WASHINGTON — The U.S. military has implemented programs and strategies to promote psychological resilience among troops as stress from the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken a toll.
Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of those programs, according to a recent study which suggested there is a need to evaluate the performance of resilience programs at the DoD.
“Because relatively few of the programs have conducted formal evaluations in military populations, there is limited evidence available as to how well the programs are working or would work if they were implemented in the military,” the study stated.
The report, “Promoting Psychological Resilience in the U.S. Military,” was commissioned by DCoE and conducted by the RAND Corporation. The report examined 23 military and civilian programs that address psychological resilience and provided recommendations on how these programs can be improved.
Other findings of the report included the need for a common definition of resilience.
“Senior commanders and policymakers should carefully formulate a definition of resilience that reflects both the literature and the military culture as a necessary first step in building any existing programs,” the researchers wrote in the report summary.
USPHS Cdr. George Durgin, DCoE resilience division chief for DCoE’s Resilience and Prevention Directorate, said the report’s findings provided validation of the issues that DoD knows about and already is tackling. A common definition of resilience was expected to be released by the end of September, he said.
Resilience Program Review
For the study, researchers conducted a systematic review of 270 scientific publications on psychological resilience. They then identified 20-evidence informed factors associated with resilience and sought to determine the extent to which these factors were reflected in 23 resilience programs for troops and their families.
Most programs did emphasize some of the resilience factors, the researchers found. However, when it came to measuring effectiveness, “programs showed considerable variation in their definitions of resilience and the measures they used to gauge program effectiveness,” and few had a process for reviewing results.
“We found that only five of the 23 programs had conducted formal assessments of their effectiveness. Because of this, there is limited evidence available as to how well the programs are working or would work if they were implemented in the military,” the report summary stated.
The report also stated there was a need to develop standardized resilience measures to enable program comparisons.
“Such an effort would move the field toward consensus about what factors comprise resilience, which measure is most valid and reliable for assessing resilience, and their relevance for military populations,” the researchers wrote.
Recommendations in the report included defining resilience, conducting more rigorous program evaluations, standardizing resilience measures to enable program comparison and integrating evidence-based resilience factors into new resilience programs.