a priority scheme.
Absent priorities assigned to the 10 substantive recommendations made in this report, the committee sees each of the areas as independently worthy of pursuit. The research topics have been grouped into relevant sections in the report, based upon the taxonomic system described in Chapter 1, and interrelated topics could be developed into integrative research programs. However, to produce findings that have the potential to improve the quality of Army selection decisions in the relatively near term, the committee believes all topics identified in this report should be pursued at levels commensurate with the outcomes of greatest import to the Army.
If all research topics could be pursued, a modest start would be to fund one project in each of these 10 areas. A reasonable average funding level for these projects might be $350,000 per year. We note that this funding level is consistent with the typical current funding level for basic research projects supported from ARI’s Personnel Performance and Training budget line. This funding would be exclusive to the basic research program and would not include formal validity studies or applied programs of research prior to implementation. Note that the per-project funding cited above is an average value; work in some domains can be expected to be more costly than in others, and different research strategies within a domain may be more costly than others. Equipment needs and participant payment costs are among the features that are likely to vary across domains and across projects.
Thus, a research budget of $3.5 million would support this initial plan of one project per substantive area per year. One project certainly reflects progress. But each substantive research domain is multifaceted, and multiple projects per area would permit quicker progress and potential synergies across projects. So a more ambitious plan would be to fund two projects per year in each of these 10 areas, thus suggesting a research budget of $7 million. To be clear, this represents funding for basic research. Follow-up
research moving toward operational use of new measures (e.g., field validation studies) will be necessary but is beyond the committee’s charge.
In the committee’s opinion, to implement such a program effectively and expeditiously would require a funding commitment in the range of $3.5 million per year (supporting one project per substantive area) to $7 million per year (supporting two projects per substantive area) in order to support research on potential enhancement of enlisted soldier selection.
RESEARCH TOPICS: COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the convenience of the reader, this section of the report’s final chapter restates the conclusions and recommendations that were originally presented in each of the relevant research topic chapters (Chapters 2 through 10) and that, combined, make up the committee’s recommended research agenda for ARI to take its basic research program to the next leap forward in identifying, assessing, and assigning quality personnel.
Fluid Intelligence, Working Memory Capacity, Executive Attention, and Inhibitory Control (Chapter 2)
Committee Conclusion
The constructs of fluid intelligence (novel reasoning), working memory capacity, executive attention, and inhibitory control are important to a wide range of situations relevant to the military, from initial selection, selection for a particular job, and training regimes to issues having to do with emotional, behavioral, and impulse control in individuals after accession. These constructs reflect a range of cognitive, personality, and physiological dimensions that are largely unused in current assessment regimes. The committee concludes that these topics merit inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation: Fluid Intelligence, Working Memory Capacity, and Executive Attention
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to understand the psychological, cognitive, and neurobiological mechanisms underlying the constructs of fluid intelligence (novel reasoning), working memory capacity, and executive attention.
Research Recommendation: Inhibitory Control
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to further understanding of inhibitory control, including but not limited to the following lines of inquiry:
Cognitive Biases (Chapter 3)
Committee Conclusion
Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, anchoring, overconfidence, sunk cost, availability, and others, appear broadly relevant to the military because of findings, from both the analysis of large-scale disasters and the broader literature on cognitive biases, that show how irrational decision making results from failing to reflect on choices. Research on a tendency to engage in cognitive biases as a stable individual-differences measure is limited, and there are measurement challenges that must be dealt with before operational cognitive bias assessment could be implemented. The conceptual relevance of this topic, paired with the limited research to date, which takes an individual-differences orientation, leads the committee to
conclude that cognitive biases merit inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to understand cognitive biases and heuristics, including but not limited to the following topics:
Spatial Abilities (Chapter 4)
Committee Conclusion
A spatial ability measure, Assembling Objects (AO), is included in the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Research suggests incremental validity for spatial measures over general mental ability measures in predicting important military outcomes. Research also suggests that sex differences vary across different operationalizations of spatial ability. Together, these findings suggest exploring varying approaches to the measurement of spatial abilities to ascertain whether the AO test is the best measure of spatial ability for military selection and classification. The
committee concludes that spatial ability merits inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to understand facets and assessment methods in the domain of spatial abilities, including the following research lines of inquiry:
Teamwork Behavior (Chapter 5)
Committee Conclusion
Research has identified a number of individual-differences attributes that are broadly predictive of success in a team environment. There has also been progress in identifying attributes that when aggregated across team members (e.g., mean level of cognitive ability, minimum agreeableness), are predictive of team effectiveness. More research is needed to expand and amplify this work in the context of potential utility in military accession. The committee concludes that the teamwork knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAO) domain merits inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research on individual- and team-level knowledge,
skills, abilities, and other characteristics that influence the collective capacity to perform. Future research should include the following objectives:
Hot Cognition: Defensive Reactivity, Emotional Regulation, and Performance under Stress (Chapter 6)
Committee Conclusion
“Hot cognition” includes the topics of defensive reactivity, emotional regulation, and performance under stress. Research and military experience suggest that the ability to perform well in situations that elicit emotional responses is important in many contexts that are relevant to the military. Research on performance has tended to underplay the role emotions can play in governing behavior, whether for good or bad. The committee concludes that the hot cognition domain merits inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to understand issues in the domain of hot cognition:
Adaptability and Inventiveness (Chapter 7)
Committee Conclusion
The military has a strong interest in adaptive behavior, expressed in terms of assessing novel problems and solving them or acting upon them effectively. Research indicates two promising lines of inquiry. The first would use measures of frequency and quality of ideas generated in open-ended tasks, which have demonstrated incremental validity over and above measures of general cognitive ability for predicting important outcomes related to work performance. The second line of inquiry would use narrow
personality constructs to predict adaptive behavior and inventive/creative problem solving. Thus, the committee concludes that idea generation measures and narrow personality measures specific to adaptability and inventiveness merit inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to understand constructs and assessment methods in the domains of adaptability/inventiveness and adaptive performance, including but not limited to the following topics:
Psychometrics and Technology (Chapter 8)
Committee Conclusion
The military has long been in the forefront of modernized operational adaptive testing. Recent research offers promise for improvements in measurement in a variety of areas, including the application and modeling of forced-choice measurement methods; development of serious gaming; and pursuing Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT), Big Data analytics, and other modern statistical tools for estimating applicant standing on attributes of interest with greater efficiency. Efficiency is a key issue, as the wide range of substantive topics recommended for research in this report may result in proposed additions to the current battery of measures administered for accession purposes. The committee concludes that such advances in measurement and statistical models merit inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
Modern measurement methods come with the promise of increasing precision, validity, efficiency, and security of current, emerging, and future forms of assessment. The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should continue to support developments to advance psychometric methods and data analytics.
Situations and Situational Judgment Tests (Chapter 9)
Committee Conclusion
The ability to use judgment to interpret, evaluate, and weigh alternate courses of action appropriately and effectively is relevant to a wide variety of situations within the military. Various streams of research, including new conceptual and measurement developments in assessing situational judgment, as well as evidence of consistent incremental validity of situational judgment measures over cognitive ability and personality measures for predicting performance in various work settings, lead the committee to conclude that measures of situational judgment merit inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should support research to understand constructs and assessment methods specific to the domain of situational judgment, including but not limited to the following lines of inquiry:
Assessment of Individual Differences Through Neuroscience Measures (Chapter 10)
Committee Conclusion
A wide variety of measures fall within the domain of neuroscience (e.g., direct neuroscience measures such as electroencephalography [EEG], positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imagery [MRI], or functional MRI [fMRI] and indirect biomarkers of neural activity such as heart rate or eye blink). These measures may take multiple roles in the Army accession process including (a) monitoring test takers for constructs such as anxiety, attention, and motivation during other assessments; (b) use in research settings as criteria for evaluating other potential assessments; and (c) use as direct selection and classification assessments. Although the third role may be well in the future in terms of technically feasible and cost-effective assessment, the first two uses have near-term promise. The committee concludes that the neuroscience domain merits inclusion in a program of basic research with the long-term goal of improving the Army’s enlisted accession system.
Research Recommendation
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences should pursue a program for investigating the potential for robust and objective neurophysiological biomarkers that can serve to refine and augment assessments currently in use or under development for future utilization. These biomarkers may include, among others, eye tracking, physiological reactions (galvanic skin response, cardio rhythms, etc.), medium term endocrine measures (cortisol, neurochemical markers), brain activity measures, and static and functional brain imaging. This program investigating neurophysiological biomarkers should prepare to address challenges in both what to measure and how to accomplish the measurements technically, first in the laboratory setting and eventually in field settings. The program should support research in relevant biomarker development for use in the following roles:
In addition to these key roles, there might be other ways biomarker development could contribute to a selection and classification program:
This page intentionally left blank.