m_d_n (m_d_n) wrote,
m_d_n
m_d_n

Спецназ

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 July 1.


Published in final edited form as:


Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 July; 33(7): 1080–1088.
Published online 2009 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.05.003


PMCID: PMC2729466

NIHMSID: NIHMS133393

A Neuroscience Approach to Optimizing Brain Resources for Human Performance in Extreme Environments


Martin P. Paulus, MD,1,5 Eric G. Potterat, PhD,4,5 Marcus K. Taylor, PhD,2,5 Karl F. Van Orden, PhD,2,5 James Bauman, PhD,3,5 Nausheen Momen, PhD,2,5 Genieleah A. Padilla, BA,2,5 and Judith L. Swain, MD1,5,6

In other Special Operations-specific studies, Hartmann (Hartmann.et al., 2003) examined the predictive validity of several paper and pencil tests in 71 male Norwegian Naval Special Forces candidates. These researchers found only weak correlations between ability tests, personality scales and optimal performance. In comparison, Rorschach approaches to measuring stress tolerance, reality testing, cognition, and social adjustment significantly predicted optimal performance (Hartmann.et al., 2003). These findings suggest that tests which may not be immediately transparent to the participants may provide a more useful approach to selecting optimal performers than do standard questionnaires.


J Pers Assess. 2003 Feb;80(1):87-98.

Psychological measures as predictors of military training performance.

Hartmann E, Sunde T, Kristensen W, Martinussen M.


Source

Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway. ellen.hartmann@psykologi.uio.no


Erratum in
J Pers Assess. 2008 Jul;90(4):407.


Abstract


The predictive validity of 7 ability tests, the Big Five, and the Rorschach method administered to 71 male applicants at the Naval Special Forces (NSF) of Norway was evaluated based on pass/fail results in training. The findings showed: (a) small correlations between the ability tests, the Big Five scales, and the success criterion; (b) Rorschach variables measuring stress tolerance, reality testing, cognition, and social adjustment correlated significantly (r =.25 to.48) with pass/fail results in training, and (c) logistic regression analysis revealed that 3 of the Rorschach variables accumulated incrementally in the prediction of training completion when entered after the ability tests and the Big Five scales, thus supporting the merit of using Rorschach variables for predicting NSF training performance


PMID: 12584071 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Pers Assess. 2009 May;91(3):254-64. doi: 10.1080/00223890902794309.

Rorschach variables and Big Five scales as predictors of military training completion: a replication study of the selection of candidates to the naval special forces in Norway.

Hartmann E, Grønnerød C.


Source

Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. ellen.hartmann@psykologi.uio.no


Abstract


We tested 140 male candidates at the Naval Special Forces (NFS) of Norway on the Rorschach (Exner, 2003; Rorschach, 1921/1942) and the Norwegian version of the Big Five personality dimensions (Engvik & Føllesdal, 2005). Rorschach variables significantly correlated with training completion (effect sizes of r(e) = .14-.25), whereas none of the Big Five factors or facets did. The combination of Rorschach and Big Five variables framed in the illusory mental health concept provided strong predictive ability. Testing under stress produced slightly higher predictive validity coefficients between the Rorschach variables and pass-fail than under calm testing. The findings support the results of Hartmann, Sunde, Kristensen, and Martinussen (2003), indicating that Rorschach variables and indications of good mental health may be valid predictors of NFS training.


PMID: 19365766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Tags: neuroimaging
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments