2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

682
healthcare domains are still plagued by inconsistent terminology and definitions for important
team competencies, and have made substantially less progress in measuring team competencies
during training. In the next section, we identify recent advances in training strategies that have
the potential to improve team training effectiveness in other high-risk industries.
TRAINING STRATEGIES
The military has led the way in developing effective strategies for training team
competencies. The watershed for much of this research was the accidental shoot down of an
Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf in 1988. In response to the incident,
the Navy began a multi-year, multi-million dollar research program to identify effective team
training interventions. The program, called Tactical Decision Making Under Stress (TADMUS),
began in 1990 and led to numerous breakthroughs in the science and practice of team training,
such as the development of cross-training, mental model training, and team self-correction
training. Following the Navy’s lead, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army also supported applied
research into team training during the 1990s. Both programs led to improved team training in
these two branches of the military (cf. Spiker, Silverman, Tourville, & Nullmeyer, 1998). In the
sections that follow, we describe some of the accomplishments in team training that have the
greatest potential for application in other high-risk industries.
Simulator-Based Training
Simulators have been used widely to train teams in the military, aviation, and most
recently, healthcare. Simulator-based training is based on the logic that the fidelity of the
training environment is essential to ensure the transfer of trained skills. Training-environment
fidelity is comprised of stimulus fidelity (i.e., trainees experience the same “behavioral trigger”
that they will experience on the job); response fidelity (i.e., trainees perform the same behaviors
that they will perform on the job); and equipment fidelity (i.e., trainees use the same materials
and equipment that they will use on the job) (Salas et al., 1992).
Even though there have been tremendous advances in the extent to which simulations can
reproduce realistic conditions of a team’s environment, military research has demonstrated that a
realistic simulation by itself is not a panacea for ensuring effective team training. Other factors,
in particular the design of the training, are equally if not more important than simulator fidelity.
For example, Oser and colleagues define scenario-based training is a systematic process of
linking all aspects of scenario design, development, implementation, and analysis (Oser,
Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Dwyer, 1999). Scenario-based training involves a six-step process:
(1) reviewing skill inventories and/or historical performance data; (2) developing learning
objectives and competencies; (3) selecting scenario events; (4) identifying performance measures
and standards; (5) diagnosing performance strengths and weaknesses; and (6) delivering
feedback to the trainees. Scenario-based training differs from traditional classroom training in
that a scenario or exercise serves as the curriculum with the overall goal of providing specific
opportunities for trainees to develop critical competencies through practice and feedback.
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003