Ten years of continuous war — characterized by multiple deployments, elusive guerilla adversaries, and occupied populations seemingly more tilted toward resentment than gratitude — have taken a significant toll on US troops. In addition to those who have been killed, physically maimed, or neurologically impaired by combat, many soldiers have experienced debilitating psychological disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Large numbers are on antidepressants and other psychotropic medications, while the suicide rate among troops has risen to alarming levels.<\/p>\n
The sobering realities of the psychological effects of war pose a serious challenge for the US military tasked with simultaneously fighting multiple wars and anticipating years of \u201cpersistent conflict\u201d ahead. The good news is that key sectors within the military have now identified the mental health of our troops as a major issue that must be addressed. Indeed, in addition to treatment for those suffering psychological impairment, the military leadership is pursuing intervention efforts aimed at preventing<\/em> such adverse outcomes by increasing soldiers\u2019 psychological resilience to combat exposure. The largest of these new initiatives is the Army\u2019s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program, launched in 2009 and based upon the \u201cpositive psychology\u201d framework of psychologist Martin Seligman. And that brings us to the bad news: despite the over-hyped claims of CSF\u2019s leading proponents, at this point there is little evidence to suggest that CSF works.<\/p>\n Since its inception, CSF has been the target of numerous criticisms from psychologists and others, including an article, \u201cThe Dark Side of Comprehensive Soldier Fitness<\/a>,\u201d we co-authored with colleague Marc Pilisuk last year, a series of critical comments published in the October 2011 issue of the American Psychologist<\/em>, and criticism voiced on PBS NewsHour<\/a>. Concerns raised by critics span a wide range of significant issues (and led to Congressional inquiries last year): the questionable empirical evidence behind the rapid creation and implementation of CSF; indications that CSF is actually a research study involuntarily imposed upon troops without appropriate protections such as independent ethical review and informed consent; the possibility that CSF may distract attention from addressing the documented adverse effects of multiple and lengthy deployments and high levels of combat exposure; potential negative effects of CSF, common in prevention programs, that have not been carefully considered or monitored; concerns as to whether the \u201cspirituality\u201d component of CSF is inappropriately promoting religion; the insufficient examination of ethical questions posed by efforts to build \u201cindomitable\u201d soldiers; issues concerning the awarding of a $31 million no-bid contract to Seligman\u2019s positive psychology center at the University of Pennsylvania for CSF development; and the seemingly uncritical embrace and promotion of CSF by the American Psychological Association (of which Seligman is a past president).<\/p>\n Recently we identified yet another deeply problematic issue with the CSF program: The research evaluating the program is of questionable quality and it does not<\/em> support the strong claims being made about CSF\u2019s effectiveness. Most notably, last December CSF researchers released a report, \u201cReport #3: Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Master Resilience Training on Self-Reported Resilience and Psychological Health Data,\u201d<\/a> purporting to demonstrate that CSF \u201cworks.\u201d On the report\u2019s first page, the researchers boldly assert: \u201cThere is now sound scientific evidence that Comprehensive Soldier Fitness improves the resilience and psychological health of Soldiers.\u201d And, in a prefatory statement to the report, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli writes: \u201cI and other Army senior leaders are often asked if it [CSF] really works \u2013 if it actually makes Soldiers more resilient and psychologically healthier. I believe the answer is yes.\u201d<\/p>\n The Army News Service<\/a> quickly and broadly disseminated the \u201cnews\u201d this way: \u201cThe Master Resilience Training aspect of Comprehensive Soldier Fitness is working well. That\u2019s the conclusion of an Army report, released last month, covering a 15-month period of statistical evaluation.\u201d This summary has appeared on dozens of websites, including the official websites of the U.S. Army, the CSF program, the Army National Guard, the U.S. Army magazine Soldiers<\/em>, and the Fort Hood Sentinel.<\/em><\/p>\n Report #3 assesses the Master Resilience Trainer component of CSF. After undergoing an intensive 10-day training course, each newly-minted \u201cMaster Resilience Trainer\u201d is placed in an Army unit. Trainers are charged with equipping fellow soldiers with thinking skills and strategies intended to help them more effectively handle the physical and psychological challenges of military life, including, most especially, combat operations.<\/p>\n In our report released this week, \u201cDoes Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Work? CSF Research Fails the Test,\u201d<\/a> we critique Report #3 in detail and identify five major areas of weakness: (1) the researchers\u2019 failure to measure the important outcomes of PTSD, depression, or other psychological disorders despite the availability of validated measures for doing so, (2) a flawed research design that fails to control for important confounding variables, (3) significant problems with the method of data analysis, (4) the researchers\u2019 failure to acknowledge plausible risks of harm from the CSF intervention, and (5) a miscellaneous set of related issues of concern. (While much of our report addresses issues of research design and methodology, we have aimed to make it as accessible as possible to the broader public.)<\/p>\n Based upon our careful analysis of Report #3, we believe that the claims of CSF proponents regarding the program\u2019s effectiveness are vastly inflated. We therefore call upon the Army to retract this report or, at a minimum, issue an unambiguous and widely disseminated statement acknowledging that the report is seriously flawed and that, as a result, the verdict is still out as to whether CSF actually \u201cworks.\u201d<\/p>\n In making this recommendation we fully recognize that large-scale evaluation research is an intrinsically difficult undertaking inevitably imperfect in its execution. However, the public that has paid over $100 million for the CSF program and, even more, the one million soldiers who are involuntarily subjected to CSF\u2019s resiliency training deserve much better than the misrepresentations of effectiveness aggressively promoted by Report #3.<\/p>\n Certainly, the psychological health of our nation\u2019s soldiers, and of all citizens, should be a top priority. As a country we must commit ourselves to addressing the alarming rates of PTSD, suicide, and other serious behavioral and emotional difficulties among our troops, especially those repeatedly exposed to the horrors of combat and war. But it is simply wrong at this time to present CSF as part of a solution, because to date there is no solid empirical evidence demonstrating that the program accomplishes any of these lofty goals.<\/p>\n Note<\/em>: This article draws upon material in our report \u201cDoes Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Work? CSF Research Fails the Test.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist member of TRANSCEND and the president of Eidelson Consulting<\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/a>, associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>. Roy can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis, and past-president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/a>. He has conducted extensive research on psychosocial prevention and treatment interventions. He edits the Psyche, Science, and Society<\/a> blog and is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>, one of the organizations working to change American Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive interrogations. Stephen can be reached at ssoldz@bgsp.edu<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a report released today [4 Jun 2012] by the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, two psychologists call upon the US Army to retract or publicly correct a recent research report that claims the Army\u2019s $140 million Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) resilience program \u201cworks.\u201d The psychologists Roy Eidelson and Stephen Soldz argue that the study design is flawed and that the results do not justify the researchers\u2019 favorable conclusions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-transcend-members"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}