Surface Warfare Officer Human Factors Attitudes Questionnaire

Abstract

The Surface Warfare Officer Human Factors Attitudes Questionnaire (SWOHFAQ) is a psychometric instrument designed to assess the attitudes of Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) in the U.S. Navy regarding critical human factors associated with operational safety and high-risk environments. Adapted from the 22-item Naval Aviator Human Factors (NAHF) questionnaire, the SWOHFAQ evaluates attitudes across four core dimensions related to stress management, communication effectiveness, teamwork, and command responsibility. This instrument is utilized to identify attitudinal risks and gauge the efficacy of specialized training, such as Bridge Resource Management (BRM).

Keywords

Surface Warfare Officer, Human Factors, Naval Psychology, Bridge Resource Management, Attitude Assessment, Crew Resource Management, U.S. Navy, Operational Safety, O’Connor.

Authors

O’Connor, P.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SWOHFAQ is to quantitatively evaluate the psychological and operational attitudes held by Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) concerning human factors known to contribute to mishaps in maritime operations. This assessment tool is crucial for identifying attitudinal risks and evaluating the effectiveness of safety training programs, specifically those targeting crew coordination and resource management.

By measuring attitudes toward individual stress, team communication, and leadership responsibilities, the scale helps naval commands understand how officers perceive their roles in mitigating operational risk and fostering effective teamwork on the bridge and during complex underway operations in high-risk environments.

Construct

The SWOHFAQ is constructed around four distinct psychological domains, reflecting critical aspects of crew and individual performance in high-stress, high-risk operational settings. These factors were derived through adaptation from the Naval Aviator Human Factors (NAHF) scale and subsequently validated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

• My Stress: This factor measures the officer’s awareness of and willingness to consider and compensate for personal stressors and fatigue in oneself during critical operations.
• Stress of Others: This dimension assesses the officer’s consideration of, and proactive compensation for, stress, fatigue, and workload issues affecting other team members.
• Communication: This encompasses attitudes toward effective communication practices, including the clear conveyance of intent and plans, appropriate delegation of tasks, assignment of responsibilities, and the active monitoring of team performance.
• Command Responsibility: This focuses on attitudes related to appropriate leadership, delegation of tasks and responsibilities, and the implications of command decisions for overall team effectiveness and safety.

Validity

The instrument’s structural validity is supported by its derivation from the established Naval Aviator Human Factors (NAHF) questionnaire, which targets critical safety constructs applicable across high-reliability organizations. The adaptation process for SWOs ensures content relevance within the maritime operational context.

The structural validity was empirically confirmed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), which established a robust four-factor structure for the SWO data set. This four-factor model was found to be broadly consistent with the psychometric structure observed in the original naval aviator population, supporting the construct validity for the surface warfare domain.

Reliability

Specific detailed reliability coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) for the SWOHFAQ were not explicitly detailed in the provided primary source material. However, the rigor applied during the adaptation and validation process, including the use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to refine the factor structure, suggests an effort toward establishing internal consistency and structural reliability necessary for attitude assessment in a military setting.

Factor Analysis

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on the data collected from Surface Warfare Officers to test the fit of the proposed four-factor model. The analysis successfully confirmed that a four-factor structure provided the best fit for the data, supporting the constructs of My Stress, Stress of Others, Communication, and Command Responsibility.

The refinement process involved the iterative removal of items that did not load cleanly onto the intended factors. Specifically, items 7, 15, 18, and 19 were discarded from the original pool of items used for the revised 22-item scale to achieve a clean and psychometrically sound factor structure suitable for the SWO population.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitude assessment questionnaire; Psychometric scale.

Format: Self-report Likert-type scale (5-point agreement scale).

Language Available: English (U.S. context).

Population Group: Military Professionals; High-Reliability Organization personnel.

Age Group: Adult (Active duty officers).

Population Details: Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) in the U.S. Navy, specifically officers with responsibility for operating ships in high-risk work environments.

Test Methodology: Survey administration requiring respondents to indicate their level of agreement (Disagree Strongly to Agree Strongly) with operational and attitudinal statements related to human factors.

Keywords

U.S. Navy, operational safety, leadership attitudes, crew resource management, stress management, psychometric assessment, high-risk environment, Naval Aviator Human Factors.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Circa 2011 (Based on primary publication date).

Permissions and Fee: Information regarding current licensing, fees, or permissions for the scale’s use is not provided in the primary reference. Users interested in administering the scale should contact the author, O’Connor, or the publishing journal, the International Journal of Aviation Psychology, for current usage guidelines.

Reference’s

• O’Connor, P. (2011). An evaluation of the effectiveness of bridge resource management training. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(4), 357–374.

Items of the Surface Warfare Officer Human Factors Attitudes Questionnaire

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

HUMAN FACTORS IN THE SURFACE WARFARE OFFICER

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

1. Even when fatigued, I perform effectively during critical operations.
2. I let other members of my watch team know when my workload is becoming (or is about to become) excessive.
3. When underway, my decision-making is just as effective in emergency situations as in normal operations.
4. I am more likely to make judgment errors in an emergency.
5. A debriefing after each watch is an important part of developing and maintaining effective teamwork.
6. In abnormal situations, I rely on my superiors to tell me what to do.
7. Truly professional Surface Warfare Officers can leave personal problems behind during underway operations.
8. I am less effective when I feel stressed or fatigued.
9. My performance is adversely affected by working with an inexperienced or less capable member of the watch team.
10. If I perceive a problem during underway operations, I will speak up, regardless of who might be affected.
11. Pre-briefs for underway operations are important for safety and effective teamwork.
12. I let members in my chain of command know when my workload is becoming (or is about to become) excessive.
13. Members of my watch team should monitor each other for signs of stress or fatigue.
14. Junior officers should not question the Officer of the Deck’s decisions in emergencies.
15. Personal problems can adversely affect my performance.
16. Watch members should not question actions of the Commanding Officer, except when they threaten the safety of the ship.
17. Members of my watch should mention their stress or physical problems before assuming, or during, the watch.
18. The Officer of the Deck should take physical control and drive the ship in emergency and non-standard situations.
19. Effective crew coordination requires the watch team to consider the personal work styles of other team members.
20. Good communications and crew coordination are important as technical proficiency.
21. The watch team members should alert others to their actual, or potential, work overload.
22. A true professional does not make mistakes.
23. The specific and responsibilities of the watch team in an emergency are identified during the pre-brief.
24. Written procedures are necessary for all underway operations.
25. The watch team should be aware of, and sensitive to, the personal problems of other team members.
26. Junior officers should not question the Officer of the Deck’s decisions during normal operations.
27. Junior officers should not question the Commanding Officer’s decisions in emergencies.
28. It is better to agree with other crew members than to voice a different opinion.
29. Commanding Officers who encourage suggestions from ship’s crew are weak leaders.
30. The Commanding Officer should take physical control and drive the ship in emergency and non-standard situations.
31. The Officer of the Deck driving the ship should verbalize plans for procedures or maneuvers and should be sure that the information is understood and acknowledged by other crew members.
32. Watch members should not question actions of the Officer of the Deck, except when they threaten the safety of the ship.
33. Crew members share responsibility for prioritizing activities in high workload situations.
34. There are no circumstances (except total incapacitation) where the Conning officer should assume control of the bridge.
35. Officers of the Deck who encourage suggestions from ship’s crew are weak leaders.
36. Junior officers should not question the Commanding Officer’s decisions during normal operations.
37. How frequently in your most recent watch team are junior personnel afraid to express disagreement with more senior personnel (please circle below)?Very frequently
    Frequently
    Sometimes
    Seldom
    Very seldom
38. Have you attended Bridge Resource Management training (please circle your response)?

Yes                        No

Background Information.

Please circle the appropriate response.

Last Ship            Destroyer            Frigate                  Amphibious       Carrier

Last Ship            Operations          Engineering          Combat       Executive

How many years have you been a Surface Warfare Officer