Making Sense of Cognitive Performance in Small Unit Training

  • William A. RossEmail author
  • Joan H. Johnston
  • Dawn Riddle
  • CDR Henry Phillips
  • Lisa Townsend
  • Laura Milham
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9744)


The goal of the Squad Overmatch (SOvM) for Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TC3) study was to introduce and assess an integrated training approach (ITA) for producing adaptable, high performing infantry squads. The challenge is to create the conditions and encode learning experiences for re-use in combat situations. Effective performance embedded in force-on-force actions are unscripted and required unpacking to understand and use as performance feedback. This paper describes the development of a prototype team performance observation tool developed to support the assessment of mission critical tasks during the simulation and live training phases of the ITA. The tool was constructed based on tactical use cases developed with subject matter experts. Discrete TC3 tasks were defined so that observers could recognize and record squad member performance, and that could be traceable to understanding underlying cognitions of team members during an after action review. Lessons learned on usability and reliability of the tool are discussed.


Infantry squad Decision making Sense making Observation rubric Human dimension Measurement 



The authors express their appreciation to the Defense Medical Research and Development Program through Joint Program Committee 1 (JPC-1: Medical Training and Health Information Services) for sponsoring and funding this critical effort.


  1. 1.
    Brimstin, J., Higgs, A., Wolf, R.: Stress exposure training for the dismounted squad: the human dimension. In: Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference [CD-ROM], Orlando, FL (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C.: Training support technologies. In: Nicholson, D., Schmorrow, D., Cohn, J. (eds.) The PSI Handbook of Virtual Environments for Training and Education: Developments for the Military and Beyond. VE Components and Training Technologies, vol. 2, pp. 263–269. Praeger, Westport, CT (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Burns, J.J., Salas, E., Pruitt, J.S.: Advanced technology in scenario-based training. In: Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. (eds.) Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training, pp. 365–374. APA, Washington, DC (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fowlkes, J.E., Lane, N.E., Salas, E., Franz, T., Oser, R.: Improving the measurement of team performance: the TARGETS methodology. Mil. Psychol. 6(1), 47–61 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnston, J.H., Napier, S., Ross, W.A.: Adapting immersive training environments to develop squad resilience skills. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9183, pp. 616–627. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command: TRADOC Pam. 525-3-1, The Army Operating Concept, Win in a Complex World 2020-2040. Ft. Eustis, VA (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. Ross
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joan H. Johnston
    • 2
  • Dawn Riddle
    • 3
  • CDR Henry Phillips
    • 3
  • Lisa Townsend
    • 3
  • Laura Milham
    • 3
  1. 1.Cognitive Performance Group OrlandoOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.ARL-HRED Advanced Training and Simulation Division OrlandoOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division OrlandoOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations