It is certainly a sensitive issue in almost any operational environment.
The approach David Rogers describes (very tactfully) seems to fit well
with some of the applied research at NTSC (NAWCTSD) and elsewhere, i.e.
identify outcome-related high level skills and assess their presence or
absence during training as the basis for more focussed training
interventions/debriefs.
TARGETS, BARS and some of the other tools are reviewed briefly in a good
overview paper by Lynne Martin (NASA) which was one of several presented
at the Team Performance conference at CAA Gatwick last September.
The whole area is problematic, both because of the difficulty in
obtaining sufficient statistical samples to ensure objectivity (or
significance) for any reasonably flexible measure; and because it is
not really clear how closely specific process variables are related to
outcomes.
I suspect the most robust analytic approach is the NTSC 7-dimensional
model developed by Carolyn Prince, Ed Salas and others. I'm not sure
how many different contexts it has been revalidated in (several) but it
provides an excellent working model for CRM training purposes. Whether
it comes to grips with the more nuts and bolts cognitive issues is
another question.
Regards,
Rick Heybroek
In article <41D2696EE385D0118DE90020AFFC1E5C0299D78F_at_JSC-EMS-
MBS09.jsc.nasa.gov>, ROGERS, DAVID G. (JSC-DT)
<david.g.rogers1_at_jsc.nasa.gov> writes
>The question of
>marking performance is a sensitive one within this culture. We wanted to
>stray away from gathering metrics for metrics sake and shift the focus to
>being able to identify those CRM skills which were or were not exercised and
>which in turn led to positive or negative outcomes.
R. Heybroek M.A., MRAeS, MErgS
Loftwork Training Systems
http://www.visitweb.com/loftwork
<<<<<<<<<<\**/>>>>>>>>>>>>
\/