Defining and Measuring Military Cognitive Readiness

Abstract

Over the past ten years, we have been examining the construct of military cognitive readiness. This investigation began by tentatively defining what is meant by the term. This definition included identifying the component constructs of military cognitive readiness. The next steps are to develop measurement operations that can be used to further the research and definition of the construct as well as its application in measuring military readiness. This paper reviews the work we have done thus far and documents the questions that still need to be addressed.

Cognitive Fitness Framework: Towards Assessing, Training and Augmenting Individual-Difference Factors Underpinning High-Performance Cognition

“…CF (Aidman, 2017) corresponds to the cognitive element of this latter CR component. Despite the lack of causal cognitive mechanisms explained by the CR construct (Crameri et al, 2019) it has been instrumental in stimulating the development of measurement frameworks for assessing individuals' and teams' fluctuating capacity for operational task performance (Fatkin and Patton, 2008;Grier et al, 2012) and evaluating training interventions to improve it (Kluge and Burkolter, 2013;Peña and Brody, 2016). The explanatory power of the CR construct can be enhanced by establishing its connections to causal factors, such as arousal regulation, discomfort tolerance and inhibitory control, underpinning an individual's performance in cognitively demanding tasks.…”

A Review of Individual Operational Cognitive Readiness: Theory Development and Future Directions

“…Table 1 shows nine published literatures focused on both CR theory frameworks and measurement, 11 focused solely on theoretical framework, and 12 focused solely on CR measures. Meanwhile, one directly cited the three levels of CR but provided no significant contribution to theory or measurement (Grier, Fletcher, & Morrison, 2012). Significant contribution was characterized as providing empirical research or discussions about a level of CR beyond definitions and directions for future research.…”

“…With the exception of team CR, direct citations of CR levels seldom appear. Only four published literatures (Buick & Pickering, 2013; Grier, 2011, 2012; Grier et al, 2012) directly cite SCR, OCR, and TCR. The remaining literature cites CR and provides context in regards to which level has been referenced.…”

“…Taking a different direction toward conceptualizing CR, Grier (2011, 2012) proposed that KSAs and psychological states factors should be considered to establish a CR theoretical framework. As discussed in the introduction, Grier (2012) aligned the CR framework with the DoD’s levels of war and argued that the CR framework should reflect the process of military timeline (Grier, 2012), thereby introducing the SCR, OCR, and TCR concepts (Grier et al, 2012). The levels of CR are intended to be built upon sequentially with the overall objective of predicting cognitive performance within complex, dynamic, and resource-limited task environments (Grier, 2012).…”

“…Hence, this led to these components being reconceptualized, and labeled in the model, as tacit knowledge. Previous literature proposed numerous constructs for the cognitive functions component of CR (Grier, 2012;Grier et al, 2012). These included decision-making, problem-solving, planning, analysis, judgment, system perspective, critical thinking, and metacognition.…”