Extreme Teams: A Training Needs Analysis for Long-duration Spaceflight
W. L. Bedwell,
1
K. Smith-Jentsch,
2
S. J. Weaver,
3
M. J. Sierra,
2
S. M. Fiore,
4
A. Dietz,
3
D. Carter-Berenson,
2
J. Ogelsby,
3
& E. Salas
3
1
Department of Psychology, Institute for Simulation & Training, Univ. of Central Florida,
3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826, wbedwell@ist.ucf.edu,
2
Department of Psychology, Univ. of Central Florida, 4000 Central Fl Blvd, Orlando, FL 32816-1390,
3
Department of Psychology, Institute for Simulation & Training, Univ. of Central Florida,
3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826,
4
Department of Philosophy, Institute for Simulation & Training, Univ. of Central Florida,
3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826.
**NOTE: Please consider for a MONDAY session due to schedule constraints of presenters
Much research has focused on the physical needs of space exploration crews; yet, less attention has been given to their psychological/social adjustment and performance. Team cohesion factors, however, were noted contributors in both the Challenger and Columbia shuttle accidents. Thus, there is a clear need to understand long-duration spaceflight (LDSF) demands to optimize performance.
Future extreme-duration explorations (e.g., Mars) will break previous records for duration, confinement, and isolation
[1]
.
Thus, it is necessary to determine the best strategies for: (1) equipping crewmembers with cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal tools for successful performance, and (2) unobtrusively monitoring crew adaptation over time. The current work summarizes one component of a three-year effort to enhance our understanding of these issues. Specifically, this qualitative study summarizes results of 12 semi-structured LDSF astronaut interviews, conducted for a team training needs analysis
[2,3]
. Interviewees described experiences on MIR and the ISS related to team coordination, communication, cohesion, performance, leadership, and stress. Participants also discussed team, task, and physical/social/organizational environment characteristics, drawing comparisons to planned extremeduration exploration missions. Content analysis
[4,5,6]
was utilized to derive core themes from transcribed interview data.
Several themes emerged, such as task (task interdependence
[7]
, team task variability
[8]
, team membership variability
[9]
, and team composition/diversity), person (surface- [i.e., gender, military/civilian background, national culture] and deep-level characteristics [i.e., personality, family orientation, & collective orientation]), and organizational themes (timing of training, training type, teamwork/taskwork feedback, competition, and differential reinforcement contingencies). Overall, results suggest that training must focus on developing team self-correction, adaptability, inter-positional knowledge, shared task expectations, and cohesion. Teams vary on several dimensions that impact the degree to which team training strategies
[9]
and team building strategies
[10,11]
are likely to be effective.
Results suggest that guided team self-correction, structured team debriefing strategies, on-site coaching, crosstraining, and team building exercises are strategies that can be used to effectively develop relevant competencies.
REFERENCES
[1] Ailing A., Nelson M., Silverstone S., and Thillo M. (2002) Life support & biosphere sci, 8(2), 71-82.
[2] Goldstein I. L. and Ford K. (2002) Training in Orgs: Needs assess, dev, and eval (4th ed.).
[3] McGehee W., and Thayer P. (1961) Training in bus and indus.
[4] Bachiochi P. D., and Weiner S. P. (2004) In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Hdbk of Res Meths in I-O Psyc
[5] Krippendorff K. (2004) Content analysis: An intro to its meth.
[6] Potter W. J. & Levine-Donnerstein D. (1999) J of Appl Comm Res, 27, 258-284.
[7] Saavedra R., Earley P., and Van Dyne L. (1993) J of Appl Psyc, 78, 61-72.
[8] Aguinis H., and Kraiger K. (2009) Ann Rev of Psyc, 60, 451-474.
[9] Salas E., DiazGranados D., Klein C., et al. (2008) Hum Factors, 50, 903-933.
[10] Klein C., DiazGranados D., Salas E., et al. (2009) Small Grp Res, 40, 181-222.
[11] Salas E., Rozell D., Mullen B., and Driskell J. E. (1999) Small Grp Res, 30, 309-329.