Outcome metrics utilized in evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress: A review of psychometric properties

ABSTRACT

The Department of Defense has mandated combat and operational stress control (COSC) efforts for the Services since 1999. Although several COSC-related programs have been implemented, few have undergone evaluation, and no standardized metrics have been established to assess their effectiveness and utility. The purpose of this review was to characterize the content and psychometrics of measures that have been utilized as outcome metrics in evaluations of COSC-related programs and interventions. Systematic literature searches were conducted for publications that: a) evaluated at least one measure from U.S. service members who participated in a program or intervention to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of combat and operational stress; and b) reported U.S. data on the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and sensitivity/specificity of the identified measures. This process identified 15 measures for which psychometric properties were reviewed for acceptability based on recommended criteria. Identified measures varied from well-validated measures to newer instruments for which more data is needed on one or more of the target psychometric properties. Aside from internal consistency, psychometric data from U.S. military samples were sparse. Results further suggested that some measures might have reduced sensitivity in service members under certain conditions, such as large-scale screening. Additional studies are needed to validate COSC-relevant measures in service members. Future evaluations of programs and interventions for combat and operational stress should select measures that will increase the consistency of the literature, allow comparisons across studies, and ensure alignment with the objectives of identified programs.

KEYWORDS:

• Combat stress
• operational stress
• psychometrics
• reliability
• validity

Disclosure statement

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

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.