Military occupations can be physically demanding, yet few attempts have been made to determine the physical readiness of today's airmen to perform their jobs. As part of a broader Air Force effort to measure the physical readiness of airmen to perform their jobs, this report describes a methodology for establishing physical fitness standards for four physically demanding Air Force occupational specialties.
Download
Download eBook for Free
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 1.8 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback104 pages | $28.50 | $22.80 20% Web Discount |
Research Questions
- What methods could be used to identify physically demanding tasks performed by airmen?
- What methods are available for identifying the physical demands of occupational specialties?
- How can the Air Force use information about the physical tasks and demands to establish Tier II, occupationally relevant fitness standards?
Military occupations can be physically demanding, yet few attempts have been made to determine the physical readiness of today's airmen to perform their jobs. Although the Air Force conducts fitness testing of all its airmen, these tests and standards are not based on validated job requirements. As part of a broader Air Force effort to measure the physical readiness of airmen to perform their jobs, this report describes a methodology for establishing physical fitness standards for four physically demanding Air Force occupational specialties — combat controller, pararescue, special operations weather team, and tactical air control party. Airmen in these specialties are collectively known as battlefield airmen.
The authors sought to identify the physically demanding tasks required of battlefield airmen and ways in which fitness standards might be established to ensure that individuals in these specialties are able to perform these tasks. They reviewed the research literature and relevant military documents, conducted focus groups and interviews with battlefield airmen and other subject matter experts, and analyzed the movement patterns and physical abilities associated with each task. They found a high demand across the four specialities for strength and muscular and cardiovascular endurance, followed by agility, anaeroboic power, and equilibrium, whereas they found flexibility to be less critically important. The authors recommend that a validation study be conducted next, to (a) ensure that tests measure important physical abilities required for successful mission or job performance, (b) ensure that performance on tests is a good indicator of mission or job performance, and (c) identify minimum test standards that are associated with acceptable mission or job performance.
Key Findings
Physical Abilities Identified as Critical for Battlefield Airmen
- The physical abilities identified as critical for each of the physically demanding tasks required of battlefield airmen were muscular strength, muscular endurance, cardiovascular endurance, anaerobic power (ability to do high-intensity, short duration activity), equilibrium, flexibility, and coordination and agility.
- There is a high demand across the four specialities for strength and muscular and cardiovascular endurance, followed by agility, anaeroboic power, and equilibrium.
- Flexibility seems to be less critically important for phsyically demanding battlefield airmen tasks (but flexibility may be associated with fewer overall injuries among airmen).
Recommendations
- A critical next step for the Air Force is to engage in a systematic program of research and development to produce valid and reliable Tier II tests and standards to (a) ensure that tests measure important physical abilities required for successful mission or job performance, (b) ensure that performance on tests is a good indicator of mission or job performance, and (c) identify minimum test standards that are associated with acceptable mission or job performance.
- At least two tests should be used to measure each ability.
- Tests should integrate job simulations, in part because basic fitness tests (e.g., pull-ups, three-mile run) are potentially biased in favor of smaller, leaner operators.
- Consider using a compensatory model, in which stronger performance on one or more tests can make up for slightly weaker performance on other tests.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction: Establishing a Need for Fitness Standards
Chapter Two
Validation and Setting Standards
Chapter Three
Our Approach for Identifying Physical Requirements of Battlefield Airmen
Chapter Four
Results: Critical Physical Tasks and Abilities
Chapter Five
Recommendations for Developing Occupationally Relevant Fitness Tests
Appendix A
How to Identify Physical Requirements
Appendix B
Detailed Results from Movement Pattern Analyses
Appendix C
Average Task Ratings from Focus Groups
Research conducted by
The research was prepared for the United States Air Force and conducted by the Manpower, Personnel, and Training Program within RAND Project AIR FORCE.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.