I__. - International Military Testing Association

Table 2
_-_-.-__. .-_.. -. .-.-
Situational Awareness Items: "Seeing*' the Battlefield Situation
Current Situation Future Situation
Number 61 type enemy damaged Distance/direction to main Unit
Size t type unit engaged Heading of main enemy unit
Number & type unit approaching ETA main unit < 2,000 meters
Size & type force approaching Distance/direction next BP .
Overall size & type unit Impact of obstacle(s) on unit's
confronting the task force next BP
~For the future situation, the items addressed the commander's
ability to project beyond his immediate situation and use the
information provided during the vignette to anticipate upcoming
events. The initial items focused on the commander's awareness
of the main enemy unit approaching his company sector. Reports
received during the vignette had provided information about the
heading and location of a relatively large enemy unit in the
company's sector but well beyond engagement range. The commander
was required to provide the location and heading of this main
unit, and then estimate if, and when, that unit would approach
within 2,000 meters of his current location.
The final two items assessed the commander's awareness of key
information related to his unit's proposed future location. One
item asked him to provide estimates of distance and direction to
his unit's subsequent BP, and the final item asked him to assess
the impact that reported obstacle(s) might have on movement to,
and occupation of, that BP.
Obiective Responses: Scoring
A key concern in the construction of the SA items was to
develop a set of questions that clearly specified the situational
information requested. The simulation-based vignettes driving
the scenarios were designed by subject matter experts (SMEs) to
' provide a wide range of battlefield reports of differing
relevance to the commander's mission. To ensure commanders
clearly understood what information was being requested for each
item, special attention was given to item wording. The item
stems consistently provided and emphasized, for example,
distinctions between enemy units engaged versus not engaged,
locations in the unit's sector versus adjacent sectors, and
elements to the front versus the rear of the unit's BP location.
To meet the goal for SA instruments that could be objectively
scored, the response formats required commanders to provide
178