Evaluation of Fire Service Command Unit Trainings

Abstract

The lack of routine and training of command units and emergency managers is among the main causes of suboptimal decisions and could lead to serious consequences. To ensure optimal standards of emergency management training, specific and valid evaluation tools are needed—but are lacking. Thus, the present study’s purpose is to validate instruments for the evaluation of tactical and strategic leader trainings, in particular command unit trainings, based on survey data of n = 288 German Command Unit members. Resulting questionnaires were named “FIRE-CU” (Feedback Instrument for Rescue forces Education – Command Unit) and “FIRE-CPX” (Feedback Instrument for Rescue forces Education – Command Post eXercise scale). Results of confirmatory factor analyses show a good fit for the postulated four-dimensional structure of process scales in the FIRE-CU (trainer’s behavior, structure, overextension, group), for the two-dimensional structure of outcome scales in the FIRE-CU (self-rated competence, transfer), and for the one-dimensional structure of the FIRE-CPX. Further, strong evidence is found for reliability as well as for convergent, divergent, and concurrent validity of both the FIRE-CU and FIRE-CPX. Implications for research and practical application are also discussed to enable broad applicability in various educational programs for public security and crisis management.

Managing Pandemics—Demands, Resources, and Effective Behaviors Within Crisis Management Teams

“…One CMT member aptly summarized this by saying “We are trained for a sprint, but now we have to run a marathon.” Here, team research provides valuable suggestions on how teams can be trained to react adaptively to new situations (e.g., Gorman, Cooke, & Amazeen, 2010; Marks, Zaccaro, Mathieu, Gessner, Klimoski, Sanchez, & Vi, 2000) to ensure a better preparedness of CMTs. In order to achieve optimal quality and learning success, CMT trainings should be generally evaluated (see Thielsch & Hadzihalilovic, 2020).…”

“…The interviews were on average about 40 minutes long. After the personal interview, we sent the participants a link to an additional short online questionnaire where they provided demographic data and answered items on satisfaction with their work and on learning experiences (based on Thielsch & Hadzihalilovic, 2020). Two student assistants transcribed the critical incident sections and summarized the answers to the open questions in key points using the transcription software f4transkript .…”

In Search of a Modus Operandi for Evaluation: Developing a Mixed-Methods Approach for Crisis Team Exercises

“…Although survey and interview instruments are generally popular methods in order to capture individual perceptions as well as personal assessments of performance, success, etc., in addition to observations, they are less frequently found in the exercise evaluation literature. Some mention (quantitative or standardized) survey instruments and/or interviews which could be used before and or after an exercise-though surveys seem to account for a larger share than interviews (Crisanti et al 2022;Fiedrich et al 2012;Gißler 2020;Helfgott et al 2021;Sørensen et al 2020;Son et al 2022;Thielsch and Hadzihalilovic 2020;Unger 2010). Equally rare are elaborated mixed-methods-designs that (loosely) combine, but triangulate more than two different methods and or data (sources) (Bruns et al 2022;Drews et al 2019;Gißler 2020;Reuter and Pipek 2009;Unger 2010).…”

The COVID-19 Marathon

“…In addition, lessons learned were assessed with an adapted seven-item scale based on Thielsch and Hadzihalilovic (2020) and one additional open question on best practices. Furthermore, effective behaviors of CMTs were assessed with 12 items based on the results of Thielsch et al (2021).…”