Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Military physical fitness tests and standards often lack a scientific basis. Contrary to this traditional-historical precedent, US Air Force researchers use a “Two-Tier” health (Tier 1) and performance (Tier 2) approach to develop evidence-based criterion physical fitness tests, standards, and training. This study specifically and only addresses a physical demands analysis, the first step in a six-step process to develop Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant physical fitness tests and standards, and training guidance.
OBJECTIVE:
This study conducted a physical demands analysis to identify and delineate occupationally specific, operationally relevant critical physical tasks for eight physically demanding US Air Force occupational specialties.
METHODS:
A comprehensive five part physical demands analysis reviewed duty tasks, conducted focus groups, assessed incumbents, observed operational tasks, and interviewed senior leaders to detail critical physical tasks.
RESULTS:
The physical demands analysis delineated duty tasks to critical physical tasks for Special Tactics (556 to 40), Pararescue (981 to 50), Tactical Air Control (415 to 44), Special Operations Weather (586 to 50), Explosive Ordnance Disposal (1107 to 39), Security Forces (1286 to 25), Fire and Emergency Services (802 to 39), and Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (1099 to 25).
CONCLUSIONS:
The study approach proved efficacious for conducting a thorough physical demands analysis to identify and delineate occupationally specific, operationally relevant critical physical tasks for eight US Air Force physically demanding occupations. Critical physical tasks provide basis for the next overall research process step, developing physical task simulations to link to predictive physical fitness tests and training guidance.
Keywords
Introduction
Military physical fitness (PF) tests and standards often do not have a scientific foundation relevant to criteria such as health risk or operational duty performance. Additionally, standards are typically norm-referenced, with no inherent criterion basis, i.e., they do not indicate if a servicemember is healthy, able to perform their duties, or fit for deployment [1, 2]. In contrast to this traditional-historical precedent, US Air Force (AF) exercise physiologists recommended in 1998 a “Two-Tier” health (Tier 1) and performance (Tier 2) approach to the development of evidence-based criterion AF PF standards [1–3]. This led AF exercise scientists to develop Tier 1 PF tests with professionally recognized health-based criterion standards for the aerobic and body composition components that the AF implemented in 2004 for all military personnel independent of military occupational specialty (MOS). A 2010 update ensured test scores reflected degrees of health and general fitness. However, in 2022 the AF regressed to normative standards with arbitrary scoring relinquishing the meaningful Tier 1 science basis [2, 4]. Whether science-based or normative, the AF Tier 1 PF tests and standards do not necessarily reflect task achievement. Therefore, an additional level of evidence-based PF tests and standards is required, i.e., Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant tests and standards based on physical duty requirements of physically demanding MOSs (Fig. 1).

Tiered approach to developing science-based criterion PF tests, standards, and training.
The US Congress mandates the US Military Services create physical employment screening tests and standards, labeled as Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant tests and standards by the AF [4], when introducing new tests for more physically demanding MOSs [5]. More broadly, international military and civilian entities employ physical employment tests and standards for personnel selection, retention, and training for physically demanding occupations [6–10]. These Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant tests and standards benefit physically demanding occupations by selecting and evaluating personnel for relevant physical capabilities and motivating personnel to physically train to improve duty performance [10–12]. Tier 2 research and development should follow a bona-fide occupational requirements multi-step process to elicit scientifically and legally defensible tests, standards and physical training guides [1, 13]. The AF Exercise Science Unit’s version of this process, the Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant six-step process for developing PF tests, standards and physical training guidance, is depicted in Fig. 2.

AF Exercise Science Unit’s Tier 2 six step process to develop occupationally specific, operationally relevant physical tests, standards and physical training guidance. Step 1 indicates study portion addressed in this manuscript.
The first step in this Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant process is to conduct a job task analysis, or as some refer, a physical demands analysis, to elucidate the critical physical tasks (CPTs) of physically demanding AF occupations [10, 13–15]. CPTs are defined as physical duty tasks that are both physically demanding and critical to mission success [2, 13]. Physical demands analysis methods vary and there is no singular choice of methodologies [11]; here the AF Exercise Science Unit performed a systematic physical demands analysis to identify and quantify the physical demands of critical and non-critical tasks of the first eight AF occupations listed in Table 1, prior to executing overall study steps two through six (addressed in later manuscripts) to develop occupationally specific, operationally relevant tests, standards and physical training guidance for career field use.
US Air Force military occupational specialties grouped by physical demand
Note: Special Operations Weather is no longer an AF MOS. Replaced by Special Reconnaissance.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a physical demands analysis to identify and delineate occupationally specific, operationally relevant critical physical tasks for eight physically demanding US Air Force military occupational specialties.
Methods
Study design
Since the physical demands analysis is foundational to the overall Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant process [10, 16–18], the AF Exercise Science Unit’s Step 1 physical demands analysis was designed to identify and delineate CPTs from all recognized duty tasks within the eight occupations. This physical demands analysis is unique [11, 19] to the eight AF MOSs and is comprehensive, encompassing five subjective and objective sub-steps (below) found in part or recommended by others [2, 14] Review occupationally specific duty tasks to develop preliminary physical tasks. Conduct subject matter expert focus groups (qualitative data). Perform AF-wide, MOS-specific scoring assessment (quantitative data). Observe physically demanding tasks in the field. Interview subject matter expert leaders.
Sub-step 1A - review occupationally-specific duty tasks
Occupationally specific duty task lists were compiled from career field source documents, primarily MOS-specific Occupational Analysis Reports and Career Field Education and Training Plans, but also from AF Instructions, current doctrine documents, and training documents (plans of instruction, lesson plans). RAND Corporation’s report, “Fit for Duty,” [2] an analysis of AF Battlefield Airmen (now Special Warfare) for the four Special Warfare MOSs was used. Finally, AF Instruction 16–1301, “Operations Support, Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Program” [20], AF Instruction 32–2001, “Civil Engineering, Fire and Emergency Services Program” [21], and the National Fire Protection Association Guide [22] were additional documents used in this sub-step. Career fields provided a minimum of three experienced (i.e., have performed, supervised, and trained tasks) MOS-specific subject matter experts (SMEs) for this sub-step, each with an operational physical deployment within the last seven years, to work closely with the AF Exercise Science Unit research team in accomplishing this sub-step. Primarily the SMEs: delineated physical and non-physical tasks, described tasks in lay terms, and ranked tasks by physical intensity via Borg rating of perceived exertion scale [23]. SMEs used the Borg Scale with a baseline at level 6 of no exertion (sitting and resting) with remaining exertional levels color coded green (low, 6–11), amber (moderate, 12–16), or red (high, 17–20). Sub-Step 1A produced preliminary physical tasks (PPTs) for each career field.
Sub-step 1B - conduct focus groups
To define, delineate and narrow the MOS-specific PPT list, increase transparency and face validity with the career fields, and obtain qualitative data, SMEs participated in three-day focus groups (20 hours total) in Sub-Step 1B. Three focus groups per MOS (Special Warfare n = 58 across four MOSs, Explosive Ordnance Disposal n = 17, Security Forces n = 14, Fire and Emergency Services n = 19, Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape n = 13 for two groups), were conducted with four to seven SMEs per group, each SME with an operational deployment within the last seven years. SMEs had a breadth of experience, obtained via diverse assignments, across the physical requirements of all major MOS-specific mission sets.
Stage 1: Pre-focus group
Prior to the focus group meeting, the MOS-specific PPT list was electronically mailed to the SMEs so they could identify and delineate tasks into subtasks using operational descriptors (verbs) and determine if the subtasks were physically demanding. PPT lists were organized by mission sets (Table 2) and assigned randomly within each focus group.
MOS-specific mission sets
MOS-specific mission sets
Special Warfare: Special Tactics Officer (STO), Combat Control (CCT), Combat Rescue Officer (CRO), Pararescue (PJ), Tactical Air Control Party-Officer (TACP-O), Tactical Air Control Party (TACP), Special Operations Weather (SOWT). Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Security Forces (SF), Fire Emergency Services (FES), Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE).
Operational descriptors, e.g., haul, drag, traverse, were used to retain operational reality and avoid describing the subtask with an exercise movement pattern, e.g., lift, push, pull. This was to dissuade the SMEs from assuming there was only one way to perform the subtask, e.g., hauling casualty from danger area versus carrying casualty from danger area. SMEs were provided instructions to:
Use bullet statements to break down and describe in lay terms tasks into subtasks
Use operational verbs. For assistance, please use the following operational verb list: Analyze, Apply, Assemble, Attack, Attach, Assist, Barricade, Board, Cast, Clear, Connect, Construct, Control, Cover, Defend, Detonate, Deploy, Derig, Descend, Disembark, Dismount, Displace, Demolish, Embark, Employ, Evacuate, Establish, Execute, Extract, Evade, Haul, Insert, Launch, Load, Maneuver, Mount, Move, Navigate, Operate, Recover, Remove, Rescue, Rig, Route, Search, Select, Submerge, Strap, String, Transport, Traverse, Transfer, Unload, Use, Vector
Assess tasks based on a “typical” (not an extreme or “Silver Star”) operational mission conducted within the last seven years, focusing on operations and not on training
Example
Task: Perform close quarter combat operations
Subtask 1: Clear entry way
Subtask 2: Maneuver around objects
Subtask 3: Move objects (furniture, people) to center of room
Subtask 4: Attack enemy forces
SMEs electronically mailed their completed list of responses to the AF Exercise Science Unit where it was compiled for the next stage of this sub-step.
AF Exercise Science Unit focus group researchers were trained [24] in facilitation techniques by operations research experts from the AF Studies and Analyses Squadron, Randolph Air Force Base, and the facilitation team remained consistent across focus groups. In the first day of on-site focus group meetings the SMEs further described the PPTs and delineated them into subtasks with operational verbs until reaching group consensus. Facilitators guided the group per the following:
Determine if the task is physically demanding - focus group discussion and consensus
Confirm conversion, with operational verbs, of major tasks to subtasks that can be assessed objectively, understood with lay language, and assigned physical movement descriptors - focus group consensus
Determine if the subtask is physically demanding - focus group consensus
Delineate only those tasks that are the most physically demanding, i.e., only apply operational verbs to physically demanding tasks and associated subtasks; give less emphasis to low- or non-physical tasks, these tasks were documented by the AF Exercise Science Unit, but not included in follow-on Sub-Step 1C.
As above, SMEs were instructed to maintain operational rationale for tasks, to focus on the operational mission, not training, to avoid the circular argument of, “we do this because we have always done it in training.” After majority concurrence, tasks and subtasks were organized by the AF Exercise Science Unit within mission sets, with sets randomized for individual scoring.
Stage 3: Focus group day two
For further delineation, the tasks and subtasks were independently scored by the SMEs on the second day of on-site focus group meetings [24]. To capture the physical arduousness and mission criticality of the PPTs, each physical task for frequency and each physical subtask for repetition, duration, intensity (physical), and importance (critical to mission success) [2, 19] were scored by the SMEs. The SMEs scored tasks and subtasks per operational missions conducted over the past seven years and in the context of their MOS-specific duties (operations/missions/shifts), see Table 3.
Likert scale for independent scoring of physical tasks and subtasks
Likert scale for independent scoring of physical tasks and subtasks
*Trained, but never performed on a mission. **Converted from traditional 6–20 Borg rating of perceived exertion score to mathematical Likert equivalent 1–5.
A weighted equation (0.10 repetition + 0.25 duration + 0.25 intensity + 0.40 importance), that best captured the physical arduousness and mission criticality per the operations research experts’ analysis, was used to capture the composite score of each subtask. A priori thresholds [9] were used for component and composite scores: subtasks with duration ≥4.0, intensity ≥3.5, importance ≥3.5 or a composite score ≥3.5 points on the 5.0 point Likert scale were scored as “met criteria” for final confirmation. For SME review and confirmation in the next stage (Focus Group Day Three), meeting/not-meeting criteria data and inter-member variance data were compiled by the AF Exercise Science Unit. The a priori thresholds listed above were assessed to determine “did not meet criteria” and “met criteria” status for each subtask. A score of 2.0 on the Likert scale was the threshold used for inter-member variance, agreement occurred with variance ≤2.0, disagreement >2.0.
Subtasks were confirmed, physical descriptors assigned, and conditions clarified by the SMEs on the final day of the on-site focus group meeting. Focus group members were guided by the AF Exercise Science Unit facilitators to reach group consensus on the following:
Subtasks not meeting the physically demanding thresholds were revisited and confirmed by the focus group as physical and retained or non-physical and not retained for Sub-Step 1C
Subtasks that did not meet physically demanding criteria according to the physical component or composite scores, but were deemed critical by the importance score and follow on focus group consensus, were retained, e.g., security forces member very rarely perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, however, it is physical and critical and therefore was retained
Subtasks were reviewed for redundancy, e.g., same movement pattern to accomplish similar subtasks; if redundant, similar subtasks were combined
Remaining subtasks that met a physically demanding threshold and were agreed upon by the focus group to be physically demanding, were identified as draft critical physical tasks (DPTs). For each confirmed DPT, the focus groups:
Confirmed where focus group agreement existed, inter-member variance ≤2.0 Discussed and reached consensus where focus group disagreement existed, inter-member variance > 2.0
Provided distance and mass data for DPTs including travel and load, respectively
Provided operational gear (kit) mandated for the DPTs (Table 4). Confirmed the exact set of gear or “kit” (Alpha through India in Table 4) that must be donned by all test subjects performing physical task simulations for methodological standardization in follow-on study steps (major steps two and three, field testing)
Confirmed physical methods/techniques members used to accomplish the DPT, e.g., drag, lift, carry
Addressed if there were operational limits on which physical methods/techniques one may use to accomplish the DPT, e.g., dragging equipment may cause mission failure (equipment damage)
Indicated if mechanical or technological advantages were present to alleviate human physical effort, e.g., climbing hoist
Indicated when DPTs were accomplished as a team vs individual and if mode was operationally required
Described conditions, e.g., weather, terrain, region, that could alter the DPT’s physical demand, conditions for a typical mission, noting that the task is not a condition. Also how pervasive were the conditions, across all missions? Facilitators encouraged focus group SMEs to avoid answering with “it depends”; rather facilitators pushed to obtain objective clarity Assigned physical descriptors [25–27] inTable 5. For each physical descriptor the SMEs indicated the extent to which the physical descriptor is used: minimally, moderate, great extent. Identified the physical fitness components, per the American College of Sports Medicine Guidelines [28], required to perform the subtasks (Table 6)
Operational gear or kit required for varied mission requirements
Operational gear or kit required for varied mission requirements
SCBA, Self Contained Breathing Aparatus; HAZMAT, Hazardous Materials; PPE, Personal Protective Equipment. Spec War Delta and Echo configurations have different vest and ruck sack loads than Bravo and Charlie.
Physical descriptors
Physical fitness components
Physical descriptor and physical fitness component data are essential for selection of physical fitness test component candidates in follow on major study step two. DPTs were merged from multiple focus groups by the AF Exercise Science Unit for each MOS and listed for scoring in the next sub-step.
To increase career field buy-in to the study process, provide quantitative data to supplement the focus group qualitative data, and to further refine the DPTs, MOS-specific Airmen across the AF (Special Warfare n = 614, Explosive Ordnance Disposal n = 781, Security Forces n = 1667; Fire and Emergency Services and Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape studies paused at Sub-Step 1B) scored the DPTs for frequency, duration, intensity, and importance in a random ordered assessment via electronic web tool. Demographic information (years in MOS, number of deployments, skill level, rank, age) and DPT scoring data were provided by the Airmen through their answers to the following questions via drop down scales as in Tables 3 and 4 above:
Independently score each task from your current MOS for frequency, intensity, duration, and importance during your typical missions over the past seven years. Important: “typical missions” mean your physical actions during combat operations, operational deployments, or full mission profiles, but not during any other training outside of full mission profiles.
Frequency: please state how often you performed the task per mission. If you have never performed the task operationally, select N/A
Duration: please state how long it takes you to complete the task
Intensity: please state how intense (how hard) the physical effort is to complete the task (scale aid: multiply the scale value by 10 to approximate a heart rate intensity in beats/minute)
Importance: please state how important the task is to effective mission performance/success
Kit: please state the gear in which you have performed the task
Sub-step 1D - Observe operational tasks
This sub-step was conducted to refine and confirm DPTs via observational data gathered on DPTs performed in the operational setting. MOS incumbents at multiple locations (four to six military installations per MOS) performed DPTs during military operational mission scenarios for the AF Exercise Science Unit on-site team to observe, video record, and conduct notational analyses. MOS-specific DPT physical movements were recorded, and the notational analyses identified physical descriptors, metabolic demands, movement planes of motion, muscle action, peak intensity and environmental conditions per DPT. Additionally, where possible, DPTs were performed by AF Exercise Science Unit research team members for participatory experience and credibility.
Sub-step 1E - Interview leaders
In this final sub-step the DPT list was reviewed and confirmed by MOS-specific leaders - officers and senior non-commissioned officers experienced across all MOS mission sets (Table 2). During individual one-hour interviews conducted by AF Exercise Science Unit facilitators, the leaders (Special Warfare n = 31, Explosive Ordnance Disposal n = 10, Security Forces n = 11) reviewed DPTs for accuracy and breadth, and added input on present and future physical capabilities and environments. Leaders (interviewees) were provided the DPT list pre-interview. At the interview, leaders provided demographic data, and reviewed and discussed each DPT in detail by addressing the following questions:
Does this list represent what you expect your Airmen to be physically capable of performing?
What portion of your Airmen should retain the capability to perform the task?
What other physically-demanding tasks are missing from this list?
What other physically-demanding tasks should be added for future missions? You may focus on historical missions (operational or training) in which you participated to capture thoughts; however, apply to operational missions only
A re there any other factors (weather, terrain, external loads, equipment ... ) we should consider?
Other questions or comments?
Over the last seven years in the context of operational missions/duty shifts (in your MOS-specific mission sets), full unit operational training, operational deployments, or combat operations, and from after action reports, personal experience, observation of others, or verbally from another Airman (do not include basic, technical, or flight level training), please state:
the average and extreme times and ambulatory (walk, jog, run) distances for operations in various kits (leaders were provided a table listing gear, as Table 4 above) a time and example, if possible, when the level of an Airman’s physical fitness either enhanced or hindered an operation
This final sub-step confirmed DPTs as the official Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant CPTs. All methodological sub-steps are depicted in Fig. 3. Descriptive statistics were calculated for Sub-Steps 1B, 1C, and 1E respondents, and for the physical task and subtask characteristics of frequency, duration, intensity, importance, and composite task score.

AF Exercise Science Unit’s physical demands analysis sub-steps. Physical Tasks: Preliminary (PPT), Draft (DPT), Critical (CPT).
Sub-Step 1A
Compilation of duty tasks from career field source documents in the first physical demands analysis sub-step resulted in hundreds of physical and non-physical duty tasks. These were subsequently narrowed to the first MOS-specific working list of physical tasks, the PPTs, described in lay terms with operational verbs and ranked by intensity. Number of duty tasks and number of PPTs are shown in the first two columns of Fig. 4, respectively.

Delineation of duty tasks to critical physical tasks. Special Warfare: Special Tactics Officer (STO), Combat Control (CCT), Combat Rescue Officer (CRO), Pararescue (PJ), Tactical Air Control Party-Officer (TACP-O), Tactical Air Control Party (TACP), Special Operations Weather (SOWT). Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Security Forces (SF), Fire Emergency Services (FES), Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE). Note: FES and SERE studies paused after Sub-Step 1B, CPTs pending resumption of follow-on sub-steps.
Sub-Step 1B focus group SMEs and Sub-Step 1C scoring assessment Airmen provided qualitative and quantitative data, respectively, to identify and delineate physical tasks and eliminate redundancies. This resulted in the reduction and conversion of PPTs to DPTs (Fig. 4, columns 2 to 3). Demographic data in lines 1B and 1C of Table 7 portray the experience levels of the focus group SMEs and assessment Airmen, respectively.
Demographic characteristics of 1B SMEs, 1C Airmen, 1E Leaders
Demographic characteristics of 1B SMEs, 1C Airmen, 1E Leaders
Note 1: data in mean±standard deviation, except Rank in a low to high range. Note 2: skill levels are - 3 Apprentice, 5 Journeyman, 7 Craftsman, 9 Superintendent.
Focus groups also identified - and the 1D field observational sub-step reinforced the data - 14 physical descriptors, 10 physical fitness components (Tables 5 and 6, respectively), and the metabolic demands of CPT performance. Table 8 lists the percentage of one MOS’s (Security Forces) CPTs that require the respective physical attributes.
Physical descriptor, metabolic demand, PF component data for one MOS, Security Forces
Physical descriptor, metabolic demand, PF component data for one MOS, Security Forces
Iso, isometric contraction; Dyn Bal, dynamic balance; Vel, velocity; Core Rot, core rotation; Quick/Rx Time, quickness / reaction time; MS, muscular strength; ME, muscular endurance; Bal, balance; coord, coordination; CRE, cardiorespiratory endurance; BC, body composition; Rx Time, reaction time.
The last sub-step, interviews with leaders, confirmed DPTs to the final official Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant CPTs as seen in the latter two columns of Fig. 4. Demographic data for one MOS, Security Forces, are listed in Table 7 in line 1E. Samples of CPTs are listed within one sample mission set per MOS in Table 9 (no CPT data for Fire and Emergency Services and Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape, paused at Sub-Step 1B). All MOS-specific mission sets, each containing one or more CPT(s), are listed in Table 2.
Discussion
Purpose / Study design
The second “Tier” of the AF Exercise Science Unit’s approach to developing physical fitness tests, standards, and physical training guidance encompasses multiple steps. This study addressed the first step in this Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally-relevant process. Step 1, as the Fig. 2 pyramid illustrates, is foundational to the overall process [10, 29]. Hardison, et al. [11] state that this first major step in the Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally-relevant process must be “complete, accurate and sufficiently detailed to support the remaining steps in the standard-setting process.” Therefore, we employed five comprehensive sub-steps with overlapping scoring and subjective and objective cross checks to conduct a thorough physical demands analysis to identify and delineate occupationally specific, operationally relevant critical physical tasks for eight AF physically demanding occupations.
MOS-specific critical physical task samples within one of multiple mission sets
MOS-specific critical physical task samples within one of multiple mission sets
In a description of Step 1 of the overall six-step process, Stevenson et al. [15] and Payne and Harvey [18] delineate between job task analysis and physical demands analysis, the former identifies CPTs whereas the latter quantifies the physical demands of the identified tasks. Rayson [10], citing the context of occupational physical fitness with focus on the physical, rather than psychosocial demands of jobs, states that physical demands analysis is a more appropriate term here. Accordingly, we broadly apply the physical demands analysis term, our analysis both identified CPTs and quantified the physical demands of said CPTs.
Sub-Step 1A
The results of this study demonstrate that the five sub-step process employed was successful for systematically identifying and describing CPTs performed by Airmen in eight different US Air Force MOSs. Sub-Step 1A grossly reduced (Fig. 4 columns 1 to 2) duty tasks to PPTs, by eliminating non-physical tasks, broadly describing PPTs in lay terms and ranking the PPTs. Sub-Step 1A also set the precedent for significant MOS-specific SME involvement [10, 29] throughout the entire Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant process to include the four subsequent sub-steps in Step 1.
Sub-Step 1B
The bulk of the overall Step 1 refining effort was accomplished in Sub-Step 1B through the four-staged focus groups. SME independent [24] scoring produced qualitative physical (frequency, duration, intensity) and criticality (importance) data, highlighting the first and third stages. Each of these stages were followed with consensus building stages. Using a prepared script for standardization [24], trained facilitators guided SMEs, armed with scoring data, to group consensus on conversion of PPTs to DPTs. Accounting for and working through inter-member variance with the SMEs was representative of the redundancy checks in this sub-step. Conducting three separate four-stage focus groups per MOS (two for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) with separate sets of SMEs further strengthened the study. Finally, focus group SMEs provided details and conditions to attenuate the variability across multiple factors, e.g., distances, loads, gear, technology [16, 17], that can influence occupational performance outcomes [30] and are critical to the remainder of the overall study process. The scoring equation we used to rank CPTs weights the criticality factor heaviest. These scores of importance are based on serious outcomes where failure to perform the task may result in major loss, e.g., injury, death, mission failure [24] no matter the frequency, duration, or intensity scores of the task. Also, the higher weighted import score places appropriate emphasis towards an increased focus in training MOS members on these high-import tasks [31].
Sub-Step 1C
Sub-Step 1C’s quantitative data from MOS-specific Airmen across the AF, reinforced the 1B qualitative data providing strong breadth and depth, respectively, to the scoring of physical tasks. This reduced and quantified the physical tasks to the near-final DPT list (Fig. 4, columns 2 to 3), manageable and prioritized for field observations. Potential order effects were attenuated in Sub-Steps 1B and 1C with randomization of PPT mission sets and DPT lists prior to respective scoring.
Sub-Step 1D
Sub-Step 1D brought objectivity to the otherwise subjective physical demands analysis process [16, 24]. Field observations of DPTs, video recordings, checklist driven needs analyses [16] including direct interaction with incumbents and SMEs performing the DPTs, provided tangible reality to the process. A visual data record of physical requirements, e.g., the movement patterns necessary to perform tasks, importantly help frame the final CPT quantification, and identify the percent CPTs requiring the physical attributes listed in Table 8. These physical descriptor, metabolic demand, and physical fitness component data figure prominently in follow-on research study steps, such as developing physical task simulations and selecting physical fitness test candidates. Finally, Sub-Step 1D’s research team – career field customer direct interaction provided face validity to the process, and research team members performing CPTs enhanced credibility and improved the research team’s understanding of the physical demands under scrutiny [16].
Sub-Step 1E
Senior SME leader (senior non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers from varied commands) confirmation of the CPTs (Fig. 4 columns 3 to 4) in Sub-Step 1E was the final sub-step in this initial study providing the critical foundation for the remaining steps in the overall Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant process. Table 9 lists samples of MOS-specific CPTs in context by mission set. Some physical employment standards research may not account for CPT context, sequencing, or integration that may occur on operational missions [32, 33]. However, we performed CPTs individually and in aggregated mission set sequences for further understanding, to best determine physical demand, and as a basis for physical task simulation development [33].
Subject matter experts
Level of experience - time in MOS, time deployed, time in service - affects physical task performance [34]; these same experiential criteria are important for MOS SMEs as addressed by Milligan et al. [29] to include performing, directing, training, witnessing, and leading physical tasks. We employed SMEs across the sub-steps, SMEs of varied experience as portrayed by years in MOS, number of deployments, varied skill levels and roles, rank, and age in Table 7. Multiple, expert SMEs with relevant, current technical knowledge [29] from across all MOS mission sets worked in multiple focus groups (lines 1B in Table 7). Large samples of Airmen from various ranks (airman to general officer) and with recent experience [15] provided valuable score data in Sub-Step 1C. In Sub-Steps 1A, 1B, 1D, and 1E our research team had direct interaction with SMEs stressing the import of research team and SMEs working together [6, 31] to select CPTs. Special Warfare career fields had recently opened to females, so they did not have females in operational roles, but Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Security Forces, and Fire and Emergency Services were represented by SME females greater than their incumbent percentages (females in 1B: Explosive Ordnance Disposal 17.7% , Security Forces 21.4% , and Fire and Emergency Services 7.7% ). Also in Table 7, demographic data in line 1E under Security Forces show the broad and deep experience of senior leader SMEs who independently [24] reviewed and confirmed CPTs. Our SME arrangement included incumbents performing physical tasks; supervisors performing, leading, training; supervisors not performing but leading [35], senior leaders reviewing and overseeing, multiple groups in Sub-Step 1B, and multiple locations in Sub-Step 1D. This SME arrangement exceeded the Milligan et al. [29] recommendation for SMEs to meet at least two of nine criteria for identifying SMEs for military tasks. Several of our SMEs and all our SME groups met nine of nine criteria. These experientially broad and deep SMEs in groups where the “sum was greater than the parts” enhanced the comprehensive process, avoided lower quality products, and avoided bias that may occur in physical employment standards development with:
Comprehensive
It appears a few other studies [2, 14] apply or recommend [10, 11] a similar methodology, using three to five sub-steps to determine CPTs, as our five sub-step comprehensive approach. However, several [8, 37–41] other studies undertook only one or two sub-steps. Our five sub-steps are in accordance with the Constable and Palmer [1] recommendations and meet eight of the nine techniques listed by Nevola et al. [42]; the only technique we did not address is case law as this does not apply in the US Air Force for standards development.
Limitations
Although our study included objective observations and data collection in Sub-Step 1D, and clear mathematical scoring parameters in the first three sub-steps, subjectivity remains in the majority of the sub-steps and may be a source of unaccounted variance. Specifically in Sub-Step 1D we could have added objective physiological monitoring of physical subtasks; however, this omission did not prevent selection of optimal predictive physical fitness tests (later manuscripts). Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant tests, standards and training are gender-neutral by design and requirement; therefore, the lack of experienced female SMEs in the Special Warfare and Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape career fields should not be a hindrance but may be a face validity issue. Finally, our findings stem from a US Air Force population and requirements and therefore may not be generalizable to other military or civilian populations.
Summary
We hypothesized that a multiple sub-step methodology would provide clear CPT data that career field leadership would confirm and approve for follow on Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant process work. The present study is arguably one of the few military studies to encompass five comprehensiveness sub-steps to select CPTs. We achieved comprehensiveness and thoroughness via multiple sub-steps, three focus groups per MOS, inter-member variance accounting, CPT integration within mission set context, and use of multiple experientially deep and broad ranging MOS-specific SMEs. This provided our career field customers confidence in the main study finding: our research team employed five comprehensive sub-steps with overlapping scoring and subjective and objective cross checks to conduct a thorough physical demands analysis to identify, delineate, and describe occupationally specific, operationally relevant critical physical tasks for eight AF physically demanding occupations. This reduction of duty tasks to well defined CPTs is the underpinning for follow-on development of physical task simulations, physical fitness test candidates, and physical training guidance - important to avoid the Air Force’s test-centrism in PF. The Step 1 physical demands analysis process should be reviewed on a routine basis to account for mission set changes, technological advances and equipment and load changes that may increase or decrease physical and physiological burden [6, 8]. Lastly, this effort is a major step towards establishing a Tier 2 occupationally specific, operationally relevant science basis in the US Air Force PF Program in accordance with US public law requirements. No documentation, only anecdotal evidence, i.e., “the test has stood the test of time,” exists for the majority AF PF program history and for all current tests and standards across AF training and operations. Our operational requirements-based physical demands analysis that identified and quantified CPTs is a start down the road to overcome institutional resistance steeped with traditional-historical normative, arbitrary military PF tests, standards, and training guidance.
Conclusion
The study approach proved efficacious for conducting a thorough physical demands analysis to identify, delineate, and describe occupationally specific, operationally relevant critical physical tasks for eight AF physically demanding occupations. The physical demands analysis process here, Step 1 of the overall six step process, increased engagement and provided buy-in across occupations queried, as acknowledged by members and leaders identifying the process as conclusive. Importantly, resulting CPTs provide the basis for the next major step in the overall research process, developing physical task simulations to link to predictive physical fitness test batteries and physical training guidance.
Acronyms
AF Air Force CPT critical physical task DPT draft critical physical task MOS military occupational specialty PF physical fitness PPT preliminary physical task SME subject matter expert
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jordan Becker, Mark Docken, Elizabeth Kilby, Justin Cupples, and Ryan Logan for their exceptional research assistance; Alaina Dooley, Sarah Casey, and Sara Juback for their focus group and analytical expertise; and Ms Doris Perez for her consistently first-rate library and literature support.
Ethical approval
Approval was obtained from the US Air Force 59th Medical Wing Institutional Review Board; approved protocol numbers and dates: Battlefield Airmen (Special Warfare) FWH20150006H - 25 Nov 2014, Explosive Ordnance Disposal FWH20170109H - 1 Jun 2018, Security Forces FWH20210104H - 22 Jun 2021.
Informed consent
Focus group participants provided written informed consent before participation.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
The research was supported in part by US Headquarters Air Force funding.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect official U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or US Air Force positions or policies.
