NOTE: End date is now 8/14/2013 per NSSC information (Ed., 6/15/2012)

NOTE: period of performance changed to 8/15/2009-8/14/2012 (from 5/22/09-5/21/12) per JSC (3/10)

This report includes the tasks that have been conducted for the project, as well as updates following the previous Y4 annual report completed. The first phases of the project involved investigating the characteristics of the LDSF environment, by reviewing the literature of team performance in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments. Our literature review was organized by investigating three constructs—categorized as thrusts—that are considered important for effective team performance in ICE environments: (1) cohesion, (2) stress, and (3) self-regulation.

The literature review helped in the development of inquiries for the structured interviews with subject matter experts. These subject matter experts were astronauts with NASA who had previous experience with LDSF mission in the International Space Station (ISS). These interviews involved astronauts to provide insight into their experiences of these missions, including stress that they experience during taskwork and in the work environment, preparing crewmembers for spaceflight missions, and working with fellow teammates before and during the mission. Additionally, we also gained insight about what conditions of training interventions they deemed useful for preparing the team for their spaceflight mission. Based on our literature review and talking with the subject matter experts, we concluded that Team Dimensional Training (TDT), a structured debriefing strategy that is associated with team self-correction, can help personnel in the spaceflight context for learning and maintaining optimal collective performance.

The main update associated with this final report involves the conduction and conclusion of our field study, which investigated TDT in a Mission Control setting. This involves data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results. Findings indicate that participants rate the TDT debriefing strategy to allow for more open and participative debriefing, and also rated the TDT strategy with higher levels of learning value than the baseline debriefing condition. Additionally, findings indicate that the TDT strategy has resulted in quicker certification times for trainees in comparison to the baseline condition.

Overall, our efforts in this four year research project involved gaining insight into the characteristics and challenges associated with long duration spaceflight. Our efforts also included the validation of training countermeasures (i.e., TDT) aiming to benefit personnel in the spaceflight work environment to prepare for future missions.

NOTE: End date is now 8/14/2013 per NSSC information (Ed., 6/15/2012)

NOTE: period of performance changed to 8/15/2009-8/14/2012 (from 5/22/09-5/21/12) per JSC (3/10)

Regarding efforts within the three main thrusts provided in the initial proposal, efforts within Thrust 1 (Cohesion) were focused on (1) continued literature analysis for the development of cohesion measurement, (2) the development of team training guidelines and best practices, and (3) experimental testing investigating the factors associated with team cohesion. Efforts associated with Thrust 2 (Stress) involved: (1) developing guidelines for team level stress measurement, and (2) experimental testing investigating the factors contributing to team member strain. Efforts involved in Thrust 3 (Self-Regulation) primarily involved data collection for a field study investigating the validity of utilizing Team Dimensional Training (TDT) in a NASA Mission Control setting. TDT is a structured debriefing style for guiding teams to develop shared and accurate teamwork knowledge and facilitate their development of teamwork skills. Additionally, the self-regulation thrust involved data collection and analysis of multiple laboratory experiments investigating the role of team composition and team member strain on team performance, and analyses of archival analog data. Project Pegasus has received a no-cost extension until the end of the year 2013 to provide an opportunity for collecting performance data in the TDT field validation study.

Y4 progress so far has included several core tasks including: Literature and archival data analysis (Task 3), the development of cohesion measurement guidelines for LDSF teams (Task 4), laboratory experimental investigations focusing on composition factors and its relation to team performance (Task 5), and data collection for the validation study of the TDT debriefing strategy (Task 9).

NOTE: End date is now 8/14/2013 per NSSC information (Ed., 6/15/2012)

NOTE: period of performance changed to 8/15/2009-8/14/2012 (from 5/22/09-5/21/12) per JSC (3/10)

Efforts within Thrust 1 (Cohesion) were dedicated to continued literature analysis. Findings from this analysis supported the development of an initial cohesion toolkit that includes an attitudinal measure, a behavioral measure, and a sociometric measure. In addition, Y3 efforts resulted in the successful identification and development of an experimental methodology appropriate for studies dedicated to exploring issues related to long duration spaceflight (LDSF) crew functioning and performance. Data from laboratory studies will be analyzed in order to assess the reliability and validity of the cohesion toolkit. Efforts related to Thrust 2 (Stress) involved: (1) constructing a theoretical conceptualization of team-level stress, (2) identifying guidelines for the measurement of team-level stress, (3) examining the implications of boredom and monotony for future long-duration missions, and (4) analyzing the indicators of team stress from an archival Air Traffic Controller data set. In addition, a manuscript submitted during Y2 was revised and submitted for review for publication in a peer-reviewed outlet relevant to NASA. Thrust 3 (Self-Regulation) efforts were dedicated to designing and implementing a study aimed at empirically validating a strategy for debriefing teams. The strategy under investigation is Team Dimension Training (TDT). Briefly, TDT is a strategy for guiding teams in a structured process of self-correction to facilitate team members in developing shared and accurate knowledge about the components of effective teamwork and accelerate their mastery of targeted teamwork skills. Furthermore, Project Pegasus has received a one year no-cost extension to continue this effort in order to scientifically determine the degree to which estimates of TDT’s validity obtained in prior research will generalize to the NASA population.

Thus, Y3 progress included several core tasks: analysis of data sets collected from analogous samples and reviews of existing literature (Task 3), the development of a preliminary cohesion toolkit (Task 4), preparation for experimental studies and collection of data from these studies (Task 5), conducting the first project workshop (Task 8), and coordinating with our NASA sponsors to initiate the validation study of the TDT debriefing technique (Task 9).

Besides the publications listed in the Bibliography below, we have an Unpublished White Paper: Bedwell, W.L., Grossman, R., Potocnik, M.J., Dietz, A.S., & Salas, E. "Workshop Executive Summary: Best Practices for Enhancing Team Performance." November 2011.

Thus, Y2 progress included several core tasks: scientific advisory board convened for tele-meeting (Task 2), analysis of data sets collected from analogous samples and reviews of existing literature (Task 3), preparation for experimental studies (Task 5), development and piloting of a guided team self-correction instructional strategy based on the team training needs analysis completed in Year One (Task 6), planning for the first project workshop (Task 8), and coordination with both NASA BHP and analogue population officials to begin planning and development of training validation studies (Task 9).

Specific work products during Year 2 are as follows:

Unpublished White Papers

WP4. Driskell, J. E., Dietz, A.S., Weaver, S. J., Bedwell, W. L., Sierra, M.J., & Salas, E. (2010). Stress training taxonomy. Unpublished white paper.

WP5. Weaver, S. J., Bedwell, W. L., Sierra, M. J., Dietz, A. S., & Carter, D. (2010). Project pegasus: Scientific advisory board conference call report. Unpublished white paper.

WP6. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Sierra, M. J., Weaver, S. J., Bedwell, W. L., Dietz, A. S., Carter-Berenson, D., Olgesby, J., Fiore, S. M., Salas, E. (2011) Team training needs analysis (part 1 of 3): Task analysis. Unpublished white paper. i. **Revised after vetting with sponsors & participants

WP7. Sierra, M.J., Carter-Berenson, D., Smith-Jentsch, K., Bedwell, W.L., & Salas, E. (2011). TDT Dimensions mapped to SFRM dimensions and flight controller performance evaluation criteria (part 1 of 2). Unpublished white paper.

Team Dimensional Training (TDT) Materials for Pilot Testing (Dec 2010 & Feb 2011)

D5. Smith-Jentsch, K. A. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Sierra, M. J., Carter-Berenson, D., Weaver S. J., Bedwell, W. L., Dietz, A. S., & Oglesby J. M. (2011). TDT facilitator workshop curriculum slides.

D6. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Sierra, M. J., & Carter-Berenson, D. (2011). TDT prebriefing/debriefing facilitation guide.

D7. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Sierra, M. J., & Carter-Berenson, D. (2011). TDT guidebook.

Formal Briefings

D8. Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2011, February). Team dimensional training: A strategy for developing high performance LDSF teams. Briefing presented to the Flight Operations Integration Group.

Other

O1. DRAFT of Mission Objective Request for NEEMO 15 **Note: BHP has since decided to not participate in NEEMO 15

Three overarching tasks were completed in Y1: a formal project kick-off meeting with sponsors and other key stake holders (Task 1), a scientific advisory board was formed (Task 2), and a team training needs analysis was conducted to identify critical training objectives, training strategy recommendations, and training methods for experimental validation in subsequent project work slated to occur in Y2 and Y3 (Task 3). The purpose of the kick-off meeting was to develop a shared understanding among the UCF research team and NASA sponsors regarding the project goals, to establish common ground, and to allow the team to make necessary adjustments based on sponsor requests. Task 2 was dedicated to identifying and convening a scientific advisory board (SAB) designed to provide a combination of scientific and operational expertise both supplementary and complementary to the expertise of the UCF team. Specifically, the objectives of the SAB are to provide suggestions, advice, feedback, and an external perspective throughout the life of the project in order to optimize the scientific merit and practicality of the research efforts conducted within the scope of this grant. SAB members have been identified and have received overview materials detailing project aims and progress to date. The SAB is scheduled to hold its first meeting in July, 2010. Results will be detailed in subsequent reports. Task 3 included a Team Training Needs Analysis (TTNA) designed to delineate and project critical training needs (i.e. team competencies) for extreme long-duration missions, thus allowing relevant training strategies to be mapped to identified needs. To this end, Task three included a review of existing published studies analyzing teamwork working in isolated, confined, environments, analog data analysis, and subject matter expert interviews conducted with a sample of long-duration astronauts.

Overall, Y1 efforts have been dedicated to identifying team training needs for LDSF missions that will guide training recommendations, instructional strategy development and validation, as well as metric development and experimentation in Y2 and Y3. The literature reviews, SME interviews, review of existing training curricula, and analyses of analog data to date have already identified several important task, person, and organizational factors that must be considered in developing training and measurement strategies that will be effective given the operational environment. For example, analyses of the SME interviews conducted in February 2010 revealed several key task characteristics that will moderate the type of training strategy and methods recommended for optimizing crew (ground and flight) performance and cohesion (BHP Gap Team5). Additionally, interim results derived using archival analog data have found support for the impact of a guided team-self correction training and debriefing strategy on both team and multi-team system performance (BHP Gap Team5). Additionally, interim results of these analyses demonstrate that this strategy improves both within team and between team performance through several mechanisms: by improving team knowledge stock, increasing team mental model accuracy, and improving effective usage of transactive memory systems. These results and additional interim findings from the second analog data set (Air Traffic Control) are currently being prepared as white papers for submission to sponsors. These results have been augmented by findings from the on-going review of extant literature. Furthermore, review work to date has revealed several themes regarding the measurement of team cohesion and its relationship to cohesion which will guide formation of the cohesion toolkit (BHP Gap Team2).

Primary tasks for the first year are the development of evidence-based best practices for training crews to optimize cohesion, mitigate negative impacts of long-duration missions, and measure crew cohesion. We will conduct a thorough literature search. Based on information from the review, corresponding quantitative analysis and qualitative synthesis will be conducted detailing the current state of science for building, maintaining, and facilitating effective cohesion in complex, dynamic environments.

Second and third years of the project will focus on applying best practices derived from year one research by developing, implementing, and evaluating instructional strategies to maximize crew cohesion and mitigate negative psychosocial impacts of long-duration missions. Project goals are to: (1) mitigate performance failures due to a lack of cohesion between spaceflight crews and coordinating ground crews, (2) diagnose cohesion decrements during exploration missions, and (3) provide just-in-time training to improve any noted cohesion decrements during spaceflight.

Overall, this multi-faceted approach will provide comprehensive, evidence-based guidance to NASA addressing (1) questions regarding methods and technologies for monitoring crew coping with the behavioral conditions of spaceflight (IRP Gap - BHP 2.2.1) and (2) best methods for training crews to maintain cohesion and optimal performance during exploration missions (IRP Gap - BHP 2.3.1.).