Naval Aviator Human Factors Questionnaire

Abstract

The Naval Aviator Human Factors (NAHF) Questionnaire is a specialized psychological instrument designed to assess the attitudes of naval aviators concerning the critical team skills necessary for safe and effective operational performance. Developed as an adaptation of the civilian-focused Cockpit Management Attitude Questionnaire (CMAQ; Gregorich et al., 1990), the NAHF tailors language and context specifically for the naval aviation environment. Initially comprising 31 items, the scale measures five key dimensions related to crew resource management, including personal stress, communication effectiveness, and command responsibility. The instrument is primarily used within the U.S. Navy’s crew resource management program evaluation.

Keywords

Naval Aviation, Human Factors, Crew Resource Management, CRM, Pilot Attitudes, Team Performance, Stress Management, Aviation Safety, Questionnaire, Psychometric Scale.

Authors

O’Connor, P., Jones, D., McCauley, M., & Buttrey, S.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Naval Aviator Human Factors (NAHF) Questionnaire is to systematically assess the attitudes of naval aviators towards essential team skills required for maintaining safe and highly effective performance in complex operational environments. It functions as a diagnostic tool, providing insights into an individual’s disposition regarding crucial non-technical skills such as communication, stress recognition, and leadership delegation.

This assessment is crucial for evaluating the efficacy of training programs, specifically the U.S. Navy’s Crew Resource Management (CRM) program. By measuring attitudinal changes, the NAHF helps determine whether aviators are internalizing the principles of effective crew coordination and risk mitigation, thereby enhancing overall safety and operational effectiveness.

Construct

The NAHF measures attitudes across five distinct, yet interrelated, psychological constructs pertinent to high-reliability aviation environments. These constructs align closely with established principles of crew resource management (CRM) and focus on the non-technical skills essential for mitigating human error and optimizing team performance.

The five hypothesized dimensions, initially comprising 31 items, were structured as follows:

• My Stress: A 6-item scale emphasizing the consideration of, and possible compensation for, personal stressors. (Note: 3 items were later dropped during factor analysis due to low reliability.)
• Stress of Others: A 6-item scale focusing on the consideration of, and possible compensation for, stressors in other team members.
• Communication: A 6-item scale encompassing the communication of intent and plans, delegation of tasks, assignment of responsibilities, and the monitoring of crew members.
• Command Responsibility: A 9-item scale including the notion of appropriate leadership and its implications for the delegation of tasks and responsibilities. (Note: 4 items were later dropped during factor analysis due to low reliability.)
• Rules and Order: A 4-item subscale concerned with adherence to operational rules and procedures. (Note: This entire scale was later dropped due to low reliability.)

Validity

The initial development process of the NAHF ensured high face validity through extensive consultation with 20 experienced naval aviators, who provided feedback on the language and contextual relevance of the items adapted from the civilian CMAQ. This ensured that the instrument was meaningful and appropriate for the target population.

However, the source material indicates challenges related to construct validity during the subsequent psychometric evaluation. Statistical analysis led to the systematic removal of items that did not contribute effectively to the underlying constructs. A total of nine items were discarded due to excessive skewness or kurtosis, or poor factor reliability. An additional three items were discarded during the subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) process, demonstrating an effort by the authors to achieve a more robust and statistically valid factor structure.

Reliability

The reliability of the NAHF scales, as measured by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, though specific values are not provided), was found to be relatively low. The authors noted that low reliability values are sometimes typical for this type of attitudinal questionnaire, particularly when adapting instruments across different high-stakes professional domains.

The observed poor reliability necessitated substantial pruning of the scale. The entire “Rules and Order” subscale was dropped because of low reliability. Furthermore, item reduction based on reliability criteria occurred within the “My Stress” scale (3 items removed) and the “Command Responsibility” scale (4 items removed), resulting in a significantly shorter final instrument with a modified factor structure designed to improve internal consistency.

Factor Analysis

The development of the NAHF involved a crucial process of factor analysis to refine the initial 31-item pool and confirm the hypothesized dimensional structure. Initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) resulted in the removal of nine items that displayed poor reliability or unsuitable statistical properties (excessive skewness or kurtosis).

Further testing, including the application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), led to the removal of three additional items. Critically, the “Rules and Order” subscale was entirely eliminated due to insufficient factor reliability. This iterative process confirmed that the final scale structure, while rooted in the original CRM concepts, was a significantly refined and reduced set of items compared to the initial draft, ensuring a better fit for the naval aviation context.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitudinal Questionnaire / Self-Report Scale

Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital survey utilizing a Likert-type response format, supplemented by one frequency-based item.

Language Available: English (Specific to U.S. Naval Aviation terminology)

Population Group: Professional Military Personnel

Age Group: Adult (Specific to active duty military aviators)

Population Details: U.S. Naval Aviators, typically those involved in operational flight duties or undergoing Crew Resource Management training.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement with various statements concerning team skills and situational awareness using a 5-point scale ranging from “Disagree Strongly” to “Agree Strongly.”

Keywords

Attitude Assessment, Human Factors in Aviation, Naval Aviators, Operational Stress, Leadership Attitudes, Team Coordination, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Psychometrics, O’Connor.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Developed and validated circa 2009–2012, based on the key publication dates.

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding current intellectual property permissions or administration fees is not provided in the source material. Given its development within the context of U.S. military research (U.S. Navy), usage may be restricted or specific to governmental/academic collaboration.

Reference’s

O’Connor, P., Jones, D., McCauley, M., & Buttrey, S. (2012). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the U.S Navy’s crew resource management program. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1(1), 21-40.

O’Connor, P. & Jones, D. (2009 September). The crew resource management attitudes of U.S. Naval aviators. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society conference, San Antonio, TX.

Gregorich, S. E., Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1990). The Cockpit Management Attitude Questionnaire (CMAQ). This civilian aviation centric tool served as the original foundation for the NAHF adaptation.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Naval Aviator Human Factors Questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Please answer the following items by using the following scale in writing your response beside each item:

• I let other team members know when my workload is becoming (or is about to become) excessive.
• My decision making ability is as good in emergencies as it is in routine situations.
• I am more likely to make judgment errors in an emergency.
• A regular debriefing of procedures and decisions after an theatre session or shift is an important part of developing and maintaining effective team co-ordination.
• In critical situations, I rely on my superiors to tell me what to do.
• I am less effective when stressed or fatigued.
• If I perceive a problem with the management of a patient, I will speak up, regardless of who might be affected.
• The pre-session team briefing is important for safety and for effective team management.
• Team members should monitor each other for signs of stress or tiredness.
• Personal problems can adversely affect my performance.
• Team members should feel obligated to mention their own psychological stress or physical problems to other theatre personnel before or during a shift or assignment.
• Good communication and team coordination are as important as technical proficiency for patient safety.
• Effective crew coordination requires team members to consider the personal work styles of others
• Team members should alert others to their actual, or potential, work overload.
• The specific roles and responsibilities of aircrew in an emergency are identified during the preflight brief.
• Team members should be aware of, and sensitive to, the personal problems of other team members.
• Junior theatre team members should not question the decisions made by senior personnel in emergencies.
• The senior person, if available, should take over and make all decisions in life threatening emergencies.
• Team members in charge should verbalize plans for procedures or actions and should be sure that the information is understood and acknowledged by others.
• Team members should not question the decisions or actions of senior staff except when they threaten the safety of the operation.
• There are no circumstances where a junior team member should assume control of patient management.
• Junior theatre team members should not question the decisions made by senior personnel during routine situations.
• How frequently are junior personnel afraid to express disagreement with more senior personnel (please circle below)?

• Very frequently
• Frequently
• Sometimes
• Seldom
• Very seldom