Search results

Current Army doctrine stresses a need for military leaders to have the capability to make flexible and adaptive decisions based on a future unknown environment, location and enemy. To assess a military decision maker’s ability in this context, this paper aims to modify the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test which assesses cognitive flexibility, into a military relevant map task. Thirty-four military officers from all service branches completed the map task.

The purpose of this study was to modify a current psychological task that measures cognitive flexibility into a military relevant task that includes the challenge of overcoming experiential bias, and understand underlying causes of individual variability in the decision-making and cognitive flexibility behavior of active duty military officers on this task.

Results indicated that non-perseverative errors were a strong predictor of cognitive flexibility performance on the map task. Decomposition of non-perseverative error into efficient errors and random errors revealed that participants who did not complete the map task changed their sorting strategy too soon within a series, resulting in a high quantity of random errors.

This study serves as the first step in customizing cognitive psychological tests for a military purpose and understanding why some military participants show poor cognitive flexibility.

Marksmanship data is a staple of military and law enforcement evaluations. This ubiquitous nature creates a critical need to use all relevant information and to convey outcomes in a meaningful way for the end users. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate how simple simulation techniques can improve interpretations of marksmanship data.

This study uses three simulations to demonstrate the advantages of small arms combat modeling, including (1) the benefits of incorporating a Markov Chain into Monte Carlo shooting simulations; (2) how small arms combat modeling is superior to point-based evaluations; and (3) why continuous-time chains better capture performance than discrete-time chains.

The proposed method reduces ambiguity in low-accuracy scenarios while also incorporating a more holistic view of performance as outcomes simultaneously incorporate speed and accuracy rather than holding one constant.

This process determines the probability of winning an engagement against a given opponent while circumventing arbitrary discussions of speed and accuracy trade-offs. Someone wins 70% of combat engagements against a given opponent rather than scoring 15 more points. Moreover, risk exposure is quantified by determining the likely casualties suffered to achieve victory. This combination makes the practical consequences of human performance differences tangible to the end users. Taken together, this approach advances the operations research analyses of squad-level combat engagements.

For more than a century, marksmanship evaluations have used point-based systems to classify shooters. However, these scoring methods were developed for competitive integrity rather than lethality as points do not adequately capture combat capabilities. The proposed method thus represents a major shift in the marksmanship scoring paradigm.