Identifying and Assessing Interaction Knowledges, Skills, and Attributes for Objective Force Soldiers

Abstract : The future force has defined the U.S. Army as it is expected to exist within the next 30 years (U.S. Army, 2001). The future force will be supported by Future Combat Systems (FCSs) that will improve the speed, maneuverability, fighting capacity, and survivability of the Army's combat operations. Transformation to the future force obviously requires tremendous advances in technology to provide the FCSs that will enable the future force. Just as importantly, however, the Army recognizes the importance of its Soldiers in accomplishing the transformation, both in terms of making the transition and working effectively within the new systems. This transition will require future force Soldiers to possess unprecedented interpersonal skills in order to achieve success in their new unit structures. The goal of this Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) Phase I effort was to identify the interpersonal knowledges, skills and attributes (KSAs) required of the future force Soldiers and identify innovative strategies for measuring those KSAs in future Soldiers.

[1]  Norman G. Peterson,et al.  An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET. , 1999 .

[2]  Deborah L. Whetzel,et al.  Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology , 1997 .

[3]  J. Black.  Locus of control, social support, stress, and adjustment in international transfers , 1990 .

[4]  F. C. Beal.  Work styles. , 1997, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy.

[5]  L. Hough.  Effects of Intentional Distortion in Personality Measurement and evaluation of Suggested Palliatives , 1998 .

[6]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics , 2005 .

[7]  Deirdre J Knapp,et al.  21ST Century Soldiers and Noncommissioned Officers: Critical Predictors of Performance , 2000 .

[8]  H A Simon,et al.  The behavioral and social sciences. , 1980, Science.

[9]  Michael M. Harris.  RECONSIDERING THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH , 1989 .

[10]  A. Meade,et al.  The Development of an Individual-Level Teamwork Expectations Measure and the Application of a Within-Group Agreement Statistic to Assess Shared Expectations for Teamwork , 1999 .

[11]  Joseph G. Rosse,et al.  The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. , 1998 .

[12]  Gary Klein,et al.  A Synthesized Model of Team Performance , 1999 .

[13]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  Assessing the Construct Validity of Rational Biodata Scales , 1995 .

[14]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Development of Predictor and Criterion Measures for the NCO21 Research Program , 2002 .

[15]  G. Olson,et al.  From Laboratories to Collaboratories: A New Organizational Form for Scientific Collaboration , 1997 .

[16]  Carl E. Larson,et al.  Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong , 1989 .

[17]  Richard P. DeShon,et al.  Reactions to cognitive ability tests: the relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Groups and Productivity; Analyzing the Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams , 1988 .

[19]  J. Hackman,et al.  The psychology of self-management in organizations , 1986 .

[20]  Arthur S Blaiwes,et al.  Measurement of Team Behaviors in a Navy Environment , 1986 .

[21]  Nancy Tippins,et al.  Further studies of the low‐fidelity simulation in the form of a situational inventory , 1993 .

[22]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  The situational interview. , 1980 .

[23]  Catherine E. Volpe,et al.  Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements , 1995 .

[24]  J. Bigelow.  Managerial Skills: Explorations in Practical Knowledge , 1991 .

[25]  P. Rasker.  Communication and performance in teams , 2002 .

[26]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[27]  E. A. Fleishman,et al.  Team Dimensions: Their Identity, Their Measurement and Their Relationships , 1985 .

[28]  Deirdre J Knapp,et al.  Validation of Measures Designed to Maximize 21st-Century Army NCO Performance , 2004 .

[29]  P. Miederhoff,et al.  Selecting Students with Personal Characteristics Relevant to Pharmaceutical Care. , 1999 .

[30]  Gary Klein,et al.  Cultural Barriers to Multinational C2 Decision Making , 2000 .

[31]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  Structured Interviewing: Raising the Psychometric Properties of the Employment Interview. , 1988 .

[32]  M. D. Dunnette,et al.  An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. , 1990 .

[33]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[34]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Computerized Assessment of Skill for a Highly Technical Job , 1999 .

[35]  Dean Tjosvold,et al.  Implications of Controversy Research for Management , 1985 .

[36]  Newell K. Eaton,et al.  Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities , 1990 .

[37]  J. Hunter,et al.  Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance , 1984 .

[38]  Leslie S. Greenberg.  Emotions and emotional intelligence. , 2002 .

[39]  J. Richard Hackman,et al.  Psychology and work : productivity, change, and employment , 1986 .

[40]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  Longitudinal Assessment of Applicant Reactions to Employment Testing and Test Outcome Feedback , 1998 .

[41]  Bruce Edmonds,et al.  Social Intelligence , 1999, Computational and mathematical organization theory.

[42]  D. Jackson,et al.  The Impact of Faking on Employment Tests: Does Forced Choice Offer a Solution? , 2000 .

[43]  M. A. Campion,et al.  The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management , 1994 .