OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to pilot the iCOVER curriculum-a training product designed to teach service members how to recognize and respond to acute stress reactions (ASRs) using a simple, 6-step procedure, iCOVER. Three goals guided the pilot: (a) assess training acceptability, (b) assess impact of training on knowledge and performance of the iCOVER procedure, and (c) explore the effects of in-person and computer-simulated practical exercises. METHOD:Six military squads (N = 66) were randomly assigned to 3 conditions: iCOVERStandard (iCOVER instruction with an in-person practical exercise), iCOVER Tech (iCOVER instruction with a computer-simulated practical exercise), or Control (no iCOVER instruction). Squads in the iCOVER conditions received iCOVER instruction, completed a knowledge test and practical exercise to which they were assigned (i.e., Standard or Tech), demonstrated their iCOVER skills in live-action scenarios, and reported their perceptions of the training. RESULTS:iCOVER training was acceptable to most participants and associated with improved knowledge about iCOVER (Mpre = 3.33 vs. Mpost = 5.15; t[42] = -7.61, p < .001, d = 1.41); iCOVER Standard resulted in more iCOVER behaviors during a live-action scenario compared with the other conditions, F(2, 35) = 13.36, p < .001, η2 = 0.43. Compared with iCOVER Tech, iCOVER Standard had greater acceptability and resulted in better performance of iCOVER. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first U.S. demonstration of a training program designed to address ASRs during high-risk operations and offers a potential way ahead for preparing military teams to manage ASRs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to pilot the iCOVER curriculum-a training product designed to teach service members how to recognize and respond to acute stress reactions (ASRs) using a simple, 6-step procedure, iCOVER. Three goals guided the pilot: (a) assess training acceptability, (b) assess impact of training on knowledge and performance of the iCOVER procedure, and (c) explore the effects of in-person and computer-simulated practical exercises. METHOD: Six military squads (N = 66) were randomly assigned to 3 conditions: iCOVER Standard (iCOVER instruction with an in-person practical exercise), iCOVER Tech (iCOVER instruction with a computer-simulated practical exercise), or Control (no iCOVER instruction). Squads in the iCOVER conditions received iCOVER instruction, completed a knowledge test and practical exercise to which they were assigned (i.e., Standard or Tech), demonstrated their iCOVER skills in live-action scenarios, and reported their perceptions of the training. RESULTS: iCOVER training was acceptable to most participants and associated with improved knowledge about iCOVER (Mpre = 3.33 vs. Mpost = 5.15; t[42] = -7.61, p < .001, d = 1.41); iCOVER Standard resulted in more iCOVER behaviors during a live-action scenario compared with the other conditions, F(2, 35) = 13.36, p < .001, η2 = 0.43. Compared with iCOVER Tech, iCOVER Standard had greater acceptability and resulted in better performance of iCOVER. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first U.S. demonstration of a training program designed to address ASRs during high-risk operations and offers a potential way ahead for preparing military teams to manage ASRs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).