Resilience enhancing programs in the U.S. military: An exploration of theory and applied practice

ABSTRACT

U.S. service members are at an enhanced risk for developing mental disorders. To address these challenges, while promoting operational readiness and improving mental health outcomes, the Department of Defense directed each service component to develop and implement universal resilience enhancing programs. This paper provides a review of theoretical approaches conceptualizing resilience to trauma, including the theoretical foundations of programs currently in place. The resilience programs of U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps are described, and available program effectiveness data are reviewed. Gaps between theory and practice are identified and an alternative method of assessing psychological readiness in Army units that is informed by resilience theory is offered as one way to address these gaps and scientific concerns. By comprehensively assessing the stressors affecting Soldiers at regular intervals, military leaders may be able to better identify and mitigate stressors in a systematic way that bolsters individual and unit psychological fitness. An enhanced psychological readiness metric stands to strengthen the validity of current resilience programs, bring clarity to the mechanisms of resilience, and provide a novel way for leaders to promote readiness in their units. Application of this metric within the infrastructure of existing reporting systems stands to improve mental health outcomes for Service Members, enhance the psychological readiness of the force, and reduce healthcare costs over time.

What is the public significance of this article?—The present study reviews resilience theory and military resilience programs, and suggests that incorporating a psychological readiness metric into existing reporting protocols could enhance the validity of these programs. Assessment of psychological readiness at regular intervals could enable commanders to better promote unit resilience and identify systemic trends in a meaningful way that promotes the overall readiness of the force while also contributing to the evidence base for universal resilience programs.

U.S. service members are at risk for developing mental disorders following combat deployments (Thomas et al., 2010). A notable disorder causing dysfunction in redeploying service members is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which affects approximately 17–20% of those in who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan (Hoge et al., 2004; Kok et al., 2012). The prevalence of PTSD and other mental disorders is a significant challenge that negatively impacts unit readiness (Fiorey, 2010) and costs over $3.1 billion in annual healthcare costs (Vyas et al., 2016). To address concerns, there have been extensive efforts to better understand the factors that predispose Service Members to mental disorders. These have included identifying idiographic risk factors (Xue et al., 2015; Youssef et al., 2013), adjustment-related social stressors (Riviere et al., 2011), and the patterns associated with the onset and chronicity of post-traumatic stress disorder (Riviere et al., 2011). Amidst these attempts to better understand and mitigate risk, the Department of Defense (DoD) has dedicated substantial resources toward resilience. Using a proactive approach to bolster behavioral, cognitive and emotional health, the DoD aimed to reduce the number of combat-related stress disorders (Cornum et al., 2011).

Though the field of psychology lacks a single, unified definition of the construct, resilience here is defined as positive adaptation following an adverse event (Denckla et al., 2020; Southwick et al., 2014a). Those who are resilient recover from the disequilibrium of a traumatic event in an adaptive way (Denckla et al., 2020). Resilience as a construct is relatively new and several theories attempt to conceptualize it; however, the nature of resilience is not universally understood. Some view it as a trait, others consider it a dynamic process (Denckla et al., 2020; Mancini & Bonanno, 2011; Palmer & Tepe, 2008; Southwick et al., 2014a, 2014b). Despite these scientific inconsistencies and in response to the mental health needs of U.S. Service Members, the DoD called for the development and implementation of resilience programs to enhance the psychological readiness of the force (Department of Defense, 2011).

The paper reviews resilience theory, current resilience programs in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps, and evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs. Gaps between theory and practice are explored for the purpose of generating new, measurable ways to conceptualize and promote resilience in military units. Lastly, a new method of assessing unit resilience and psychological readiness, informed by current resilience theory and designed to be delivered within the institutional framework of the U.S. Army is described.

Theoretical frameworks conceptualizing resilience

Ecological Systems Theory (EST) is one of the earliest frameworks that attempts to explain the mechanisms of resilience, suggesting that individual adaptation is influenced by the environment within which one exists (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Environment is a dynamic, interactive and broad construct that is subdivided in EST, based up the immediacy and proximity to a person. As such, EST frames environmental factors within linked micro (e.g., family, school, neighborhood), meso (i.e. connections between microsystems), exo (i.e. indirect influences, such as parents’ workplaces, extended family) and macrosystems (e.g., culture, political systems; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These systems continuously interact with one another over the course of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Darling, 2007) and have been shown to influence one’s wellbeing and stress response (Atkinson et al., 2009; Ungar et al., 2013).

Providing a neurobiological perspective, Belsky and Pluess (2013) introduced the differential-susceptibility framework to incorporate emergent trends from neuroscience into current models of resilience and human adaptation. Drawing from empirical studies in both human and animal models, Belsky and Pluess (2013) proposed that neural plasticity is an individual construct in its own right with multiple phenotypes (Belsky & Pluess, 2013). Further, they asserted that environmental stressors can influence the development of neural plasticity, which then shapes how sensitive one is to their environment (Belsky & Pluess, 2013). This theory has strong empirical support, suggesting there are individual differences in sensitivity to environmental stressors, and that environments can be important in determinants of this construct (Haglund et al., 2007; Pluess, 2015; Slagt et al., 2016; Van Ijzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2015).

For those exposed to trauma, differential-susceptibility theory could explain differences in recovery following traumatic exposure. Bonanno (2005) illustrated four distinct pathways adults tend to follow after experiencing traumatic events (e.g., short-term disruptions to functioning, long-term disruptions, delayed or chronic disruption) and suggested that environmental factors (e.g., social support) and individual factors (e.g., capacity to adapt to change) could explain these different trajectories. Indeed, it is possible that differences in neural plasticity in conjunction with important environmental factors could account for these differences and shape recovery from trauma.

Taken together, EST and the differential-susceptibility theory suggest there is no universally endowed stress response aptitude. People are dynamically and differentially influenced by their environments, which affects the way they respond and recover from adversity. In short, empirically-supported theory suggests one’s response to hardship is uniquely determined by the confluence of internal and external factors before and after a traumatic event, and that both the environment and the individual are important determinants in this process. What follows is a brief review of the theoretical foundations of the current resilience programs in the U.S. military.

Theoretical foundation of U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force resilience programs

The Department of the Army (DA) partnered with Dr. Martin Seligman to develop the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, which is built upon the Well-Being Theory (Seligman, 2011). This theory, though not directly related to resilience, centers on fostering one’s unique potential in order to thrive (Seligman, 2011). By promoting positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and achievement; it is suggested that one will be protected against psychopathology and enabled to “flourish” (Seligman, 2011).

Theoretical foundations of U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps resilience programs

In December 2010, the U.S. Navy established the doctrine for the Operational Stress Control (OSC) program (Laraway, 2011) and the Marine Corps established the Operational Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) Program (Vaughan et al., 2015). Both of these resilience programs are built upon the Operational Stress Continuum Model, which conceptualizes operational stress along a spectrum between adaptive and psychopathological responses (Nash, 2011). As depicted in Figure 1, colors (e.g., green, yellow, orange, red) are used to designate the severity of psychological stress responses (e.g., adaptive, mild, severe, maladaptive; Nash, 2011). In this model, leaders are important determinants shaping individual resilience. Leaders can psychologically strengthen their Sailors and Marines, mitigate stressors, identify stress reactions, treat stress injuries, and reintegrate stress casualties (Nash, 2011). By effectively practicing these functions, it is believed that resilience can be promoted and psychological distress reduced (Nash, 2011).

Figure 1.

The combat and operational stress continuum.

Note. U.S. Marine Corps and Navy combat and operational stress continuum model (Nash, 2011).

Resilience programs implemented in U.S. Military

U.S. Army: Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2)

The DA launched the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) Program to increase the number of Soldiers who find meaning in their combat experience and decrease the number of Soldiers who develop stress-related mental disorders (Cornum et al., 2011). CSF incorporated components of the Penn Resiliency Program’s Master Resilience Trainer program (Seligman, 2011), as well as Battlemind (Adler et al., 2009) and the Army Center for Enhanced Performance (ACEP) Assessment (Meredith et al., 2011). Since its initial development, CSF has expanded to incorporate families, and has been renamed, Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2; Department of the Army, 2014).

CSF2 consists of four components: assessment, universal training, individual training, and master resilience trainers (MRTs). The Global Assessment Tool (GAT) measures the psychological fitness of Soldiers and tracks their psychological readiness throughout their time in the Army. Informed by their GAT results, individual online training is recommended and offered to Soldiers, who can complete training modules in the areas of emotional, social, family or spiritual resilience (Seligman, 2011). Company, battalion and brigade commanders are required to appoint one MRT for each company-sized unit (Department of the Army, 2014). Additionally, commanders are directed to ensure that Soldiers complete the GAT annually, and “endorse and resource” resilience training in their units (Department of the Army, 2014).

Universal resilience training is provided during Professional Military Education (PME) and by unit-level master resilience trainers (MRTs; Department of the Army, 2014). Formalized resilience training is incorporated into PME at every level with instruction commensurate with the rank and anticipated responsibility for Soldiers and leaders. Unit MRTs provide unit-level training on resilience skills as specified by the DA and local commanders, and includes didactic and practical training to promote character strengths, cognitive skills and performance enhancement (Department of the Army, 2014). Soldiers also complete additional resilience training upon arrival to new duties stations (Department of the Army, 2014).

U.S. Air Force: Airmen Resilience Training (ART)

In 2011, the U.S. Air Force introduced the Airmen Resilience Training (ART; Gonzalez et al., 2014). This program is based on the same theoretical model as CSF2, with the goal to “enhance the resilience and peak performance of Airmen, strengthening mind, body and spirit” (Gonzalez et al., 2014). ART is designed to be delivered via PowerPoint instruction in workshop or classroom settings, providing Airmen skills to facilitate stress coping and a smooth transition following deployment (Gonzalez et al., 2014). ART instructors also have the option of incorporating discussion and roleplaying into the training to provide a more interactive experience (Gonzalez et al., 2014). The ART program has specific pre-deployment and post-deployment briefings that provide a standardized approach prior to potentially traumatic exposure and reintegration (Gonzalez et al., 2014). Airmen receive instruction to help manage their expectations of stress and are taught cognitive, interpersonal and behavioral skills to cope with stress (Gonzalez et al., 2014).

U.S. Navy: Enhanced Operational Stress Control (E-OSC)

The U.S. Navy is in the process of implementing Enhanced Operational Stress Control (E-OSC), which is an update to the existing OSC program (Department of the Navy, 2019, 2020b). OSC is a leader driven initiative to promote resilience in military units, Sailors and family members by increasing awareness of stress and providing leaders with resources and skills to mitigate stress-related concerns (Department of the Navy, 2016; Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center, 2012). OSC aims to promote a proactive and stress conscious culture that supports help-seeking behaviors and consists of four components: policy and oversight, strategic communication, training and education, and assessment and analysis (Department of the Navy, 2016; Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center, 2012). Universal resilience training with OSC is conducted during accession into the Navy, in accordance with annual General Military Training guidelines, at intermittent career milestones, and prior to deployment by Mobile Training Teams (MTTs; Department of the Navy, 2016).

E-OSC seeks to implement a more comprehensive approach to resilience, incorporating the principles of the OSC (Nash, 2011) into everyday operations, independent of deployment status (Department of the Navy, 2019). To foster a more supportive environment, the Department of the Navy has directed unit commanders to establish Command Resilience Teams (CRTs; Department of the Navy, 2019), consisting of unit leadership, program leaders and special staff (Department of the Navy, 2020a). CRTs are required to meet at least quarterly to review assessments, cases or concerns that may affect individual or organizational resilience, and implement appropriate action to reduce risk and promote wellbeing (Department of the Navy, 2020a). Under E-OSC, universal resilience training will incorporate content focused on a broad ranch of stressors that are likely to affect Sailors beyond those typically associated with deployment, to include relationship problems, career transitions, disciplinary/legal problems, performance concerns, and financial strain (Department of the Navy, 2019). Further, Navy commanders have been directed to appoint E-OSC team leaders, and assistant team leaders who will attend the E-OSC trainer course and serve at E-OSC champions in their units, with support from the CRT (Department of the Navy, 2020b). Currently, the U.S. Navy is conducting a two-phased implementation of E-OSC, and additional policy directives are scheduled to be delivered in FY22 (Department of the Navy, 2020b).

U.S. Marine Corps: Operational Stress Control And Readiness (OSCAR)

The Marine Corps’ OSCAR Program is designed to enhance a unit’s ability to prevent, identify and treat combat and operational stress problems in Marines and Sailors (Vaughan et al., 2015). OSCAR aims to extend mental health resources to the lowest echelons of Marine Corps units via OSCAR-teams. These teams consist of mental health care professionals, medical and religious personnel, and selected officers and noncommissioned officers (Vaughan et al., 2015). Before a combat deployment, OSCAR-team members receive training on combat and operational stress using the OSC to identify stress problems (Vaughan et al., 2015). Team members work to provide several functions for the unit, one of which is resilience training and mentoring (Meredith et al., 2011). Commanders also play an important role with the implementation OSCAR and integration of the OSCAR-team into the unit (Meredith et al., 2011). A key element of the program is teaching leaders at all levels that combat operational stress control is critical part of resilience (Meredith et al., 2011).

Evaluation of program effectiveness

In order to provide clarity regarding resilience, which presently is inconsistently understood and ambiguous, evaluation of these programs is essential. Data from these evaluations stand to inform the scientific and clinical communities as to the nature of resilience and which practices work best to enhance it. Currently, the limited available evidence regarding the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. The U.S. Army released a series of technical reports from an internal evaluation of the effectiveness of CSF2 (Harms et al., 2013; Lester et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). The U.S. Air Force had an independent research agency evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of ART and its perceived utility among Airmen (Gonzalez et al., 2014). The U.S. Marine Corps had an independent research agency conduct a program evaluation on the OSCAR program (Vaughan et al., 2015). At present time, a thorough search of the available literature did not yield any publicly available program evaluation reports of the U.S. Navy OSC program. Evaluation findings for each of the programs will be discussed next.

Evaluation of Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2)

The Army conducted an internal evaluation of the CSF2 to evaluate how resilience and resilience training related to important outcomes. The first two reports focused on the trends between resilience, as determined by a Soldier’s GAT score, negative behavior, and officer promotions and selections (Lester et al., 2011a, 2011b). The second two reports evaluated the influence of assigned MRTs on individual Soldier resilience and mental health outcomes (Harms et al., 2013; Lester et al., 2011c).

In their third technical report (Report #3), Lester et al. (2011c) used a quasi-experimental longitudinal design to assess whether the presence of MRT trainers in combat units affected Soldiers’ self-reported resilience. The intervention condition consisted of four brigade combat teams (BCTs) that received MRTs for their units (n = 6247–6739); four BCTs that did not have MRTs served as the control condition (n = 2924–3218; Lester et al., 2011c). Resilience, assessed via the GAT, was collected at three times points over 15 months (Lester et al., 2011c). Analyses revealed that Soldiers in the intervention condition reported significantly higher GAT scores compared to control and that younger Soldiers appeared to benefit more from assigned MRTs than older Soldiers (Lester et al., 2011c). Though the results appear favorable, it must be noted that analyses focused primarily on whether a unit had an assigned MRT and did not provide data regarding frequency, content or method of delivery of training.

The fourth technical report (Report #4), which used the same design and sample from Report #3, evaluated whether units with assigned MRTs experienced lower rates of mental health diagnoses, and whether resilience factors that MRT-delivered training promotes mediated that relationship (Harms et al., 2013). Analyses revealed that MRT presence was associated with lower rates of mental health diagnoses and that optimism and adaptability, traits that MRT-delivered training aims to enhance, fully mediated that relationship, though the effect was “quite small” (Harms et al., 2013). The researchers acknowledged that even with such small effects, resilience training still has the potential to decrease the number of mental health problems in Soldiers, and promote readiness while reducing healthcare (Harms et al., 2013). As with Report #3, it must be noted that MRT skills training was analyzed dichotomously (i.e., training condition, non-training condition), and the frequency, content or method of training delivery was not reported (Harms et al., 2013).

Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Airmen Resiliency Training

The implementation and perceived utility of the Air Force ART program was evaluated by an independent research team. The researchers used a case study design to assess whether ART was received by the intended audience in the way it was intended to be delivered, and whether the delivery conveyed the appropriate information (Gonzalez et al., 2014). Using semi-structured interviews and discussions with Airmen at four different sites using ART, analysis revealed that implementation was relatively consistent; however, individual sites and briefers varied in the delivery of the training (Gonzalez et al., 2014). Though site commanders were granted discretion in the delivery of ART to ensure the training resonated with the specific-skill set and mission of the audience, institutional setting and the briefer’s characteristics shaped the way ART was delivered (Gonzalez et al., 2014). Additionally, Airmen who participated in ART did not perceive the training to be useful, and many failed to recall relevant concepts contained within ART training when asked (Gonzalez et al., 2014). Reasons as to why the program failed to be well received by Airmen included briefing fatigue perceived redundancy with other mandatory training programs, unengaging delivery mechanism, lack of tailoring to the audience, and vague content (Gonzalez et al., 2014). Important outcomes, to include training dose, frequency, mental health outcomes or measures of organizational effectiveness or readiness were not assessed in this evaluation.

Evaluation of U.S. Marine Corps Operational Stress Control And Readiness

An independent research organization conducted an outcome evaluation of the OSCAR program. Researchers used a quasi-experimental, longitudinal design to compare OSCAR-trained and non-OSCAR-trained battalions on stress-related attitudes and mental-health outcomes before and after deployment (Vaughan et al., 2015). Specifically, this evaluation aimed to determine the impact of OSCAR on stress-related attitudes, mental health, and alcohol use problems of Marines, and to determine the perception of OSCAR held by Marines and Marine Corps leaders. Results indicated that Marines in OSCAR trained programs were more likely to seek help for stress related programs from fellow Marines, leaders and Corpsman, and that Marines considered the program useful. Further, leadership viewed OSCAR positively, felt it resonated with Marine Corps values, and appreciated the program as a way to address stress-related problems without disrupting operations (Vaughan et al., 2015). Despite these favorable findings, there was no difference on key outcomes regarding rates of help-seeking from formal medical sources, rates of probable depression, probable PTSD, current stress, alcohol use, or attitudes toward mental health (Vaughan et al., 2015).

Gaps between theory and practice

Current military resilience programs are designed to promote individual resilience through the infrastructure of the military unit and published program evaluations have not used an empirically-informed framework to assess critical outcomes. Program evaluations have largely focused on idiographic outcomes of a unit-delivered training program without assessing the influence of the military organization itself. The military as an organization is characterized by several interactive sub-systems, including but not limited to various echelons of military command as well as family and local community (National Research Council, 2014). Missing in resilience program evaluations is a comprehensive and integrated framework conceptualizing the external factors known to affect resilience, which could influence the effectiveness current efforts. As theory suggests that individual resilience is dynamically influenced by environments, a program evaluation that incorporates iterative assessment of both individual and environmental factors could help connect current programs with empirically-supported theory. Further, use of an empirically-informed framework could more clearly reveal the effects and mechanisms of change of current programs, the interactive effects of environmental factors, and more nuanced outcomes. Moreover, regular assessment of external variables and resilience could contribute to the evidence base for resilience programs and provide important information to military leadership.

Within the military environment, individual resilience is shaped by many organizational factors. These variables include leadership quality (Erickson et al., 2015; Gallus et al., 2013; Schyns & Schilling, 2013), operational tempo (Castro & Adler, 1999), and operational stress (Bartone, 2006), as well as perceptions of unit capability and performance (Keegan et al., 2021). Each of these constructs have been associated with unit readiness (Castro & Adler, 1999; Keegan et al., 2021), emotional well-being (Pflanz & Sonnek, 2002), work-family stress (Britt & Dawson, 2005; Drummet et al., 2003) and individual psychological readiness (Keegan et al., 2021). To better link current resilience efforts with empirical theory, a comprehensive evaluation that includes indicators of operational stress, operational tempo, individual perceptions of unit functioning, in addition to current resilience training status and idiographic indicators of resilience could provide a clearer understanding of individual and unit resilience.

An enhanced psychological readiness metric for U.S. Army units

To help align existing resilience programs with theory, we propose a new readiness metric that could be implemented within the current reporting structure of the U.S. Army. This metric could provide data that aids in the evaluation of CSF2, provides military leaders with a tool to enhance the readiness of their units, brings clarity as to how resilience programs work and provides a framework that could applied within the reporting structures of the other service branches. Military commanders could measure idiographic and organizational variables through the infrastructure of existing readiness assessment programs. Informed by Belsky and Pluess’s concept of differential-susceptibility (Belsky & Pluess, 2013) and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), a comprehensive psychological readiness metric would enable commanders to better identify and respond to individual and organizational factors, enhance the psychological fitness of their organizations, and provide new insights to strategic level commanders. This metric would be designed to assess psychological readiness at the company-level, which offers unique organizational advantages to commanders, albeit with scientific limitations regarding assessment of individual resilience. This concept attempts to strike a balance between scientific integrity and operational utility. By assessing company-level psychological readiness, data could enhance the evidence-base of current programs in a way that also contributes to ongoing readiness efforts, and may be more acceptable, feasible and suitable for military commanders than iterative individual assessment. What follows is a description of this metric as it would apply to the U.S. Army, and may need to be amended for optimal effectiveness in the other service branches. Figure 2 illustrates how idiographic and organizational indicators of resilience would be assessed and how they align within EST.

Figure 2.

Illustration of how indicators of an enhanced psychological readiness metric align within Ecological Systems Theory domains (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

This enhanced psychological readiness metric would reflect several indicators of Soldiers’ psychological fitness, and organizational performance that could be included with a unit’s monthly Commander’s Unit Status Report (CUSR; Department of the Army, 2010). These indicators would be evaluated and condensed into one metric, comprised of three components: training status, a commander’s report, and a Soldiers’ Report. Each component would be quantified as an individual score, which would then be used to determine a unit’s overall resilience score. The unit’s overall resilience score would determine a unit’s Resilience Status, which would be evaluated in a manner consistent with current CUSR reporting for other domains of readiness (e.g., personnel, training, equipment; Department of the Army, 2010). Scoring procedures are detailed below, though further analysis would be required to validate the overall resilience score and Resilience Status as a valid metric.

The training component would represent a unit’s completion status of annual suicide prevention, sexual harassment assault response prevention program (SHARP), equal opportunity (EO), and CSF2 unit-level training. A mean completion of each training requirement would be calculated (i.e., total number of Soldier who completed training, divided by the total number of Soldiers assigned to the unit). The total score for the training component would be determined as the mean of the four individual training completion means (e.g., suicide prevention mean, SHARP mean, EO mean, CSF2 mean). A higher training percentage indicates a higher percentage of Soldiers have received training.

The commander’s monthly report would entail a series of data points that reflect factors shown to be associated with organizational stress and deteriorating mental health (i.e., extreme behaviors, absenteeism, degradation in performance; Dimoff & Kelloway, 2019). These data would serve as indicators of these factors and commanders would be required to provide information about the previous month (Dimoff & Kelloway, 2019). To assess extreme behavior, commanders would report the total number of reports they completed with regard to suicide ideation, suicide attempts, sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, substance use, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) infractions, or any other extreme behavior for which a Serious Incident Report (SIR) was submitted to their higher headquarters within the previous 30 days. Additionally, commanders would provide the number of Soldiers who experienced each of the aforementioned incidents (e.g., the total number of Soldiers who received UCMJ action, the total number of Soldiers for whom an SIR was filed). To evaluate absenteeism, commanders would report the number of Soldiers who had unexcused absences, reported to duty late for unexcused reasons or were listed as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) over the previous 30 days. To assess degradation in performance, commanders would list how many “key leader” positions (e.g., squad leader, platoon sergeants, platoon leaders) experienced transition within the previous 30 days (of note, additional performance degradations would be identified via the current reporting procedures for training status; Department of the Army, 2010).

The commander’s report would be scored by calculating the mean frequency of extreme behaviors per month (i.e., total number of extreme behavior incidents, divided by 30), the percentage Soldiers who experienced extreme behavior in the unit (i.e., total number of Soldiers who experienced extreme behavior, divided by the total number of Soldiers in the unit) and the percentage of transitioned key leaders positions (i.e., number of positions that experienced transition, divided by the total number of key leader positions). The total score would be determined by calculating the mean of previously calculated percentages, and subtracting that value from 100 (i.e., one hundred minus the mean of the percentages). A higher percentage, after the final calculation, indicates a lower amount of extreme behavior.

The Soldiers’ Report would be conducted in a manner analogous to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP; Department of the Army, 2020) or monthly property inventories (Department of the Army, 2008), such that ten percent of the unit’s assigned personnel would provide a report each month. Ten percent of a unit’s assigned personnel will be randomly identified by the Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System-Army (DRRS-Army), via Net Centric Unit Status Report (NetUSR), the system within which CUSR is submitted (Department of the Army, 2010), to complete a brief questionnaire. This questionnaire would assess a Soldier’s stressors at each ecological level as understood by ecological system theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and inquire about other specific behaviors related to operational stress. Questions evaluating a Solder’s microsystems would include factors related to their proximal environment, internal predispositions and current stress; assessing interpersonal relationships stress (e.g., family, coworkers), internal capabilities (e.g., amount of coping self-efficacy, mental distress), and daily activities (e.g., work, hobbies, coping mechanisms). Items tapping into a Soldier’s mesosystem would evaluate the dynamics between factors within the microsystems (e.g., family, work balance), and the amount of stress these dynamics elicit. Soldiers would be provided a free-text box to list sources and amount of stress associated with their exosystems (e.g., command echelons three times removed from a Soldier’s immediate commander, Human Resource Command, Department of the Army) and macrosystems (e.g., culture, politics, the media). Additional questions would ask a Soldier to report perceptions of individual work performance, changes in individual work performance, perceptions of the unit’s ability to perform its mission, perceptions of changes in the unit’s ability to perform its mission, frequency of emotional outbursts at work, and perceived social withdrawal at work (Dimoff & Kelloway, 2019).

The Soldiers’ Report score would reflect the average individual resilience of the Soldiers who were selected to complete the questionnaire. Soldiers will be asked to identify their microsystem-related stressors (e.g., financial stress, relationship stress, unit-related stress) and protective factors (e.g., family support, support from friends, positive coping skills) from a pre-determined list, and then annotate on a 3-point scale how detrimental or helpful each factor has been for them over the previous month (0 – did not cause me distress/did not help me cope, 1 – caused me a little distress/helped me cope a little, 2 – caused me a lot of distress/really helped me cope). The individual and work-related behavior items would be assessed similarly, using a 3-point scale (e.g., crying at work, losing temper), and emotional outbursts would be assessed as a frequency (i.e., how many times a Soldier experienced an emotional outburst at work during the previous month). Mesosystem and exosystem stress and protective factors would be evaluated via a free-text response. Soldiers would list stress and protective factors and use a 3-point scale to assess how harmful or supportive each factor has been for them over the previous month.

An individual resilience score would be calculated for each Soldier as the difference between their “stress score” and “protective factor score.” The “stress score” would calculated by summing the scores from the stress items a Soldier endorsed (i.e., the scores for items related to stress, plus the number of emotional outbursts); the “protective factor” score would be calculated by summing the scores from the protective factor items they endorsed. The Soldiers’ Report score would be determined by calculating the mean of the total individual resilience scores of the sample (i.e., all of individual resilience scores will be summed and divided by the total number in the sample). A higher mean will indicate higher individual Soldier resilience in a unit.

Psychometric validation of the Soldier’s Report will be essential prior to implementation. Specifically, construct validity of the stress score and protective factor score would need to be ascertained via confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, convergent and divergent validity with other relevant constructs (e.g., coping self-efficacy, perceived stress, GAT) would need to be established for the stress score, protective factor score, and individual resilience score (Benight et al., 2015; Kamarck et al., 1983; Vie et al., 2016). Additional analyses would be necessary to determine whether construct validity is enhanced by weighting specific items or subscales (e.g., microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem). Validation of the sample size will also be critically important. A randomly selected sample of ten percent of a unit’s strength is suggested as an initial baseline to determine the “average” Soldier’s resilience, which is informed by current Army Substance Abuse Program directives specifying all units conduct random drug screening for ten percent of their unit each month (Department of the Army, 2020). As it is possible for unit commanders to dismiss the Soldier’s report as an invalid representation of their unit’s resilience, psychometric validation will need to be conducted in partnership with military operational research consultants to determine the optimal sample size to obtain a valid assessment that does not present an undue reporting burden to units.

Potential benefits and challenges

An enhanced psychological readiness metric would enable commanders to comprehensively evaluate resilience and psychological readiness in their units. Data collected from this metric could enhance commanders’ awareness of the stressors impairing their unit’s psychological fitness and help them determine the best way to promote individual and unit readiness. For example, if results indicate that several Soldiers are experiencing stress from the same source, a unit commander could mitigate the stressor itself or consult with their local resources (e.g., embedded behavioral health) for stress reduction strategies. Additionally, if a unit scored low on psychological readiness, leadership would be able to respond meaningfully to help a unit address their concerns. If successfully implemented, this metric could provide senior Army leaders with an enhanced understanding of the readiness of the force beyond current personnel, equipment, training statuses (Department of the Army, 2010). Further, individual and organizational trends could be identified as they relate to resilience training and psychological readiness, and evaluation of CSF2 could be directly related to psychological and personnel readiness (within the current CUSR reporting process, Soldiers deemed non-deployable for any reason, to include legal, medical or behavioral health reasons, are reflected in a unit’s personnel readiness metric (Department of the Army, 2010)).

Successful amendment to the current CUSR reporting process would not be without challenges. Strategic marketing to unit commanders, thoughtful implementation and discrete data collection methods would be important to protect against potential inaccurate reporting. One way to help Soldier’s providing data for the Soldiers’ Report feel comfortable responding honestly is to have designated unit representatives or special staff (e.g., battalion MRT, Equal Opportunity representative, embedded behavioral health) manage that component of the CUSR report and coordinate with the Soldiers directly, independent from the chain of command. Encouraging leadership at all echelons to incorporate psychological readiness into the organizational culture and dialogue could be another way to protect against inaccurate reporting. Strategic communication and marketing regarding the short and long-term benefits of accurate psychological readiness reporting will be important to obtain buy-in from Army leaders, and ensure that command teams are supportive without providing any undue influence. Despite the challenges and potential limitations in reporting, we contend that there is value in attempting to measure psychological readiness in this way as doing so could provide novel insights and reveal trends not currently known to military leaders.

In conclusion, each branch of the U.S. military currently employs a resilience program aimed at enhancing a Service Member’s stress response, and protecting against stress related disorders. Though these programs are not based in theory directly related to post-traumatic adaptation, they have some empirical support. Published data regarding the effectiveness of military resilience programs provides some evidence of their effectiveness, though it is far from unambiguous and the mechanisms of change are not entirely understood. U.S. Army units stand to benefit by including an enhanced psychological readiness metric into existing reporting protocols that draws from current resilience theory.

Funding Statement

The data that support the findings of this paper are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).