Search

Objective: The present study examined the effectiveness of after-action reviews (AARs; also known as debriefing) in mitigating skill decay. Background: Research on the long-term effectiveness of AARs is meager. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted an experimental study that also overcomes some research design issues that characterize the limited extant research. Method: Eighty-four participants were randomly assigned to an AAR or non-AAR condition and trained to operate a PC-based fire emergency simulator. During the initial acquisition phase, individuals in the AAR condition were allowed to review their performance after each practice session, whereas individuals in the non-AAR condition completed a filler task. About 12 weeks later, participants returned to the lab to complete four additional practice sessions using a similar scenario (i.e., the retention and reacquisition phase). Results: The performance of participants in the AAR condition degraded more after nonuse but also recovered faster than the performance of participants in the non-AAR condition, although these effects were fairly small and not statistically significant. Conclusion: Consistent with the limited research on the long-term effectiveness of AARs, our findings failed to support their effectiveness as a decay-prevention intervention. Because the present study was conducted in a laboratory setting using a relatively small sample of undergraduate students, additional research is warranted. Application: Based on the results of the present study, we suggest some additional strategies that trainers might consider to support long-term skill retention when using AARs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although safety climate research has increased in recent years, persisting conceptual ambiguity not only raises questions about what safety climate really is—as operationalized in the literature—but also inhibits increased scientific understanding of the construct. Consequently, using climate theory and research as a conceptual basis, we inductively articulated safety climate's general content domain by identifying seven core indicators of safety's perceived workplace priority: leader safety commitment, safety communication, safety training, coworker safety practices, safety equipment and housekeeping, safety involvement, and safety rewards. These indicators formed the basis for a generalized safety climate measure that we designed for use across organizations, industries, and construct levels. We then conducted a multilevel construct validation of safety climate using the newly created measure in two separate studies. Results from five samples spanning multiple organizations, industries, and cultural settings revealed that the identified safety climate indicators were parsimoniously explained by an overarching safety climate factor at the individual and workgroup levels. In addition, multilevel homology tests indicated that safety climate's associations with past safety incidents were nearly two times stronger at the workgroup level relative to the individual level, although this difference was not statistically significant. Finally, workgroup-level validity evidence demonstrated expected associations between safety climate and organization-reported pre- and postsurvey safety incidents. On the basis of this supportive evidence, we recommend that this conceptualization and measure of safety climate be adopted in research and practice to facilitate future scientific progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]