Development of an evidence-based swimming representative military task to assess swimming competency in the British Army

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is a requirement for British Army personnel to operate in/around water. Assessing role-related swimming/water competence will support personnel to conduct their job-roles safely and effectively.

OBJECTIVE:

To undertake a Job-Task Analysis (JTA) of British Army personnel when working in/around water and use this information to develop a Swimming Representative Military Task (RMT) to assess swimming/water competence.

METHODS:

Workshops, surveys, and observations were used to conduct a JTA, which identified and described job-tasks conducted by British Army personnel in/around water. Ergonomic analysis of these job-tasks identified seven water-based physical actions, which were considered fundamental for all personnel to be competent in performing. These seven actions guided design of a Swimming RMT, which was subsequently conducted twice by 103 serving personnel (89 men, 11 women) and once by 65 recruits (49 men, 16 women).

RESULTS:

The RMT comprised of entering the water in combat fatigues and webbing, removing webbing, swimming 50 m, and staying afloat for up to 10 minutes. During RMT trials, in trial 1, 85% of serving personnel and 74% of recruits successfully completed the RMT, which increased to 93% in serving personnel for trial 2. Across trials 1 and 2, all three timed RMT elements showed moderate-high correlational reliability (ICC range: 0.462–0.791). On average, serving personnel were quicker to complete the 50 m swim phase compared to recruits (91±24 s vs. 100±26 s; U = 2575.0, r_b = –0.192, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS:

The JTA-informed Swimming RMT provides an assessment of the minimum role-related swimming/water competence standard for British Army personnel.

Keywords

Swimming task performance and analysis human factors work performance physical performance military personnel

1 Introduction

The British Army implemented new Physical Employment Standards (PES) for Ground Close Combat (GCC) and non-GCC roles in 2019 and 2021, respectively. These PES, termed Role Fitness Test (RFT) by the British Army, are used at the point of entry, during basic training, and annually in-service. The development of these PES were informed by a Job-Task Analysis (JTA) which quantified the physically demanding job-tasks conducted by British Army personnel. The implementation of PES requires balancing fidelity (i.e., replication of the job-tasks performed in a role) with feasibility (i.e., the practicalities of administering the PES tests) [1]. A role-related swimming assessment was not included as part of the main British Army PES, due to time constraints of the research programme. Therefore, this requirement was revisited after the conclusion of the main PES research.

The British Army predominantly operates on land, however there is still a requirement for personnel to conduct job-tasks in and/or around water (e.g., river-crossings, bridge-building), where there is the possibility of adverse events (e.g. drowning) to occur following intentional or unintentional immersion in water. Ensuring that personnel have the competence to both perform tasks and survive if they enter the water when conducting their job-tasks will contribute to mission success. The implementation of PES are intended to reduce the likelihood of injury or adverse events and increase the physical capability of a workforce [2]. As such, the British Army recognised that implementing a regular swimming competency assessment aligned to relevant in-service role-related job-tasks had the potential to reduce the risk of adverse events and improve operational effectiveness. Stallman et al. [3], recommends a focus should be placed on swimming/water competency, encompassing basic swimming skill/demonstration of fundamental aquatic movements, which alongside water safety knowledge, is evidenced as sufficient to prevent most adverse events (i.e. drowning episodes). The approach to meet these outcomes was addressed in the present study by following an established framework to construct defensible physical standards for employment based on the requirements of the job-role [4, 5].

Prior to the present study being conducted, the British Army assessed swimming competency for several decades through the Military Swim Test (MST) and Combat-MST. The MST was required to be conducted once during a person’s career (typically during basic training). Conducted wearing swimming costume/shorts, the MST comprises of a standing jump from the side of the pool into water, treading water for 2 minutes, swimming 100 m using a recognised forward-facing stroke before leaving the water by climbing, unaided, over the poolside. In contrast, the Combat-MST is not mandatory and instead designed to assess self-reliance of personnel when crossing still water obstacles. In short, participants are required to wear issued combat fatigues (no helmet or boots) and create a waterproof flotation pack using their issued rucksack. Participants commence the test by entering the water safely and swimming 50 m with the floatation pack, removing the floatation pack and treading water for 2 minutes, before swimming a further 50 m. Whilst elements of the MST and Combat-MST reflect military swimming requirements, no documented evidence base has been identified to underpin these test protocols, which is a critical component of PES development.

Despite swimming competency being identified as an essential military skill [5], no other military swim tests have been developed internationally using the PES process and reported in the peer-reviewed literature. However, the PES process has been utilised in the development of swimming-based assessments for beach lifeguards [7] and specialist paramedics [8 –10]. The swimming/water-based assessments in these PES differed considerably, likely due to the differences in job-role requirements, resources and logistical considerations of each of the organisations for which they were developed. For example, in the study by Siddall et al. [10], the simulation of the swift-water rescue by specialist paramedics was a resisted swim where participants (in normal swim attire), swam 25 m in an indoor swimming pool while wearing a resistance parachute. In contrast, for paramedics performing life-saving helicopter winch rescue tasks in water, the task assessment required participants to swim 50 m to recover a 50 kg manikin from a life raft and tow it 25 m to a platform [8].

Given the paucity of literature regarding the development of occupational swimming/water-based assessments using a PES process and the requirement to document the role related requirements of British Army personnel when operating in and/or around water, the aims of the current study were to: 1) undertake a JTA to document the job-tasks where British Army personnel are required to work in and/or around water; 2) design a new Swimming Representative Military Task (RMT) informed by the JTA; 3) measure individual best-effort performance of serving British Army personnel and recruits undertaking the Swimming RMT; and 4) quantify the test re-test reliability of the new Swimming RMT.

2 Methods

2.1 General approach

The approach adopted in the present study to develop a role-related swimming assessment followed best practice methodology for developing PES as described in the scientific literature [4, 5]. Prior to the start of the research, a group of stakeholders and military subject-matter experts (SMEs) articulated the organisational requirement and then provided oversight and assurance throughout the research, including making key decisions at Military Judgement Panels (MJPs). In brief, the research was initiated by conducting a JTA comprising workshops, a survey, and observations. The information from the JTA was used to inform the design of a Swimming RMT which was evaluated in cohorts of serving personnel and recruits from a range of British Army GCC and non-GCC role-groups. The participants completed the Swimming RMT to an individual best effort and these performances were used to inform the final test and standard to be implemented. All phases are outlined in detail below.

2.2 Job-task analysis (JTA)

The research was initiated by conducting a JTA comprising workshops, a survey, and observations.

Workshops: Fifteen workshops were conducted to engage with all British Army role-groups to identify and describe job-tasks conducted in and/or around water. Workshops were conducted via Microsoft Teams in a single 1.5-hour session and were attended by researchers and military SME role-group representatives (including Officers and Soldiers), who were suitably experienced and positioned to speak on behalf of their role-group. The workshop format was based on the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) process [11], which complements and combines elements of other focus group/workshop techniques used in similar research previously such as the Delphi technique, the Nominal Group Technique and the workshop. The TRIAGE process consists of three stages: (i) Preparation, (ii) Workshop Facilitation, and (iii) Task Review and Summary. This enabled generation of a down-selected list of water-related job-task descriptions. Job-tasks were selected that were deemed essential to the successful performance of the role and were commonly required of all personnel in the role. Task parameters were described by the military SMEs such as: situation, clothing, reason for entering the water, swimming distance, duration, time, style (e.g., moving or treading water). Of those down-selected tasks, the description of task parameters were guided by ‘reasonable worst-case scenarios’ discussed with an equal emphasis on the minimum expectation of anyone within that role. Following each workshop, the set of task descriptions were collated into a summary task table for each role-group, which were sent to role-group representatives to review and provide feedback and/or then confirm and endorse the tasks and descriptions included.

Survey: Job-task descriptions generated from the workshops were used to produce an online survey, with questions bespoke to each role-group, which aimed to validate and further quantify the likelihood and impact (risk severity) of the tasks. An online survey was created for completion using Jisc Online Surveys (chichester.onlinesurveys.ac.uk) and distributed by email to serving personnel in all British Army role-groups via military SME role-group representatives. The online survey platform recorded all responses anonymously and no individual identifiers (e.g., name or military number) were obtained. In the first section of the survey, participants provided details of their age, gender, highest formal qualification, rank, role-group, current trade/role, years served, whether they were Regular or Reserve Forces, and details of their operational experience. In the second part of the survey, participants were provided with short, written summary descriptions of the swimming tasks generated and ratified in the workshops. For each task/task descriptor, participants were asked (i) whether they would expect to complete the task in their job-role (yes/no), (ii) to rate the likelihood of this task occurring in their job-role, and (iii) what the likely impact (risk severity) would be if this task/incident did occur in their job-role. Questions ii (Likelihood) and iii (Impact) utilised rating scales based on the current British Army Risk Assessment Framework: Risk Score Calculation [12], with a full explanation of this provided prior to the first task descriptor.

Observations: Observations were conducted only for select tasks that required more detailed description and documentation than that provided in the workshop and survey, due to being either deemed complex (e.g. consisting of multiple elements/phases), most frequently conducted, and/or trained/tested on a specialist course. A list of tasks selected for observation was agreed with role-group representatives following each workshop. Observations conducted during typical, daily work and training enabled an understanding of the requirements of the tasks conducted in and/or around water. Observations also enabled the capture of information relating to the entry and output requirements and description of the water-based tasks required to complete the training. Participants observed were individuals who were already involved within an ongoing training course or performing routine training/occupational work during the observation and were not convened specifically for research purposes. Photographic and video footage were taken in conjunction with notational analysis to confirm the actions performed, timings of events, and equipment used. Basic notational analysis was recorded, including event name, description, clothing worn, equipment mass (if applicable), distance, duration, staffing, and physical actions for each task.

2.3 RMT design

An ergonomic evaluation was conducted drawing upon all descriptive information gathered on the identified water-based job-tasks through the JTA (workshops, surveys, and observations alongside additional review of available doctrine and peer-reviewed scientific literature). This involved classification of the human physical abilities required in each essential task, through selection of; (i) primary components of fitness (aerobic endurance, anaerobic endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, mobility); and (ii) physical actions (full immersion in water, tread water/float, remove personal equipment, wade, swim, use a flotation aid, climb unaided out of the water). Classification by components of fitness is based on the premise that physical capacity of a given task is the result of several specific types of behaviours, attributes and capabilities that are termed ‘components’ of physical fitness. These components of fitness are the physical and physiological domains that underpin capability and capacity for the human body to perform different physical actions. Physical action classification was used to identify the physical movement that an individual performs to successfully complete a task. Different combinations of physical actions were required by personnel to safely and effectively complete individual job-tasks. This detailed evaluation of each water-based job-task informed the development of the Swimming RMT (further described in the Results, Section 3.2).

2.4 Experimental trial

The experimental trial protocol was given a favourable opinion by the MoD Research Ethics Committee (protocol number 2108MODREC21). The purpose of the swimming pool experimental trial was to evaluate the Swimming RMT designed based on the outcome of the JTA. Performance (successful completion of, and time to complete, phases of the RMT) was measured twice in the same group of 103 serving personnel (89 men, 11 women), from a range of British Army role-groups, and once in a group of 65 recruits (49 men, 16 women). The two trials undertaken by serving personnel participants were separated by at least 24 hours’ rest. The age range of participants was 17–50 years, with the majority being Junior ranks, and 20 participants (12%) self-reporting belonging to an ethnic minority group. Participants provided written informed consent prior to participation, following a verbal brief, provision of a participant information sheet and the opportunity to ask questions. Participants were reminded of their right to withdraw at any point and/or that they would be withdrawn by the overseeing researchers, lifeguards or physical training instructors if deemed unsafe at any point.

2.5 Data analysis

Statistical analyses were undertaken using GraphPad Prism (Graphpad Software LLC, Version 9.1.1, San Diego, USA), JASP (Jeffreys’s Amazing Statistics Program, Version 0.16, JASP Team, 2021) and Excel (2016, Microsoft, USA) software. Normative performance data for each group were reported as mean ± one standard deviation and as a number (n) and proportion (%) of participants able to successfully complete each RMT element. Performance between groups was compared using independent sample t-tests, with statistical significance accepted at p < 0.05. To examine test-retest reliability, within each timed RMT element, agreement was assessed between trial 1 and trial 2 using Graphpad Prism by producing Bland-Altman plots with mean bias and Limits of Agreement (LoA) [13]. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for absolute agreement under a two-way random model were produced using JASP for each RMT element between trial 1 and 2, with 95% Confidence Intervals also reported. Standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) were computed using the following formulae [14]: $SEM = {sd}_{1} \times \sqrt{1 - ICC}$ $MDC = 1.96 \times SEM \times \sqrt{2}$

Where sd ₁ is the standard deviation of the first attempt.

3 Results

3.1 Job-task analysis

Workshops: Water-related job-tasks that were identified within the workshops and endorsed by role-group representatives were classified as either:

Common Military Swimming Tasks (CMSTs): defined as swimming/water-related tasks that were commonly reported across all British Army role-groups.

Role-Specific Swimming Tasks (RSSTs): defined as swimming/water-related tasks that were not common between all British Army role-groups, but specific to one (or more) role-group(s).

Tasks were referred to as Swimming Tasks (Common Military or Role-Specific) throughout workshops and subsequent MJPs, to distinguish them from Common Military and Role-Specific Tasks as identified and classified in the previous Army-wide PES project and to situate their description alongside the specific remit of this project to update the existing Military and Combat Military Swim Tests. However, it was widely acknowledged throughout project discussions with Military SME’s that tasks were not strictly focused on just ‘swimming’, as confirmed by the identification of the seven water-based physical actions (detailed further in Section 3.2).

Survey: A total of 5376 serving personnel completed the survey. Survey participants were representative of each role-group, including Regular and Reserve personnel of a range of ranks, ages, genders, military and operational experiences, and technical skills. The survey aimed to target 5% of each trade within each role-group and achieved a mean of 12±13% (range: 5-57%) of currently serving personnel across all role-groups. Survey results for each role-group provided confirmation of the job-tasks being completed by a wider sample than just those present in the workshops. The likelihood and impact (risk severity) ratings were used to calculate an overall risk score for each individual CMST and RSST (as outlined in the British Army Risk Assessment Framework), in which all tasks were classed as low risk overall for all role-groups, on average. Slightly higher overall risk scores reported for some role-groups were largely related to higher likelihood ratings, with impact rated similarly across all role-groups within each task. Individual participant responses were highly varied based on individual swimming/water confidence/competence, leading to a high range of risk scores. For most respondents, risks appear to be well managed, but for those with poor swimming/water confidence/competence, the risk was perceived as much higher.

Observations: The observations provided confirmation of the way that the job-tasks described in the workshops and rated in the survey were completed. Observing the job-tasks provided the researchers the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the requirements relating to working in and/or around water and to classify the physical actions and requirements to perform the job-tasks.

The evidence from the JTA showed there is a need for personnel to have an underpinning basic swimming competence to preserve life and provide water confidence. There was agreement between task descriptions provided in the workshop, rated in the survey, and observed during training. The JTA identified five CMSTs and 33 RSSTs (summary of tasks and examples described in Table 1), where basic swimming competence provides the foundation for the generic skills to conduct the respective CMSTs and RSSTs applicable to all personnel in each job-role. The outcomes of the JTA and both task descriptions and their categoriesations (as presented in Table 1) were endorsed by MJP.

Table 1
Common Military Swimming Tasks (CMST) and example Role Specific Swimming Tasks (RSST)

Role-group CMST title

All 1. Accidental entry into water – Dismounted land-based activities on foot.

All 2. Accidental entry into water – Vehicle movement through or near water.

All 3. Intentional entry into water – River crossing.

All 4. Participating in water-based physical training (PT).

All 5. Participating in water-based adventurous training (AT).

Role-group RSST title

RAChD No RSSTs reported

RLC 1. Intentional entry into water – vehicle extraction/recovery

2. Accidental entry into water – vessel/port-based

3. Accidental entry into water – craft based

4. Intentional entry into water – EOD/Search tasks

5. Intentional entry into water – recover equipment

AMS (Armoured Regt. Specific) 1. Accidental entry into water – vehicle falls into water

2. Accidental entry into water – ship to shore transfers

AGC (RMP) 1. Accidental entry into water – RMP patrolling activities

AGC (All other) No RSSTs reported

REME 1. Intentional entry into water – vehicle recovery

2. Accidental entry into water – working on/alongside vessels/aircraft

INT CORPS 1. Intentional entry into water – EOD/Search taskings

R SIGNALS No RSSTs reported

RAPTC 1. Delivering PT/rehab in pool, conduct Military Swim Test/Combat Military Swim Test

2. Delivering Battle PT around/in water/water obstacles

RCAM 1. Accidental entry into water – band engagements on quayside or on Naval/civilian vessels

RE 1. Accidental entry into water – working over water

2. Accidental entry into water – working near water

3. Accidental entry into water – taskings on workboats

4. Accidental entry into sea water from injury/accident

5. Intentional entry into water – working on structures

6. Intentional entry into water – life saving, overboard drills

7. River Crossing – Infantry Assault Bridge

8. River Crossing – vehicle-based fording/crossing

9. River Crossing – M3 rig/ferry bridge

RA 1. Accidental entry into water – littoral operations

2. Ice breaking

AAC 1. Entry into water – air-craft ditching (Air Crew)

RAC 1. Accidental entry into water – vehicle falls into water

2. Accidental entry into water – ship to shore transfers

3. Intentional entry into water – full body submersion and movement

4. Intentional entry into water – water wading

INF 1. Intentional entry into water – full body submersion and movement

2. Intentional entry into water – water wading

3. Accidental entry into water – shore-side taskings in proximity to water

Role-group	CMST title
All	1. Accidental entry into water – Dismounted land-based activities on foot.
All	2. Accidental entry into water – Vehicle movement through or near water.
All	3. Intentional entry into water – River crossing.
All	4. Participating in water-based physical training (PT).
All	5. Participating in water-based adventurous training (AT).
Role-group	RSST title
RAChD	No RSSTs reported
RLC	1. Intentional entry into water – vehicle extraction/recovery
	2. Accidental entry into water – vessel/port-based
	3. Accidental entry into water – craft based
	4. Intentional entry into water – EOD/Search tasks
	5. Intentional entry into water – recover equipment
AMS (Armoured Regt. Specific)	1. Accidental entry into water – vehicle falls into water
	2. Accidental entry into water – ship to shore transfers
AGC (RMP)	1. Accidental entry into water – RMP patrolling activities
AGC (All other)	No RSSTs reported
REME	1. Intentional entry into water – vehicle recovery
	2. Accidental entry into water – working on/alongside vessels/aircraft
INT CORPS	1. Intentional entry into water – EOD/Search taskings
R SIGNALS	No RSSTs reported
RAPTC	1. Delivering PT/rehab in pool, conduct Military Swim Test/Combat Military Swim Test
	2. Delivering Battle PT around/in water/water obstacles
RCAM	1. Accidental entry into water – band engagements on quayside or on Naval/civilian vessels
RE	1. Accidental entry into water – working over water
	2. Accidental entry into water – working near water
	3. Accidental entry into water – taskings on workboats
	4. Accidental entry into sea water from injury/accident
	5. Intentional entry into water – working on structures
	6. Intentional entry into water – life saving, overboard drills
	7. River Crossing – Infantry Assault Bridge
	8. River Crossing – vehicle-based fording/crossing
	9. River Crossing – M3 rig/ferry bridge
RA	1. Accidental entry into water – littoral operations
	2. Ice breaking
AAC	1. Entry into water – air-craft ditching (Air Crew)
RAC	1. Accidental entry into water – vehicle falls into water
	2. Accidental entry into water – ship to shore transfers
	3. Intentional entry into water – full body submersion and movement
	4. Intentional entry into water – water wading
INF	1. Intentional entry into water – full body submersion and movement
	2. Intentional entry into water – water wading
	3. Accidental entry into water – shore-side taskings in proximity to water

Where: RAChD is Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, RLC is Royal Logistics Corps, EOD is Explosive Ordinance Disposal, AMS is Army Medical Services, AGC is Adjutant General’s Corps, RMP is Royal Military Police, REME is Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, INT and INT CORPS are Intelligence Corps, R SIGNALS is Royal Corps of Signals, RAPTC is Royal Army Physical Training Corps, PT is Physical Training, RCAM is Royal Corps of Army Music, RE is Royal Engineers, RA is Royal Artillery, AAC is Army Air Corps, RAC is Royal Armoured Corps, and INF is Infantry.

3.2 Swimming RMT design

Based on the ergonomic evaluation of the recognised job-tasks, seven water-based physical actions were identified; full immersion in water (including head under), treading water/staying afloat, removing personal equipment, wading, swimming, using floatation aids, climbing unaided out of the water. The RMT was therefore designed to reflect the seven identified physical actions, the need for which was identified for all personnel.

The agreed Swimming RMT design was approved at a MJP and comprised of five sequential phases (Fig. 1). Time and distance parameters set for each phase were agreed based upon military judgement reflecting reasonable worst-case scenario and minimum acceptable standards to demonstrate competency in each physical action, rather than being linked to any single job-task description (due to the wide variety of job-tasks).

Fig. 1

Swimming RMT protocol phases. 1. Enter Pool: Perform a standing jump to enter the water and submerge; 2. Remove Webbing: Upon surfacing, remove and pass webbing to the side within 1 minute; 3. Swim: Commence swimming 50 m using any stroke; 4. Stay Afloat: Upon swim completion, stay afloat (floating, treading water) for 10 min; 5. Exit Pool: Exit the pool unaided.

Whilst wearing issued fatigues and webbing (empty), participants were required to:

Enter Pool: Perform a standing jump from the side of the pool to enter the water feet first, submerging the head before returning to the surface. If the head is not submerged or if participant fails to independently resurface (e.g. use of the wall/rails), the participant will be withdrawn and asked/assisted to exit the pool.

Remove Webbing: Upon surfacing, stay afloat to remove the webbing and pass it out of the pool (without touching the pool sides). This must be achieved within 1 minute otherwise the participant will not be permitted to continue.

Swim: Once the webbing is removed, immediately commence the swim phase – swimming 50 m using any stroke without touching the sides, end or bottom of the pool. If unable to complete the 50 m distance, the participant will be asked to withdraw and exit the pool.

Stay Afloat: Upon completion of the swim, use any technique (floating, treading water) to safely stay afloat for 10 min. Participants can withdraw, or will be withdrawn, at any point during the 10 minutes if they feel they cannot continue.

Exit Pool: Upon completion of staying afloat, or being withdrawn during any phase, the participant must exit the water by climbing over the pool side, end wall or steps (unaided).

3.3 Experimental trial

Swimming pool temperature was consistent across trials, ranging from 28.0–29.7°C. Individual performance was recorded as time to remove webbing, time to complete the 50 m swim phase, and total time in the water, alongside whether each RMT phase was successfully completed. Group completion rates for each RMT phase (n and %) and mean±standard deviation time to complete each timed phase are presented in Table 2. Results were used to inform standard setting. In trial 1, 85% of serving personnel compared to 74% of recruits successfully completed all elements of the RMT. Time to remove webbing (U = 3060.0, r_b = –0.068, p = 0.463) and total time in water (U = 3319.5, r_b = 0.011, p = 0.904) were similar between groups. On average, serving personnel were quicker to complete the 50 m swim than recruits (91±24 s vs. 100±26 s; U = 2575.0, r_b = –0.192, p = 0.039).

Table 2
Pass rates (count and percentage) and the mean and standard deviation (SD) times to complete phases of the Swim RMT

Successfully Time to Completed Time to Complete Completed Exited Pool Total Time

Removed Remove 50 m Swim 50 m Swim 10 min Unaided in Water

Webbing Webbing Distance Afloat

Trial Cohort n n % Mean SD n % Mean SD n % n % Mean SD

(mm:ss.0) (mm:ss.0) (mm:ss.0) (mm:ss.0) (mm:ss.0) (mm:ss.0)

1 Serving Personnel 102 101 99 00 : 11.1 00 : 04.5 98 96 01 : 31.1 00 : 23.8 87 85 102 100 10 : 32.1 03 : 08.3

Recruits 65 65 100 00 : 10.8 00 : 02.3 60 92 01 : 39.9 00 : 26.2 48 74 64 99 09 : 33.1 03 : 48.9

2 Serving Personnel 99 98 99 00 : 08.9 00 : 03.0 96 97 01 : 31.1 00 : 28.0 92 93 99 100 11 : 04.0 03 : 10.3

			Successfully	Time to	Completed	Time to Complete	Completed	Exited Pool	Total Time
1	Serving Personnel	102	101	99	00 : 11.1	00 : 04.5	98	96	01 : 31.1	00 : 23.8	87	85	102	100	10 : 32.1	03 : 08.3
	Recruits	65	65	100	00 : 10.8	00 : 02.3	60	92	01 : 39.9	00 : 26.2	48	74	64	99	09 : 33.1	03 : 48.9
2	Serving Personnel	99	98	99	00 : 08.9	00 : 03.0	96	97	01 : 31.1	00 : 28.0	92	93	99	100	11 : 04.0	03 : 10.3

Figure 2 shows the total time in the water for the serving personnel in trial 1 (Panel A) and trial 2 (Panel B) and for recruits (Panel C). The figure illustrates that most participants were able to remain in the water until the end of the 10-minute staying afloat phase of the RMT, however there is a steep decrement in the duration that those unable to complete the entire duration could remain in the water.

Fig. 2

The total time in the water during the Swimming RMT for serving personnel in trial 1 (Panel A), trial 2 (Panel B), and recruits (Panel C).

The test-retest reliability analyses were conducted using the serving personnel participants only (as due to the recruits’ training course there was no time available to conduct a second assessment). On average, compared to trial 1, performance improved in trial 2 for all individual RMT elements (Table 2) and overall, with 93% of serving personnel successfully completing all elements in trial 2, compared to 85% in trial 1. The three timed RMT elements all showed moderate-high correlational reliability (ICC values displayed in Table 3), with time to remove webbing displaying a weaker association than time to complete the 50 m swim and total time in water. The mean bias across the two trials for all three timed RMT elements, and LoA are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 3. The SEM and MDC calculations suggest that a participant would likely need a change of > 0.15 min (9 s) in time to remove webbing, > 0.47 min (28 s) in time to complete the 50 m swim, and > 4.56 min (4 min 34 s) in total time in water to be confident that a legitimate change in performance had occurred.

Table 3

Agreement and reliability statistics for Swimming RMT phases for serving personnel participants

	n	ICC [95% CI]	SEM	MDC	Mean bias	LoA
			(min)	(min)	[SD of bias] (min)	(min)
Time to remove webbing	98	0.462 [0.241–0.619]	0.05	0.15	–0.036±0.061	–0.155, 0.082
Time to complete 50 m swim	98	0.791 [0.721–0.844]	0.17	0.47	–0.041±0.242	–0.517, 0.434
Total time in water	98	0.665 [0.564–0.747]	1.65	4.56	0.451±2.038	–3.544, 4.446

Where: ICC is intraclass correlation coefficient, CI is confidence interval, SEM is standard error of measurement, MDC is Minimal Detectable Change, SD is standard deviation, LoA is limits of agreement.

Fig. 3

Bland-Altman plots for serving personnel participants between trial 1 and trial 2 for A) time to remove webbing, B) time to complete 50 m swim, C) total time in water. Where: Red dashed lines are 95% limits of agreement and black dashed line is mean bias.

4 Discussion

This is the first peer-reviewed study to conduct a JTA documenting the requirement for British Army personnel to work in and/or around water and use this evidence to develop a role-related physical assessment. Whilst the frequency of British Army personnel entering the water unintentionally and experiencing adverse events (e.g. drowning) is low, the risks are likely to be increased for those with limited (or no) swimming competence. Although the reasons for entering water were different between the job-tasks identified in this study, there were common water-based physical actions. A fundamental element of operating in and/or around water identified in the present study was the competence and confidence to survive if accidently immersed. The new Swimming RMT that was developed using the JTA reflected this requirement to support personnel to develop the minimum role-related requirements to operate in and/or around water, with a particular focus on survival. Importantly, the RMT protocol design balances feasibility and fidelity to provide an implementable solution that best matches the physical actions required to perform the job-tasks.

In total, 85% of serving personnel and 74% of recruits successfully completed the RMT during trial 1. Only serving personnel completed a second trial, for which the successful completion rate increased to 93%. This increase indicates that a small amount of training and familiarisation (repeated exposure) improved performance on the RMT, which is likely to translate to improved competency if entering the water when conducting job-tasks.

The JTA conducted in the present study identified five CMSTs and 33 RSSTs, each of which could be conducted in a range of different scenarios and environments. Identified job-tasks typically either required personnel to intentionally enter the water to safely conduct a technical activity or would only involve unintentional water entry in the event of an accident (e.g., fall, slip, vehicle incident). As such, the resultant RMT that was developed in the present study reflected the requirement to perform the water-based physical actions associated with those tasks and those required for survival. The RMT protocol balances fidelity and feasibility by including the water-based physical actions in the protocol and conducting the assessment in a controlled swimming pool setting compared to assessing individuals in a range of scenarios in outdoor settings. To our knowledge, no other military role-related swimming assessments have been developed based on a JTA. As such, there are no other peer-reviewed studies in military populations to compare the outcome of the present study to.

All other role-related swimming assessments developed using PES best-practice methodology have been within populations who are required to intentionally enter the water to perform rescue activity. Therefore, the resulting assessments derived from the JTAs in these populations replicate the physical requirements of these rescue job-tasks performed in water. For beach lifeguards, Reilly et al. [7] identified the critical rescue tasks of paddling, casualty towing, and sea swimming and then recommended several tests and standards (pool swims, gym-based tests and anthropometric factors) that relate to the fitness required to undertake these job-tasks. Specifically, regression analyses indicated that performance in the pool-based test of swimming 400 m front crawl (completed in < 7.5 min), was predictive of ability to paddle 310 m in the sea (in < 3.5 min) [7]. The JTA performed for National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU) specialist paramedic personnel identified 11 criterion job-tasks, of which two were water-based; (1) Re-board Inflatable Boat and (2) Swift-water rescue [9]. Subsequent analysis of the most physically demanding elements of identified tasks highlighted a high cardiovascular strain of the swift-water rescue. This task required personnel to swim 25 m across fast moving water to rescue and recover a casualty, while tethered and wearing a dry suit and PPE (∼9 Kg). Anaerobic and aerobic endurance components of fitness were reported as particularly important for successful task completion [9]. In a subsequent study, Siddall et al. [9] assessed performance on a realistic task simulation designed to replicate the most physically demanding elements of the task, but in a simpler format. The simulation of the swift-water rescue was a resisted swim where participants (in swim attire), swam 25 m in an indoor swimming pool while wearing a resistance parachute. Consequently, performance data collected informed the development of role-related standards which are directly linked to essential job-tasks of NARU personnel [10]. Similarly, for paramedics performing life-saving helicopter winch rescue tasks in water, a task simulation assessment was developed (swim 50 m to recover a 50 kg manikin from a life raft and tow it 25 m to a platform) which had high fidelity to the criterion-task and was demonstrated to have a high physiological workload (> 80% VO_2max) [8]. As such, the contrast between the characteristics of the job-tasks and the RMT developed in the present study (predominantly focused on water survival) compared to those for emergency responders (predominantly focused on rescue) demonstrates the need for a military-specific water competency assessment and training based on the critical tasks performed in and/or around water. Further, the approach adopted in the present study was centred around performance of the seven identified water-based physical actions, to demonstrate a minimum standard of water safety and swimming competency as required for the wide range of water-based job-tasks reported. Thus, performance in the Swimming RMT was not matched against that in any one specific criterion task, as per the approach outlined in the study examples discussed previously [7 , 10]. This further demonstrates the novelty of the present study.

A common theme identified in the present study across all British Army role groups and reflected in the CMSTs and RSSTs, was the need for personnel to be able to survive in the water to either reach a position of safety, extract themselves, or await rescue. The new Swimming RMT protocol developed in the present study (summarised in Fig. 1) reflects those water survival elements deemed critical to British Army personnel working in and/or around water. Phase 1 simulates entry into water where the head is submerged. Phase 2 requires individuals to compose themselves and perform a technical action, in the case of the RMT this is the removal of their webbing; however, in a job-task this could be removal of other protective equipment, release of a safety harness, or operation of a life preserving aid. Phase 3 is where participants are required to demonstrate their ability to swim using any technique to move through the water, which is primarily used to move to a position of safety and/or extract from the water (alone or aided by a rescuer). Phase 4 then requires participants to stay afloat. Traditional swimming fitness tests (not developed following a PES methodology) often require participants to adhere to a strict technique of treading water. However, current advice advocated as the primary survival mechanism in water is to “float first” to utilise the greater buoyancy provided by air trapped in clothing to increase airway freeboard (mouth to water level distance) [15]. Compared to floating, treading water requires greater energy expenditure and is likely to disturb air trapped in clothing (which if retained could aid buoyancy). When conducting job-tasks, it is possible that the actions performed in phases 2–3 could be required to be conducted in any order; however, they have been sequenced in the RMT to improve feasibility of the protocol. Barwood et al. [15] also suggest that floating prior to swimming may provide a greater likelihood of survival due to the air trapped in the clothing increasing buoyancy compared to swimming and then floating after. Therefore, the sequence of actions (swim then float) in the RMT reflects a reasonable worst-case and if personnel were to float first if accidently entering the water when performing a job-task, this could be easier than when they are performing the RMT.

The authors propose that implementing the new Swimming RMT will improve British Army personnel’s competence, confidence, and knowledge to operate safely in and/or around water by educating and exposing them to the techniques that they require. This contention is based on other research which has shown similar benefits through practical- and classroom-based interventions to improve water safety. Ramos et al. [16] examined the efficacy of an existing 1.5-hour practical, in school water safety educational programme in 229 schools in Vietnam for 5–11-year-old children. The programme included knowledge and skills related to safe self-rescue and bystander rescue. The results from pre- and post-intervention paper and online questionnaires showed that, overall, a significant improvement in water safety-based knowledge on the main concepts delivered in the course. Tipton et al. [17] subsequently showed that theoretical, classroom-based instruction in water safety can improve the water safety awareness and confidence of children and these benefits were retained for at least six months. The inclusion of the water-based physical actions in the present Swimming RMT will ensure personnel will either have this capability to perform them to pass the assessment, and if not, encourage these individuals to train to perform the actions. Consequently, if personnel do inadvertently enter the water when conducting a job-task and are required to perform these actions, they should have the capability and confidence to so, increasing the likelihood of task-success and survival and reducing the risk of an adverse event (e.g. drowning). The evidence from Ramos et al. [16] and Tipton et al. [17] indicates that also including theoretical education alongside the Swimming RMT assessment and associated training could further enhance these benefits.

There was a small learning effect noted between trials 1 and 2. The largest variation, in terms of practical implementation of the RMT, appears to be the total time in the water, which is largely influenced by the proportion of the 10-minute stay afloat time that is completed. Seven of the ten serving personnel participants who did not complete the 10-minute stay afloat time during trial 1, did manage to successfully complete it in trial 2. This is likely to have influenced reliability statistics and resulted in the wide LoA reported. It is important to also note the impact of technique and body position during the staying afloat phase of the RMT, where a greater number of serving personnel participants were able to successfully adopt the floating on back/sculling techniques, as opposed to treading water, in trial 2. These data add support to the theory discussed above, that competence in performing the swimming-based physical actions included in the RMT will likely improve as a result of repeated exposure through completion of the RMT.

Finally, it is important to note that a limitation of the present study is that the performance data and pass rates reported from the experimental trials of the present study are from a volunteer sample. This may be biased towards more competent or confident swimmers, where personnel with lower water-based competency or confidence are less likely to volunteer to participate in the study. Whilst selection bias often occurs in volunteer studies, in this case, it suggests that Army-wide pass rates may potentially be lower than that reported in the present study. To identify the true pass rates across the British Army, the new RMT would need to be implemented as a mandatory assessment, pass rates monitored to identify those with low swimming competence, and subsequent training then provided to improve their performance. Taking this approach is likely to improve, and maintain, overall competence and confidence of British Army personnel to operate in and/or around water and reduce the risk of adverse events. As stated above, inclusion of theoretical water safety education alongside these training and testing procedures, could further enhance these outcomes.

5 Conclusion

The new Swimming RMT protocol reflects the water-based physical actions that are used by British Army personnel to perform job-tasks in and/or around water and provides the basis for the assessment of the minimum role-related water-based competency. Following implementation of the RMT, it will be pertinent for the British Army to monitor and/or conduct future research to document the impact on competence and confidence of personnel to operate in and/or around water, related job-task performance, and risk of and/or frequency of adverse events.

Ethical approval

UK Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee (protocol number 2108MODREC21).

Informed consent

Participants provided written informed consent prior to participation, following a verbal brief, provision of a participant information sheet and the opportunity to ask questions. Participants were reminded of their right to withdraw at any point and/or that they would be withdrawn by the overseeing researchers, lifeguards or physical training instructors if deemed unsafe at any point.

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This study strictly reflects the views of authors and not those of the British Army. The authors would like to acknowledge the organization and liaison work of the PES team at Army Headquarters, the engagement of role-group representatives, and the participation of service personnel, without whom this project would not have been possible.

Funding

This study was funded by the UK Ministry of Defence (British Army).

References

Hardison

, Hosek

, Bird

. Defining Physical Standards for Physically Demanding Jobs: A Review of Methods. 2015;2752–9.

Gebhardt

. Historical perspective on physical employment standards. Work. 2019;63(4):481–94.

Stallman

, Moran

, Quan

, Langendorfer

. From swimming skill to water competence: towards a more inclusive drowning prevention future. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 2017;10(2):1–35.

Payne

, Harvey

. A framework for the design and development of physical employment tests and standards. Ergonomics. 2010;53(7):858–71.

Tipton

, Milligan

, Reilly

. Physiological employment standards I. Occupational fitness standards: objectively subjective? European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2013;113:2435–46.

Knapik

, East

. History of United States Army physical fitness and physical readiness testing. US Army Medical Department Journal. 2014;1:5–19.

Reilly

, Iggleden

, Gennser

, Tipton

. Occupational fitness standards for beach lifeguards. Phase the development of an easily administered fitness test. Occupational Medicine. 2006;56(1):12–7.

Meadley

, Rogers

, Bowles

, Caldwell

. The bookmark method to establish minimum performance standards for intensive care flight paramedics performing helicopter winch rescue. Applied Ergonomics. 2023;107:103934.

Rue

, Rayson

, Walker

, Doherty

, Thompson

, Myers

, Blacker

. A job task analysis to describe the physical demands of specialist paramedic roles in the National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU). Work. 2019;63(4):547–57.

10.

Siddall

, Rayson

, Walker

, Doherty

, Osofa

, Flood

, Hale

, Myers

, Blacker

. Development of physical employment standards of specialist paramedic roles in the National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU). Applied Ergonomics. 2021;95:103460.

11.

Gervais

, Pépin

. TRIAGE: a new group technique gaining recognition in evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia. 2002;2(2):45–9.

12.

Army Command Standing Order (ACSO) 1200 – British Army Safety and Environmental Mangement System (2021). Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-army-safety-and-environmental-man-agement-system-acso-1200.

13.

Bland

, Altman

. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. 2007;17(4):571–82.

14.

Sainani

. Reliability Statistics. PM&R. 2017;9(6):622–8.

15.

Barwood

, Bates

, Long

, Tipton

. “Float First:” Trapped Air Between Clothing Layers Significantly Improves Buoyancy on Water After Immersion. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 2011;5(2):3.

16.

Ramos

, Greenshields

, Knee

, Kreitl

, Espirito

. Drowning prevention: assessment of a classroom-based water safety education program in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2018;30(5):470–8.

17.

Tipton

, Muller

, Abelairas Gomez

, Corbett

. Do water safety lessons improve water safety knowledge? International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 2021;13(3):3.