Excellent synopsis of the study. I like your simple format for evaluation. Once again, monitoring heart rate (HR) or even heart rate variability (HRV) is not a good measure of a stress response. A more reflective measure of stress, and probably more importantly, how quickly a stress response is reduced is to use galvanic skin response (GSR). The company, Neurosmart (www.neurosmartinc.com ) founded by Dr. Balban has developed a small wearable GSR unit that is being used and evaluated by a growing number of agencies. The ability to evaluate an officer’s sympathetic response to a stressful event and monitor how quickly they recover (or don’t) is an important marker for performance effectiveness/safety and health. I’m looking forward to seeing more studies as the use of GSR increases.
GSR (unit available for about $150) is also useful for evaluating appropriate stress levels during representative learning training scenarios, which exposes trainees to relevant perception-action skills. Can’t get local LE agencies to even consider anything beyond flat range targets and useless quals.
Check out mindfield e-sense unit from www.bio-medical.com. Use EEG type electrodes on wrist/forearm. Better than finger electrodes, especially when using hands during training.
There is a consideration that also must be made. We are looking at this situation only from the perspective that the environment was held the same for the officers the assumption on the task being the same for the officers, but each officer comes with different tools. If I am 6'3" 250lbs I have different tools than 5'1" individual I have the visual high ground and finding adequate cover is a challenge. My 5'1" counterpart is not getting the view I have but can find cover better. Training is different, exposure to similar events is different, physical tool (gun, TASER, etc) perceived ability is different. Each officer comes with different levels of skills, abilities, etc. This is not addressed in the study, not sure it could. Ecological dynamics must also consider the participant.
You are spot on Lon! Ecological dynamics is all about the interaction of the person with the environment. A lot of what you are referring to here is covered by the concept of action capacity. You point out some differences in action capacity based on height. Opportunities for action (affordances in EcoD terms) are always an interaction between the person and their environment. I didn't talk much about that here, but I think in the next post, there is more discussion of the issue. The individual differences you mention here are why I believe that training needs to move away from prescribing specific actions to helping the trainee identify relevant goals (intentions) in a given situation and allowing the trainee to determine how they can best achieve those goals given the interaction of their abilities with the situation.
I find it interesting that Graham v. Connor allows for this type of affordance. The standard is a reasonable officer not the average/ideal/standard officer. The force (the action carried out) is a question of could a reasonable officer, based on the totality of the situation, believe the course of action be appropriate in the situation. That totality includes the officers capabilities, skills, equipment, etc. -Just some thoughts.
We definitely do not get enough training. Priority is to keep officers out there, not spending a day on training. If training does come down they're more likely to send the completely incompetent house broom than anyone who would actually use it; that way the Dept is not actually even losing a body on patrol. I bet it's the same all over.
Andy, it is more than getting enough training. It is getting the right training to be able to perform in real-life environments, as noted in the last paragraph. Institutional inertia is always a problem.
Excellent synopsis of the study. I like your simple format for evaluation. Once again, monitoring heart rate (HR) or even heart rate variability (HRV) is not a good measure of a stress response. A more reflective measure of stress, and probably more importantly, how quickly a stress response is reduced is to use galvanic skin response (GSR). The company, Neurosmart (www.neurosmartinc.com ) founded by Dr. Balban has developed a small wearable GSR unit that is being used and evaluated by a growing number of agencies. The ability to evaluate an officer’s sympathetic response to a stressful event and monitor how quickly they recover (or don’t) is an important marker for performance effectiveness/safety and health. I’m looking forward to seeing more studies as the use of GSR increases.
GSR (unit available for about $150) is also useful for evaluating appropriate stress levels during representative learning training scenarios, which exposes trainees to relevant perception-action skills. Can’t get local LE agencies to even consider anything beyond flat range targets and useless quals.
We have been experimenting with several different measures. We'll check out the GSR you mentioned.
Check out mindfield e-sense unit from www.bio-medical.com. Use EEG type electrodes on wrist/forearm. Better than finger electrodes, especially when using hands during training.
There is a consideration that also must be made. We are looking at this situation only from the perspective that the environment was held the same for the officers the assumption on the task being the same for the officers, but each officer comes with different tools. If I am 6'3" 250lbs I have different tools than 5'1" individual I have the visual high ground and finding adequate cover is a challenge. My 5'1" counterpart is not getting the view I have but can find cover better. Training is different, exposure to similar events is different, physical tool (gun, TASER, etc) perceived ability is different. Each officer comes with different levels of skills, abilities, etc. This is not addressed in the study, not sure it could. Ecological dynamics must also consider the participant.
You are spot on Lon! Ecological dynamics is all about the interaction of the person with the environment. A lot of what you are referring to here is covered by the concept of action capacity. You point out some differences in action capacity based on height. Opportunities for action (affordances in EcoD terms) are always an interaction between the person and their environment. I didn't talk much about that here, but I think in the next post, there is more discussion of the issue. The individual differences you mention here are why I believe that training needs to move away from prescribing specific actions to helping the trainee identify relevant goals (intentions) in a given situation and allowing the trainee to determine how they can best achieve those goals given the interaction of their abilities with the situation.
I find it interesting that Graham v. Connor allows for this type of affordance. The standard is a reasonable officer not the average/ideal/standard officer. The force (the action carried out) is a question of could a reasonable officer, based on the totality of the situation, believe the course of action be appropriate in the situation. That totality includes the officers capabilities, skills, equipment, etc. -Just some thoughts.
We definitely do not get enough training. Priority is to keep officers out there, not spending a day on training. If training does come down they're more likely to send the completely incompetent house broom than anyone who would actually use it; that way the Dept is not actually even losing a body on patrol. I bet it's the same all over.
Andy, it is more than getting enough training. It is getting the right training to be able to perform in real-life environments, as noted in the last paragraph. Institutional inertia is always a problem.