E Jones1, K C Hyams, S Wessely. 1. Department of Psychological Medicine, Guy's, King's and St Thomas's School of Medicine, 103 Denmark Hill, London SE5 BAZ, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate attempts in the military to screen for vulnerability to psychological disorders from World War I to the present. METHODS: An extensive literature review was conducted by hand-searching leading medical and psychological journals relating to World Wars I and II. Recent publications were surveyed electronically and UK archives investigated for British applications. RESULTS: Despite the optimism shown in World War I and the concerted efforts of World War II, follow-up studies showed that screening programmes did not succeed in reducing the incidence of psychological casualties. Furthermore, they had a counter-productive effect on manpower, often rejecting men who would have made good soldiers. Continued experimentation with screening methods for psychiatric vulnerability failed to yield convincing results during the post-war period. CONCLUSIONS: Although well-measured variables, such as intelligence, have been shown to predict success in training and aptitude, no instrument has yet been identified which can accurately assess psychological vulnerability. Previous attempts have failed because of false-positives, false-negatives and reluctance in the target population because of stigma. Early findings suggest that psychological surveillance, if not screening, may yield valuable results when applied to military populations exposed to stress.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate attempts in the military to screen for vulnerability to psychological disorders from World War I to the present. METHODS: An extensive literature review was conducted by hand-searching leading medical and psychological journals relating to World Wars I and II. Recent publications were surveyed electronically and UK archives investigated for British applications. RESULTS: Despite the optimism shown in World War I and the concerted efforts of World War II, follow-up studies showed that screening programmes did not succeed in reducing the incidence of psychological casualties. Furthermore, they had a counter-productive effect on manpower, often rejecting men who would have made good soldiers. Continued experimentation with screening methods for psychiatric vulnerability failed to yield convincing results during the post-war period. CONCLUSIONS: Although well-measured variables, such as intelligence, have been shown to predict success in training and aptitude, no instrument has yet been identified which can accurately assess psychological vulnerability. Previous attempts have failed because of false-positives, false-negatives and reluctance in the target population because of stigma. Early findings suggest that psychological surveillance, if not screening, may yield valuable results when applied to military populations exposed to stress.
Authors: David S Fink; M Shayne Gallaway; Marijo B Tamburrino; Israel Liberzon; Philip Chan; Gregory H Cohen; Laura Sampson; Edwin Shirley; Toyomi Goto; Nicole D'Arcangelo; Thomas Fine; Philip L Reed; Joseph R Calabrese; Sandro Galea Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2016-04
Authors: Karen H Seal; Daniel Bertenthal; Shira Maguen; Kristian Gima; Ann Chu; Charles R Marmar Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Richard Herrell; Ioline D Henter; Ramin Mojtabai; John J Bartko; Diane Venable; Ezra Susser; Kathleen R Merikangas; Richard J Wyatt Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2006-07-31 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Robert J Ursano; Steven G Heeringa; Murray B Stein; Sonia Jain; Rema Raman; Xiaoying Sun; Wai Tat Chiu; Lisa J Colpe; Carol S Fullerton; Stephen E Gilman; Irving Hwang; James A Naifeh; Matthew K Nock; Anthony J Rosellini; Nancy A Sampson; Michael Schoenbaum; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Roberto J Rona; Richard Hooper; Margaret Jones; Lisa Hull; Tess Browne; Oded Horn; Dominic Murphy; Matthew Hotopf; Simon Wessely Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-10-05