Master resilience trainer course quality improvement evaluation

ABSTRACT

The Master Resilience Training (MRT) course is the U.S. Army’s resilience program of record to develop soldiers as resilience trainers within their home units. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) recently conducted an MRT Quality Improvement Evaluation (QIE) to understand perceptions of the MRT course, determine the effectiveness of the course, and provide revision recommendations for the next iteration of the course. Soldiers who were completing the MRT course were invited to take surveys and participate in interviews. Results from quantitative and qualitative data suggest that most participants felt satisfied with the training and that it was relevant for soldiers. Most participants also agreed that the training would help them become better soldiers and leaders. Along with positive feedback about the course, participants also identified areas that could be improved. Soldier feedback along with program evaluators’ observation informed recommendations for improving the overall MRT course and its implementation. Program evaluators recommend MRT participants learn fewer and less complex skills, focus on coach education throughout the course, and highlight leader development by promoting motivation and enhancing effective communication. Program evaluators recommendations for ways to improve buy-in from leaders and graduated MRTs are also discussed.

What is the public significance of this article?—This study suggests resilience training remains critical within the U.S. Army, but must continually be evaluated and updated to remain relevant and effective. While current Master Resilience Trainers are satisfied with the training, they have recommendations for improvement. Recommendations from soldiers and program evaluators include reducing the number and complexity of skills taught, focusing on coach education, focusing on leader development, and increasing leader buy-in to promote implementation.

Introduction

The everyday stressors and challenges that accompany the U.S. military warfighter’s occupational context puts warfighters at an increased risk of suffering mental health consequences such as increased burnout (Adler et al., 2017; Wilcox, 2000), feelings of loneliness (Teo et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018), and decreased motivation (Black et al., 2019). Research within the U. S. military continually demonstrates the benefits of resilience and its protective factors on warfighters (e.g., Adler, 2013). More specifically, resilience has been shown to be associated with positive unit cohesion (Williams et al., 2016), reduced mental health symptoms (Adler et al., 2015) and even improved operational and performance outcomes for warfighters (Adler et al., 2022). Therefore, just as the U.S. military trains warfighters to be tactically and technically proficient in their job-related tasks, the U.S. military must also provide formal and systematic instruction to soldiers on how to develop and foster resilience and cognitive performance skills.

In 2009, the Chief of Staff of the Army established an educational resilience program known as Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF; Casey, 2011). One aspect of the program, which was later renamed the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2; U.S. Army, 2014), focused specifically on a “one-size-fits-all” resilience training to help soldiers both understand basic psychological principles and learn skills to improve their coping skills. This resilience training program, known as Master Resilience Training (MRT), was initially developed by a collaborative team consisting of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, researchers from the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research (WRAIR), and performance psychology practitioners, known as Performance Enhancement Specialists (Reivich et al., 2011). The team recognized that warfighters needed resilience training that accounted for the inherent stressors and challenges associated with their occupational context that cannot be avoided (Adler, 2013). As such, the development team needed to, instead, prepare soldiers for how to proactively prepare for those stressors and challenges to reduce the negative consequences (Park et al., 2022). Furthermore, the training took a “train-the-trainer” approach with minimal focus on formal and informal implementation in the unit. That is, SMEs taught selected leaders the resilience skills and then charged them with going back to their home units to then train their warfighters. This approach of having warfighters teach each other was intended to bolster buy-in among warfighters back in home units, as instructors would have first-hand knowledge of the unique military context, stressors, and challenges and the relevance of the resilience skills and training.

Evaluation of resilience training and its implementation in the military

Following the development of the MRT course material and its introduction into the U.S. Army, a research team evaluated the benefits of having MRT-trained instructors in units. Four Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) who received MRT unit training were compared to four BCTs who did not receive the training. Over 15 months, soldiers completed surveys assessing their resilience and psychological health. Results found that units with MRTs had significantly higher resilience and psychological health scores compare to the soldiers who did not have MRTs and did not receive the training (Lester et al., 2011). In a separate report, results suggested mediating benefits of the unit MRT on reducing mental health diagnoses through improved resilience and psychological health (Harms et al., 2013).

While resilience training within the U.S. Army continues to be associated with positive results (e.g., Adler et al., 2015), the MRT course and its implementation specifically have not recently been formally evaluated. Without regular evaluation, the content is at risk of losing relevance to soldiers or within the field. For example, the most noteworthy discrepancy within the field is the lack of coach education in the MRT course material. Many military leaders are expected to coach their junior soldiers (U.S. Army, 2019), despite limited training on executive or high-performance coaching. Increasingly, civilian research demonstrates the utility of effective coaching (e.g., Arthur et al., 2016); however, this benefit can only extend to a military context if leaders are taught how to be effective coaches.

In recent years, researchers have assessed frameworks and questionnaires that evaluate coaching behaviors within the military. Findings suggest that focusing on coach education for military leaders could benefit both the coach and those being coached (e.g., Wagstaff et al., 2018). Olusoga et al. (2014) demonstrated that coaches could benefit from their own mental skills training to be a more effective coach. This shift in methodology of the MRT course highlights how coach education could enhance the effectiveness of resilience trainers with their soldiers. Given the need for revisions and interest in updating the MRT content, the Directorate of Prevention, Resilience and Readiness (DPRR: Headquarters of the Army), the proponent for the CSF2 program, requested a formal evaluation similar to deployment cycle training (Kirk et al., 2023).

Current evaluation of the MRT course

Though the benefits of resilience training are well-documented (Reivich et al., 2011), the material and instructors used to teach resilience must be regularly evaluated to ensure the effectiveness of the training. In 2018, DPRR partnered with researchers at WRAIR to conduct a formal and systematic evaluation to identify opportunities for course revision using an evaluation method shown to be effective with military resilience training (Kirk et al., 2023). The evaluation aimed to collect perspectives from course participants on what was working and what needed to be improved. Program evaluators worked to determine if the MRT course was effectively preparing soldiers to be resilience trainers and if the skills they were learning were still applicable to the soldiers in the home unit. Additionally, program evaluators wanted to know the role leaders played in utilizing their MRTs in their home units.

The present evaluation summarizes these findings and provides data-driven recommendations to improve the MRT course, to prepare the MRTs, and identify ways leaders can empower their MRTs within their home units.

Methods

Procedure

Upon receiving approval for the evaluation protocol from the WRAIR Institutional Review Board, researchers from WRAIR conducted the evaluation. Between 2018–2019, the evaluation team asked soldiers at two resilience schoolhouses and seven Ready and Resilient Performance Centers to complete survey items during the second week of their MRT course. A total of ten classes were surveyed with intentional inclusion of not only Active Duty soldiers but also Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers. The team then invited soldiers to participate in a semi-structured interview.

Participants

Soldiers attending the two-week MRT course (N = 363) were invited to participate. All officers (n = 42) and 301 NCOs (94%) provided consent to participate in the survey. Half of the officers had deployed at least once, and 72% of the NCOs had at least one deployment experience. Of the 343 soldiers who consented to participate in the survey, 61 volunteered to participate in the semi-structured interview. Volunteers included officers (n = 17) and NCOs (n = 44). While most of the participants were Active-Duty soldiers (62%), 20% were in the National Guard and 14% were in the Reserves. For more demographic information, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic information for survey completers.

			Enlisted		Officer
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Rank
E5-E9	301	87.8
Officer	42	12.2
Deployments
0	104	30.5	83	27.8	21	50.0
1	79	23.2	66	22.1	13	31.0
2	76	22.3	72	24.1	4	9.5
3	43	12.6	40	13.4	3	7.1
4	24	7.0	24	8.0	0	0.0
5+	15	4.4	14	4.7	1	2.4
Component
Active Duty	213	64.4	198	68.3	15	36.6
Reserve	48	14.5	34	11.7	14	34.1
National Guard	70	21.2	58	20.0	12	29.3
Education
High School	31	9.1	31	10.4	0	0.0
Some college or  Associate’s degree	177	52.1	177	59.2	0	0.0
Bachelor’s degree	88	25.9	71	23.7	17	41.5
Master’s degree	40	11.8	19	6.4	21	51.2
Professional degree	4	1.2	1	.3	3	7.3

Survey measures

Master resilience training

The first eight questions in this section asked soldiers how much they agreed or disagreed with statements pertaining to the course, such as “I learned skills that will help me be a better Soldier” using five response options (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Next, using the response option of “Check all that apply,” soldiers indicated in what roles (i.e., soldier, buddy, leader, or family member) they thought the resilience training would be useful and then when they thought the training would be useful for them (i.e., when they teach [imparting a new skill, method, or concept], coach [helping others understand their current level of proficiency and helping them develop skills and abilities], counsel [providing feedback, empowering and enabling soldiers to solve problems], mentor [voluntary developmental relationship that exists between a person of lesser experience that is characterized by mutual trust and respect], or manage [planning missions, activities, giving orders, and assigning soldiers to tasks]). Finally, soldiers provided three aspects of the MRT course they would sustain and three aspects they would improve. For more details on these items and additional survey items, see Adrian et al. (2022).

Unit resilience

The unit resilience question block asked soldiers to reflect upon the training that they received from their home unit prior to attending the two-week MRT course. These items asked soldiers when they last received resilience training and how much they agreed or disagreed with statements pertaining to their prior unit resilience training (e.g., “I was satisfied with this resilience training”). Lastly, from a provided list of issues, soldiers indicated the top three issues facing their unit. Additional item details can be found in Adrian et al. (2022).

Semi-structured interviews

The soldiers who volunteered to participate in the interview answered questions regarding rank-specific stressors or challenges for NCOs and officers. They also provided their opinions about how mid- and senior-level leaders could promote the application of the skills learned during unit resilience training. See Adrian et al. (2022) for the Interview Guide.

Data preparation and analysis

The research team at WRAIR collected and processed the quantitative survey data. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were run on all items. Next, differences in ratings in terms of rank, component, and training type (i.e., MRT course or unit resilience) were assessed using chi-squared or t-test analyses. Statistical analyses were completed using R 4.1.0 (R Core Team, 2021). When appropriate, survey items were reported by rank or component.

Qualitative interviews were transcribed and entered into Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 2018) for coding. The evaluation team developed a codebook after preliminary analysis of the data, which then informed thematic analysis of the interviews (Charmaz, 2017). Two reviewers coded the interviews for common themes. Consensus was then assessed and finalized on the two sets of codes by a third party.

Quantitative and qualitative results

Survey responses

Master resilience training

Soldiers indicated utility in the resilience training across their multiple roles: as a leader, a soldier, a family member, and a buddy (96%, 91%, 88%, and 76%, respectively). Soldiers reported that the training would be useful in practice, when they mentor, teach, counsel, coach, and manage (95%, 90%, 88%, 87%, and 75%, respectively). There were no significant differences when analyzed by rank (NCOs and officers) or by component (Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard; see Supplemental Table 1).

Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they felt prepared to train the resilience skills (49% and 32%, respectively) and that the training was relevant for soldiers (33% and 61%, respectively). When given the option to rate their satisfaction with the resilience training, most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with being satisfied (37% and 52%, respectively) and reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that the skills learned have helped them to be a better soldier (38% and 56%, respectively) and a better leader (31% and 64%, respectively). Adrian et al. (2022) report the percentage of soldiers by component who felt prepared to train the resilience skills, but is summarized in Supplemental Table 2.

Table 2.

Comparison of MRT training ratings and unit resilience training ratings.

	MRT training rating	Unit resilience training rating
	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	p-value
I learned skills that will help me be a better Soldier.	4.47 (0.74)	3.61 (1.09)	12.043	<.001
I learned skills that will help me be a better leader.	4.56 (0.73)	3.60 (1.12)	13.213	<.001
I am satisfied with this resilience training.	4.37 (0.80)	3.39 (1.21)	12.399	<.001
I think this training is relevant for Soldiers.	4.49 (0.77)	3.84 (1.08)	9.224	<.001
I think this training is relevant for leaders.	4.57 (0.72)	3.86 (1.11)	9.717	<.001

Unit resilience

Only 51% of the participants indicated receiving some resilience training within the past year. The remaining participants either remembered their most recent resilience training occurred more than one year ago (30%) or were unsure (19%) when they last received it.

The rates of satisfaction with the unit resilience training they received prior to attending the MRT course were much lower than those attending the MRT course. Supplemental Table 2 reports the ratings of the unit resilience training. The mean ratings for comparable items regarding unit resilience training were significantly lower than the mean ratings following the MRT course (Table 2). When reflecting upon the unit resilience training received prior to the MRT course, 22% agreed, and 30% strongly agreed that the unit resilience training was effective. Finally, NCOs and officers most frequently reported lack of motivation, poor attitude, and poor leadership as the top three issues facing their unit (Table 3).

Table 3.

Frequency of NCOs and officers endorsing an item as a top three issue facing their unit.

Issue	NCOs (n = 301)	Officers (n = 42)
Lack of motivation	166	22
Poor attitude	114	9
Poor leadership	86	11
Lack of respect for others	75	5
Lack of commitment	67	8
Lack of competence	59	5
Distractions	55	6
Lack of character	36	3
Sluggishness/being tired	34	5
Family issues	30	7
Anger	29	4
Substance abuse	29	4
Physical injuries	26	4
Financial issues	22	7
Social isolation/loneliness	20	3
Suicidal ideation	14	1
Risky behavior	13	2
Sexual harassment	0	1

Semi-structured interview responses

During the semi-structured interviews, participants shared their recommendations for revisions to the MRT course and its implementation. Additionally, participants provided three aspects to sustain and three aspects to improve from the course. The following sections describe the themes identified.

Curriculum and applied practice of the two-week MRT course

Content and materials

Participants recommended decreasing both the complexity and number of skills taught during the two-week MRT course. This suggestion would give the MRTs more time during their two-week course to operationalize the skills, learn how to apply the skills to different situations, and make the skills practical for their soldiers back in their home units. As one Sergeant First Class stated that, “We need them to understand it before we can apply it. We need practical application.” Focusing on fewer skills should provide MRTs more time to better understand the skills and to learn how to apply those skills in different situations.

Additionally, participants noted a need for more diversified materials and training options such as hip pocket materials, PowerPoint materials, and tips for practical application of the MRT skills in a military context. Specifically, a Staff Sergeant recommended, “Probably some cut sheets … I feel like if we had a card with all the fundamentals that I can carry on my person, maybe it can help regenerate some of these ideas. But the person has to be cognizant of that information and how they’re going to use it.”

Incorporating coaching skills

Participants noted the importance of needing to learn how to coach to be effective MRTs. As soldiers progress through their military career, they have increased responsibilities that may reach beyond their technical job. One Staff Sergeant commented that, “The biggest things that helps their transition [Specialist to Sergeant] is their leadership, being coached and mentored into those positions.” These opportunities to mentor and coach peers and junior soldiers will only increase, especially for those soldiers who are also MRTs. One challenge when it comes to coaching was understanding how to coach in the moment. A Second Lieutenant contextualized this challenge:

A lot of times we’re on home station drill. In the field is a different beast. I see a lot of things that happened – Thinking Traps, etc. – that happen in field, but I don’t see too much time. Three A.M. on patrol may not be the best time to talk skills. It’s hard to coach someone; it’s difficult in the field.

MRT instructor selection

Participants stressed the importance of selecting soldiers who are motivated to complete the course and who can return to their units able to implement the training successfully. A Sergeant First Class provided insight on a common practice stating, “People choose the bad person that they can lose for two weeks [to attend MRT]; please recommend the right people, not the soldiers that don’t want to work.” Participants recommended not using the voluntold method for selection but rather seeking out those who volunteer to receive the training. Leaders do have guidance to help select potential MRTs, though most of the participants in the interview did not understand the purpose of its role. Along with the selection guidelines, soldiers also advocated for a more rigorous selection process that could include prerequisites such as prior teaching experience, a required interview, or nomination from an experienced MRT or someone within the Command team who could validate the person’s selection. Moreover, a Sergeant Major emphasized that MRTs “ … have to want to do this, to teach, to invest your time you have to buy into what it means and the curriculum.”

Course assessment

The evaluators identified a need for a range of assignments (e.g., teach-backs, reflection papers) rather than only the current requirement for achieving a 70% on a test, additional time for the course (i.e., extending the course to three-weeks instead of the current two-week duration), increased time to practice, and clearer teaching materials. One recommendation would be to increase the number of practical teach-back sessions during the MRT course. Having clearer feedback and grades based on a formal rubric for the teach-back sessions would improve the overall course assessment process as well. A Sergeant First Class expressed this frustration:

I think the practical exercises can be more in-depth and more constructive because I feel like a lot of people are not going to go back and do it … or they’re just going to teach it the Army way. To get it done effectively, I think there needs to be proof that you can go back and do it effectively.

As a final recommendation for course assessment, course participants should have the option to identify if fellow classmates have subpar performance. The ability to provide peer feedback from other soldiers who understand the MRT mission could help to keep the highly motivated students in the course.

Implementing MRT in units and PME

Revising the named challenges with the two-week course is only the first step to improving the overall resilience training. Evaluators learned that MRT course graduates anticipated facing challenges delivering annual unit training due to the number and complexity of skills they were required to teach. As a First Sergeant mentioned, “ … we don’t have enough time. Fourteen skills, some can take an hour and a half. Then to completely teach these 14 skills is not realistic.” MRT revisions must extend beyond the two-week course and also reach the implementation of MRT into units and PME while also addressing the roles key stakeholders play in implementing resilience training. The following sections address challenges that were named during interviews regarding MRT implementation into units and PME.

Leader roles in implementation

Finding time to complete the annual resilience training requirement was a challenge for many units. The schoolhouses throughout PME also struggled to incorporate their required resilience training into the different levels of PME. As a Sergeant First Class reported, “Every MRT instructor I know definitely is bought in after they get the training, but then they get frustrated when they have to give the training at their unit because they are not given the time to accurately convey the importance that it needs or teach the nuance.” Competing priorities among leadership was commonly reported as a theme affecting leadership buy-in. If the leaders could better understand the positive impact resilience training could have on the unit, then participants thought leaders would be more bought in to the program. “Obviously, buy-in trickles down, so there has to be a connection at the top,” said a First Sergeant.

Participants want to ensure leaders attend the trainings, as well, to understand that MRT focuses on mental toughness and clear thinking rather than simply expressing feelings. In other words, leaders and soldiers need to see how resilience training complements and often enhances tactical training and is not training that needs to be completed to “check a box.” Moreover, a Sergeant noted, “Positivity is contagious, so I feel like if mid- and senior-level leaders are doing it, it’s going to spread … leading by example.”

Annual resilience training in units

While MRTs in home units were given the freedom to adjust the order in which they taught the resilience skills to meet the annual resilience training requirement, the lessons themselves were set and did not allow for any flexibility in how the skills were presented. One Sergeant First Class observed that, “Some content is overbearing and redundant. Allowing the program to be adaptive – one comment I had was how rigid and inflexible the schedule is.” This lack of flexibility to tailor the lessons to specific stressors or challenges facing the soldiers coupled with the number of skills required to teach each year made it challenging for MRTs and units to meet their annual training requirement.

Resilience training throughout PME

Participants identified teaching MRT skills throughout the different schoolhouses of PME as a strength but also provided recommendations for how to improve its implementation. New soldiers receive their first introduction to the MRT skills during Initial Military Training (IMT) and soldiers are meant to continually receive resilience training throughout PME. Specifically, a Captain recommended, “We should use the tools we’re aware of to mentor/coach, but I think we should integrate the MRT training into the PME.” Some participants reported, however, that the resilience training was missing all together from various schoolhouses within PME.

Participants reported the importance of introducing resilience skills early in a soldier’s career and then continuing to refresh those skills as that soldier continues through PME. One Sergeant Major further recommended to “ … incorporate MRT values in culture – start at basic and incorporate bits in each leadership school – make it part of vocabulary and who we are as individuals. If you just taught this class, you won’t know the skills.” Participants reported wanting to have the resilience training and MRT skills integrated into the different schoolhouses to ensure they continually receive the training as they progress through their leadership schools and careers. A Staff Sergeant mentioned that “if this was the first thing they learned, it’d really help them. I think you’d see a lot less drop out and positivity becomes a habitual thing.” Another Sergeant agreed, stating that “this [resilience] is a lifelong skill.”

Master resilience trainer roles in implementation

MRTs need to be held accountable for staying current with the material and conducting the training for their soldiers. A Sergeant First Class reflected that, “Coming here, I realized that I had a lot of misconceptions of what these skills are from the training that I’ve had at my units.” Participants recommended creating a method to monitor and evaluate the MRTs continuously. One method that could be helpful would be to make the additional skill identifier of “MRT” that soldiers receive upon completion of the MRT course more easily removable. In other words, if the additional skill identifier was seen as “use-it or lose-it,” then soldiers may be more motivated to regularly seek out time to teach the skills to their units. Finally, adding a few questions to the climate command survey could inform leadership if their soldiers can identify their MRTs and if the soldiers are receiving resilience training from their MRTs.

Ongoing development and support for MRTs

MRTs requested refresher courses and the development of an online community to further aid implementation and keep the resilience training to standard. An online community does in fact exist but the request for one indicates challenges with lack of awareness, waning interest, lack of monitoring, need for marketing, and improved relevancy to relate to circumstances that impact the local level. The community could be a single site where all MRTs could go to share knowledge and best practices. Those resources along with refresher courses, could help MRTs stay up to date with their resilience skills and training materials. Additionally, participants also requested that updated material utilize various media options such as mobile applications, YouTube videos, Facebook groups, or a job aide (i.e., cut sheet).

Discussion

This evaluation aimed to assess the perceptions of the current MRT course and unit resilience training to inform updates and revisions to enhance the effectiveness of resilience training. Overall, the majority of MRT participants were satisfied with the MRT course, expressed that the course was relevant, and believed the course would help them become better soldiers and leaders. When asked about the unit resilience training they had received prior to the MRT course, only 51% remembered having at least one of the 12 annual mandatory resilience courses in the previous year. Subsequently, participants expressed concern over the potential lack of opportunities to teach the new skills to their home units. Without ample teaching opportunities, recently learned skills could be lost instead of fostered. Through the semi-structured interviews, participants identified areas upon which the MRT course and the unit training could improve, including course content and instructional design, emphasizing coach education, implementation, leadership buy-in, and MRT accountability. Taken together, the program evaluation team used the soldier feedback to inform recommendations intended to improve the MRT course and its implementation.

Recommendations to improve the MRT course

Curriculum: Core four skills

Based on interviews and focus groups, the program evaluators recommended reducing the annual required resilience training to four simplified core skills: Activating Event – Thoughts – Consequences for self-awareness, Avoid Thinking Traps for mental agility, a variation of Detect Icebergs for self-awareness, and Hunt the Good Stuff for optimism. Table 4 presents the original skills along with the proposed Core Four skills. These four skills were chosen by the program evaluators who have practical experience as resilience instructors. These are the foundational skills from which the remaining skills and concepts build.

Table 4.

The original resilience training skills along with the proposed core four skills.

Original 12 MRT skills

Hunt the Good Stuff*

ATC (Activating Event → Thoughts → Consequences – Emotions and Reactions*

Avoid Thinking Traps*

Detect Icebergs*

Problem Solving

Put It In Perspective

Mental Games

Real-Time Resilience

Identify Character Strengths in Self and Others

Character Strengths: Challenges and Leadership

Assertive Communication

Effective Praise and Active Constructive Responding

Optional Performance Psychology Skills

Energy Management

Goal Setting

*Indicates a proposed Core Four skill.

Instructional design considerations

Reducing the required training from 12 to four skills would decrease the time needed to teach the skills and therefore allow the MRTs to practice training and coaching these four skills more thoroughly during the two-week course. Not all units have the flexibility to have classroom time during their duty day; therefore, the MRTs must learn how to adapt to train in various settings, such as before or after a physical training (PT) session, while soldiers are at the range, or at convenient times for shift workers (e.g., Military Police, hospital workers). Being able to meet soldiers where they physically are enables the MRTs to connect with their soldiers more efficiently. Next, MRTs must learn how to relate the skills to different scenarios, their specific jobs, and the context of their unit (e.g., preparing to deploy). While these resilience skills are useful for all professions, their intended application can vary. As such, MRTs must learn how to relate the skills to different scenarios to allow the examples to connect with the soldiers more effectively.

Next, utilizing discussion-based strategies and removing the dependence upon PowerPoint slides and worksheets could make the skills more useful and adaptable to all settings. The discussion-based training would facilitate instruction outside of the classroom and allow the instruction to adapt to the soldiers in the training sessions. If the MRTs learn how to incorporate vignettes into the training to contextualize the resilience skills, soldiers may have an easier time understanding how to apply the skills to their specific scenarios. The discussion-based training also allows the MRTs to hear directly from the soldiers in the moment to ensure the material is relevant to what they need.

Recommendations to facilitate meaningful learning: coach education

The Core Four skills could be taught in a classroom and then reinforced through coaching while out with the soldiers in everyday scenarios. Coaching can promote self-awareness within soldiers and empower them to take ownership and responsibility of their own learning and performance (Arthur et al., 2016). In fact, coaching can increase the relevance of various trainings by connecting specific resilience skills to different tasks needed to be performed within the unit (e.g., Army Combat Fitness Test, rifle marksmanship) to reinforce the translatability of skills. As with learning any other skill, though, coaching, is a skill that must be taught and practiced (e.g., Callow et al., 2010). As such, WRAIR program evaluators have recommended increased use and practice of coaching skills in the MRT course.

Additionally, MRTs could build on those Core Four skills by coaching additional skills that could be taught quickly, on the spot, and with little preparation. Skills such as deliberate breathing, control the controllables, and grounding can be coached across units. Once MRTs learn these skills, they would then learn how to coach the skills with considerations for use before, during, and after performances. Coaching techniques are already emphasized within the NCO Corps (U.S. Army, 2019); therefore, adding these principles into the MRT course should better prepare soldiers to meet their coaching expectations.

Once MRTs learn the additional skills and coaching principles at the course, they then will learn how to observe their soldiers’ behavioral cues. Knowing what to observe and what skill could positively impact the situation will make the MRTs an even greater resource. This flexibility to tailor the training to specific needs allows the MRTs to provide resilience skills both formally and informally. The benefit of this increased training frequency is additional repetition for the MRTs to reinforce the material for themselves and for their soldiers. Identifying these coachable moments will complement and reinforce the more formal annual unit resilience training.

Recommendations to improve unit resilience training

Revisions to the MRT course would result in better prepared MRTs who can return to their home units as more effective leaders. These newly trained MRTs should feel empowered to foster an environment that promotes motivation, which was identified by NCOs and officers, as the top issue facing units. Working to increase their soldiers’ competence, autonomy, and feelings of relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and identifying and highlighting their soldiers’ strengths should work to build cohesion and trust between the MRTs and their soldiers. To further aid this relationship and improve overall unit resilience, program evaluators recommended further revisions to the unit resilience training.

Addressing the training gap

Recent MRT graduates will have the skills needed to teach resilience training in their home units but may struggle to receive the time to teach those skills. As stated in the survey responses, many MRT participants could not remember when they last received their resilience training at their home unit. For the MRTs to strengthen their skills and confidence in teaching, they need the opportunities to teach. If leaders can see the impact of the training, they are more likely to protect training time for MRT. Reducing the number of skills and making the training more accessible should improve the MRTs ability to get the trainings scheduled and taught to their home units. Additionally, the focus on coach education during the two-week course should empower MRTs to coach their soldiers in the moment. MRTs should not feel limited to classroom instruction to put their skills to practice. Understanding how to read a situation and coach soldiers immediately should also help MRTs hone their resilience skills and reduce the training gap.

Revisiting resilience training in PME

While resilience training is included in some PME courses, it was not viewed as effective by interviewees. Ensuring that revised resilience training complements unit resilience training and is targeted developmentally by rank to different levels of leadership (i.e., tactical, operational, strategic) is critical for improving PME resilience training.

Program evaluators recommend incorporating the Core Four skills and their instruction at every level of PME. These Core Four skills are critical at every stage of a soldier’s career but need to be applied differently depending on different rank-specific challenges; therefore, if the skills are taught in a progressive and sequential way, it would allow for the skills to build upon each other and be reinforced with each level of training. This approach should not only improve the implementation of resilience training within PME but also its application back in home units when the soldiers have completed their schoolhouse training.

Buy-in from leadership

When MRTs have support from their leadership, they are more likely to find time to conduct their unit resilience training. In fact, leaders should be held accountable for their unit’s resilience training as should cadre within the different schoolhouses to ensure resilience training is occurring regularly. Knowing that the training can be adapted to be more relatable to soldiers in different scenarios and can be more flexible in delivery should also make it easier for leaders to find time for their MRTs to conduct the training. Additionally, if the leaders understand the value of the training, support the training, and communicate its value to the unit, soldiers may be more receptive to the training. When MRTs have more opportunities to meet with the soldiers to teach or coach, the MRTs are also receiving an opportunity for their own development. Leaders should recognize that as these MRTs continue to be promoted, they will have increased responsibilities within the unit and a greater impact on soldiers. Establishing these relationships with junior soldiers should set the MRTs up for success.

MRT accountability

While many participants during the interviews mentioned that leadership buy-in was necessary to improve implementation, it is also vital that the MRTs take ownership of their duties to teach and coach as well. MRTs need to hold each other accountable for conducting their trainings within the units. If MRTs are not finding times to teach or coach, even with leadership support, then there should be a consequence. Potentially, MRTs could face losing their additional skill identifier if they are not delivering the resilience trainings.

Relatedly, MRTs need a way to maintain their teaching and coaching to standard. During the MRT course, it is recommended that participants compile a portfolio to demonstrate their breadth of knowledge and anticipated implementation of teaching and coaching gained during the course. This portfolio can then be used as a resource outside of the course. This resource should assist MRTs with teaching the Core Four and coaching skills to standard. Beyond this resource, experienced MRTs or program evaluators should be able to evaluate ongoing trainings to ensure the MRTs are teaching or coaching to standard. The experienced MRTs and program evaluators must also observe the training itself to ensure the lessons remain relevant and useful for soldiers.

Limitations

The current program evaluation was not without its limitations. First, there was limited rank variability in the surveys as junior enlisted soldiers are not eligible to complete the MRT course. Next, because the data collection took place at the MRT course, soldiers from the home unit were not surveyed thus limiting evaluators’ ability to fully assess the resilience training taking place in home units and schoolhouses. Third, evaluators asked generally if resilience training was taking place in the home units as opposed to asking specifically if all 12 skills were being taught annually. The lack of specificity limits the ability to assess both which skills are being taught and why some may be avoided. Finally, the cross-sectional design of the evaluation limited the evaluators’ ability to draw causational conclusions about the MRT course. Relatedly, the lack of follow-up limited researchers’ ability to assess if the participants were able to better implement resilience training in their home unit.

Future directions

Moving forward, program evaluators recommend recurring evaluations to ensure the MRT course, its content, and examples remain relevant and that the units continue to receive the most effective, relevant, and applicable resilience training possible. Next, relevant training is only helpful if units are held accountable. DPRR needs to communicate the importance of the revised training to the strategic leaders. With buy-in, these strategic leaders can hold their subordinate commanders accountable and provide the resources needed for the resilience training to take place within their units. Additionally, coaching strategies need to be assessed at the unit levels. Future program evaluators should seek to understand the impact of coach education at the MRT course and if that training is improving the MRTs ability to coach.

Conclusion

The proposed recommendations aim to improve the MRT course content and to increase the skillset of those who complete the MRT course. Decreasing the number of skills and their complexity to focus on the Core Four should allow the MRTs to start implementing skills more easily and frequently, both formally and informally. The Core Four aims to make the skills easier to teach, track, and implement thus attempting to address survey participants’ concerns about the resilience training gap created when MRTs return to their home units without opportunities to practice their new skills. Relatedly, a focus on coach education will teach MRTs how to look for coachable moments and address their soldiers’ needs on the spot and practice these skills throughout the course to build the MRTs’ efficacy. Finally, MRTs will be able to further develop their own leadership skills by understanding how to create an environment that relies on each other’s strengths and inspires motivation within their soldiers.

Funding Statement

As of June 2023, ARD realigned as the Directorate of Prevention, Readiness and Resilience (DPRR) under the G-9 (Grant Number: IAA #14009575 US Army, https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/pdf/Realignment%20Infographic.pdf).

Disclosure statement

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

Data availability statement

The data and material for this study are not publicly available due to institutional regulations related to human participant protection requirements but can be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request (may require data use agreements to be developed).

Disclaimer

Material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the author, and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting true views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.

The investigators have adhered to the policies for protection of human subjects as prescribed in AR 70–25.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2024.2346449.