Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Elite Operational Personnel

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook of Military Psychology

Abstract

High-risk operational personnel engage in physically and psychologically demanding missions involving critical and sensitive national security concerns under conditions of extreme threat with no or very limited logistical and tactical support, and dire consequences for failure. Examples of some personnel who fit this conceptualization include Special Operations Forces (SOF) such as US Navy SEALs, US Army Special Forces, as well as other “paramilitary” personnel such as special operations law enforcement personnel, to name but a few. Such personnel are typically specially selected for these jobs and must complete physically and psychologically rigorous assessment and selection (A&S) programs that test aptitude for the job, tolerance for hardship, perseverance, and sustained performance under stress. Attrition rates are high (upwards of 50%) and only the most resilient generally make it through. This chapter discusses the methods used to assess military personnel for potential success in high-risk, high stress nonroutine missions, and identifies some of the major issues in conceptualizing and measuring psychological suitability for these jobs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Banks, L. M. (2006). The history of special operations psychological selection. In D. A. Mangelsdorff (Ed.), Psychology in the service of national security (pp. 83–95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bartone, P. T., Roland, R. R., Picano, J. J., & Williams, T. J. (2008). Psychological hardiness predicts success in U.S. Army special forces candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00412.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, S. A. (2010). The roles of perseverance, cognitive ability, and physical fitness in U.S. Army Special Forces assessment and selection. Research report 1927, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525579.pdf

  • Biersner, R. J., & Hogan, R. (1984). Personality correlates of adjustment in isolated work groups. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 491–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., … Moffitt, T. E. (2014). The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 119–137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64, 225–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappelle, W. L., Heerema, B. D., & Thompson, W. T. (2012). Factor analysis of computer-based Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-Second Edition intelligence testing from rated U.S. Air Force pilots. AFRL-SA-WP-SR-2013-0005, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Greene, OH. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA583710

  • Christian, J. R., Picano, J. J., Roland, R. R., & Williams, T. J. (2010). Guiding principles for selecting high-risk operational personnel. In P. T. Bartone, B. H. Johnsen, J. Eid, M. Violanti, & J. C. Laberg (Eds.), Enhancing human performance in security operations: International and law enforcement perspectives (pp. 121–142). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueredo, A. J., & Rushton, J. P. (2009). Evidence for shared genetic dominance between the general factor of personality, mental and physical health, and life history traits. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12, 555–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Girodo, M. (1997). Undercover agent assessment centers: Crafting vice and virtue for imposters. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, W. M., & Lloyd, M. (2006). Meehl’s contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 192–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazlett, G. A., & Sanders, M. (1999). Cognitive and personality assessment in special forces assessment and selection. Special Warfare, 12, 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Highhouse, S. (2002). Assessing the candidate as a whole: A historical and critical analysis of individualistic psychological assessment for decision-making. Personnel Psychology, 55, 363–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P., Sandvik, A. M., Gjeldnes, R., Morken, A. M., Hystad, S. W., & Stornæs, A. V. (2013). Psychological hardiness predicts success in a Norwegian armed forces border patrol selection course. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 21, 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus statistical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1060–1072.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzenweger, M. F. (2015). Factors underlying the psychological and behavioral characteristics of Office of Strategic Services candidates: The Assessment of Men data revisited. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 100–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. F. (2000). Mental traits as fitness indicators: Expanding evolutionary psychology’s adaptationism. In D. LeCroy & P. Moller (Eds.), Evolutionary approaches to human reproductive behavior, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 907, pp. 62–74). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S. B., Daisley, R. L., Wheeler, M., & Boyer, P. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between individual assessments and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 5–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Assessment Staff. (1948). Assessment of men: Selection of personnel for the Office of Strategic Services. New York: Rinehart.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picano, J. J., & Roland, R. R. (2012). Assessing psychological suitability for high risk military jobs. In J. H. Laurence & M. D. Matthews (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of military psychology (pp. 148–157). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picano, J. J., Williams, T. J., & Roland, R. R. (2012). Assessment and selection of high-risk operational personnel. In C. H. Kennedy & E. A. Zillmer (Eds.), Military psychology: Clinical and operational applications (pp. 50–72). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prewett, M. S., Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2013). A review and comparison of 12 personality inventories on key psychometric characteristics. In N. D. Christiansen & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 191–250). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1296–1312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N. (2014). Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of effective performance at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. E., & Hunter, F. L. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 262–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sefcek, J. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2010). A life-history model of human fitness indicators. Biodemography and Social Biology, 56, 42–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. K., Miller, A., Mills, L., Potterat, E., Padilla, G. A., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Predictors of success in Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) Training- Part 1: What do we know and where do we go from here? Technical Document No. 06-3, Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA590364

  • Teplitzky, M. L. (1991). Physical performance predictors of success in Special Forces assessment and selection. Research Report 1606, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a245729.pdf

  • van der Linden, D., Nijenhuis, J. T., Cremers, M., van de Ven, C., & van der Heijden-Lek, K. (2014). International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zazanis, M. M., Hazlet, G. A., Kilcullen, R. N., & Sanders, M. G. (1999). Prescreening methods for Special Forces assessment and selection. Technical Report 1094, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA365003

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UTMB and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, TX, USA

    James J. Picano

  2. Consulting Psychologist, Pebble Beach, CA, 93953, USA

    Robert R. Roland

  3. National Aeronautics and space Administration, Houston, TX, USA

    Thomas J. Williams

  4. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA

    Paul T. Bartone

Authors
  1. James J. Picano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert R. Roland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas J. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul T. Bartone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Picano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA

    Stephen V. Bowles

  2. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA

    Paul T. Bartone

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Picano, J.J., Roland, R.R., Williams, T.J., Bartone, P.T. (2017). Assessment of Elite Operational Personnel. In: Bowles, S., Bartone, P. (eds) Handbook of Military Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66192-6_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation