1
Journal Article Review
Kristina Burkhart
Liberty University
CJUS 630 Crisis Intervention in Law Enforcement
Dr. Latreace Flynt
5 March 2023
2
Journal Article Review
oBibliography (in APA format)
Blair, J. P., Martaindale, M. H., & Sandel, W. L. (2019). Peek or push: An examination of two
types of room clearing tactics for active shooter event response. SAGE Open, 9(3),
215824401987105. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019871052
oProblem
With the increase in active shooter incidents nationwide, many law enforcement agencies
have adjusted their techniques from waiting for SWAT to respond to allowing officers,
whether in teams or solo, to respond. This article highlights two techniques that expose
officers to potential hazards when responding to an active shooter incident the Peek or push.
The point at when an officer enters a room that has not been cleared, they expose themselves
to various dangers while trying to identify the threat. While each method has hazards, the
Peek or solo entry is far more dangerous than a team or push entry.
Comments: The problem statement was clearly stated in the introduction and throughout the
article. The problem statement agreed with the article's title and seemed to be of educational
significance. The problem was easy for the average reader to understand and determine the
need for the study. It was limited to the researchers' capabilities and resources that were
available.
oReview of Literature
The authors used literature from current active shooter events, specifically the Columbine
High School shooting, and the responses to training and tactics after the event. The literature
discussed the change of waiting for SWAT teams to arrive to multiple officer entry and,
finally, solo entry when no other officers are at the scene. The literature mainly focuses on
object interception when dealing with a moving target. There are two primary types,
locomotor inception, and manual inception. The authors take the time to define the two
primary types of interception and how these styles will determine how both the officer and
suspect will respond when they engage with each other.
Comments: The article's authors acknowledge limited information and research on the topic,
specifically studies that address firing a weapon at a moving target. Due to this, the
researchers spent a significant portion of the article providing more information on the
differences in entry styles used by police officers and how these styles affect the reaction
time of both the officer and the suspect.
oObjectives
3
Specifically, the study sought to determine if officers using the solo Peek entry would be an
easier and more predictable target for the suspect and if their reaction time and accuracy
would be more significant compared to a push or team entry.
Comment: The author's objectives were difficult to find. The objectives were determined
based on the literature review and hypothesis that was provided.
oHypothesis
Specifically, the study sought to determine: (a) if the style of room entry affected the
shooting accuracy of the suspect; (b) if the style of room entry affected where the suspect's
shot hit the entering officer; and (c) if the style of entry affects the reaction time of the
suspect.
Comments: The purpose was clearly and concisely stated, and agreed with the title. It was
limited to the researchers' capabilities and resources provided to them.
oMethodology
The study used 165 students recruited from a central Texas university at a law enforcement
facility. The participants were split into two groups; a controlled condition utilizing the push
method and an experimental condition utilizing the peek method. Participants were unaware
of the room entry technique the officer would use and be assigned on a rotating basis. Before
conducting the experiment, participants signed a consent form and were shown how to use
training pistols loaded with force-on-force rounds filled with colored soap to mark where
their target was hit. Participants were allowed to test-fire the pistol to understand the
operation. Participants were equipped with a Positive Science vision tracker that allowed the
researchers to record what the participant saw and track what the participant is looking at
during the experiment. The participants were given the scenario that they had just committed
murder and were hiding in an attempt to ambush the police. They were placed in a corner and
told to face the door where law enforcement would enter. They were instructed only to fire
one round and that the scenario would not begin until it was announced that "the room is
hot." This suggested to the participants that officers could enter the room anytime.
The researchers in the study played the role of the officers for both the control and
experimental conditions. The officers were provided with training pistols with blank rounds
to ensure that participants did not need protective equipment that would interfere with
wearing the eyewear that was recorded. For the control condition, the officer made a hybrid
or diagonal room entry, allowing the officer to move to the center of the room quickly and
engage the suspect once they had the opportunity. For the experimental condition, the officer
peeks into the room with the pistol outstretched toward the suspect and never leaves the
doorway.
4
The vision trackers worn by the participants recorded the experiment, as well as two cameras
in the room.
Comments: The methods used to gather the data for this study were clearly explained. The
instruments and methodology were clearly explained, and the population used was sufficient.
oFindings
Hypothesis one: Participants in the Peek or experimental condition successfully shot the
officer in 25 of 76 runs. Participants in the Push or control condition successfully shot the
officer in 32 of 73 runs. This suggests a slight, nonsignificant difference in the overall
accuracy of the participant between the two entry styles.
Hypothesis two: In the Peek condition, participants scored 11 head hits and 14 other hits.
Participants scored six head hits and 26 other hits in the Push condition. This suggests a
difference in where shots hit the entering officers. Officers were more likely to be shot in the
head using the Peek entry than push entry.
Hypothesis three: Hypothesis three dealt with reaction time. Participants in the Push
condition had a moderately faster shooting time than those in the Peek condition. However,
this was not statistically significant.
Comments: The findings were well organized, sectioned, and reported objectively. The
tables, graphs, and data were presented in a manner that made it easy to read and understand.
oSummary
No summary was given.
oConclusions
According to the study results, suggesting one entry method over the other is not easy. The
study's results are mixed but show both the positives and negatives of each method. The push
method has a slight advantage over the peek method because the target is moving instead of
stationary and causes the suspect to have a quicker reaction time. However, the officer
provides a bigger target for the suspect to hit in the push method. While providing a smaller
target, the peek method allows the suspect to slow their reaction time to take a more accurate
and deadly hit.
5
Comments: The conclusions were based on the findings, logically stated, and discussed how
specific tactics could change the outcome of an active shooter scenario for law enforcement.
oRecommendations
The researchers provided recommendations for additional research due to the limitations they
had with their study. Since soap marking rounds were used, it is difficult to determine if the
results of the peek method are underestimated since a wall stops the rounds compared to
actual bullets. Also, it was stated that while the scenarios given were moderately stressful, it
is impossible to replicate the stress of a shooting situation in a laboratory. The last limitation
mentioned is that each participant only had one round to fire, compared to a real scenario
where the officer and suspect would fire multiple rounds.
Comments: The recommendations were limited to a call for additional research in a few areas
of the study. In the future, participants should be given multiple rounds because it is likely that a
firefight would occur between officers and a suspect. Additionally, to add to the stress of the
scenario, researchers should not inform the participant when the room is hot because it is a cue
for the officers to enter. It is possible that this could affect the reaction time of both the officer
and the suspect and could provide additional data.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
