The type of operations the U.S. Army has confronted in the post–September 11, 2001, security environment has mandated increased adaptability in the service. Operational success requires leaders and organizations that can rapidly recognize changes in the environment, identify critical elements in unfamiliar situations with less-than-perfect information, and facilitate timely action to meet new requirements—all while under considerable stress. The need to develop adaptable leaders is articulated in key policy documents, including the U.S. Army Learning Concept for 2015 and the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) strategic plan for 2013–2020, and it is an underlying principle...

The type of operations the U.S. Army has confronted in the post–September 11, 2001, security environment has shown the need for increased adaptability in the service. For example, as Burke, Pierce, and Salas, 2006, p. ix, notes:

The US military is facing an increasingly complex geopolitical environment that also demands adaptability in order to be effective. For example, within the military, individuals are having to adapt to asymmetric threats, increased joint operations, and network capabilities. Teams are having to adapt to a wide variety of environmental and team composition factors (e.g., warfighting, peacekeeping, teams comprised of coalition partners of...

We begin with an overview of the general approach that guided our study design, particularly in selecting training evaluation and effectiveness measures. This includes a brief review of findings from the research literature that bear on the content of the measures and a description of general challenges in measuring adaptability. We then discuss our study design and how the design addresses the challenges.

Our evaluation design was guided by a model of training evaluation and effectiveness adapted from Alvarez, Salas, and Garofano, 2004, which we have used in prior research (Straus, Shanley, Lytell, et al., 2013; Straus, Shanley, Yeung, et...

This chapter reports on reactions to the course, measured at the end of training, and changes in attitudes toward adaptive performance, measured at the beginning and end of the course.

Reactions were measured in the posttraining survey. The survey included 28 close-ended questions assessing students’ views of course content, delivery, and structure and six open-ended questions asking students to elaborate on some of their responses. Examples of close-ended questions include “AWALP guides effectively facilitated course exercises,” and “Attending AWALP was a good use of my time.” Some of the questions were based on White et al., 2005, and Straus, Shanley,...

This chapter reports on measures of cognitive and behavioral learning in AWALP based on knowledge tests of course concepts and observations of adaptability behaviors.

While gaining declarative knowledge is not a main course goal, some mastery of adaptability concepts is a prerequisite for understanding the course material and for teaching others about adaptive performance. Using course materials, and in collaboration with two of the course guides, we developed a pool of 35 multiple-choice items of knowledge about AWALP concepts. We attempted to construct a test with a range of item difficulty levels and representing the breadth of topics covered in...

This chapter addresses payoffs of AWALP to the Army in terms of graduates’ application of adaptive performance principles on the job. We conducted telephone interviews with students and their supervisors to assess the longer term impact of AWALP on adaptive performance and attitudes after students returned to their units.

We interviewed both AWALP graduates and their supervisors three months and six months after the course ended. There were two primary goals. The first goal was to contribute to an understanding of how AWALP affects participants’ work when they return to their units. The central question was whether the graduates have...

This chapter summarizes our results and draws conclusions based on the findings. We then present recommendations about AWALP instruction and about how the evaluation of AWALP could be improved in the future. We then broaden our discussion outside of the current course, addressing how the AWALP approach to adaptability training could be expanded in the Army. Finally, we describe how the methods used in this study might be applied to evaluating adaptability training in other contexts.

Table 6.1 summarizes key findings from the evaluation of AWALP. Results provide evidence of course success across a range of measures. The following sections...