1
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Purpose
The main theme of the article titled, Resilience Enhancing Programs in the U.S. Military:
An exploration of theory and applied practice by Sarah A. McInerney, Edward Waldrep and
Charles C. Benight is the exploration of resilience theory and military resilience programs, with a
focus on proposing a practical solution. The central idea revolves around the suggestion to
integrate a psychological readiness metric into existing reporting protocols within the U.S.
military. The article contends that regularly assessing psychological readiness could enhance the
effectiveness of resilience programs, promote unit resilience, and contribute to the overall
readiness of the force. The paper addresses post-combat mental health risks for U.S. service
members, emphasizing the prevalence of disorders like PTSD. Despite variations in defining
resilience, the Department of Defense has prioritized resilience program development. Current
programs in the U.S. military are critically evaluated, emphasizing gaps between theory and
practice.
There is an importance to publish the ideas presented by this article because they bring
light to the importance if potentially integrating a psychological readiness metric into current
reporting protocols has the potential to improve the effectiveness and credibility of current
military resilience programs (McInerney et al., 2022). Regularly assessing psychological
readiness could empower commanders to enhance unit resilience, identify significant trends
systemically, and contribute meaningfully to overall force readiness, thereby building evidence
for universal resilience programs (McInerney et al., 2022).
Impressions
The article provides a comprehensive review resilience theory, current resilience
initiatives in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps, along with
2
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
assessments of their effectiveness. It delves into gaps between theory and practice to develop
innovative and measurable approaches for conceptualizing and fostering resilience in military
units. Additionally, the paper introduces new information in the form of a method for assessing
unit resilience and psychological readiness, informed by contemporary resilience theory and
tailored for implementation within the U.S. Army's institutional framework (McInerney et al.,
2022).
In addressing resilience theory and the effectiveness of the initiatives that the different
service branches have in place, how these initiatives affect mental disorders, particularly PTSD,
among U.S. service members is highlighted. The paper effectively highlights the challenges and
costs associated with these disorders, creating a strong foundation for the need to enhance
resilience programs. Depth is added to the discussion presented by the article with the
incorporation of theoretical frameworks such as Ecological Systems Theory and the differential-
susceptibility framework. These frameworks help explain the complex dynamics of resilience,
considering both individual and environmental factors, providing a well-rounded theoretical
foundation for the proposed psychological readiness metric.
The article had a collection of strengths and weaknesses that I was able to identify.
Strong points for the article rested in the author’s ability to discuss practical applications as well
as identify gaps between theory and practice. When it comes to weaknesses I found there to be
limited discussion on counterarguments, as well as an insufficient amount of detail on the
individual program evaluations from the perspective branches.
Strengths
The article goes beyond theory and discusses practical applications by proposing a
psychological readiness metric to be integrated into existing reporting protocols. This suggests a
3
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
proactive approach to addressing mental health concerns among service members and aligns with
the broader goal of enhancing overall force readiness. Additionally, The article identifies gaps
between theory and practice in current military resilience programs, emphasizing the need for an
empirically-informed framework. This recognition of gaps demonstrates a critical and reflective
approach, encouraging a shift towards more effective strategies in promoting resilience.
Weaknesses
The article primarily focuses on the positive aspects of incorporating a psychological
readiness metric. Including a discussion of potential drawbacks, limitations, or counterarguments
would strengthen the article's overall credibility and provide a more balanced perspective.
Furthermore, while the article mentions the evaluations of military resilience programs, it lacks
specific details on these evaluations, making it difficult to assess the strength of the evidence
supporting the effectiveness of these programs. More information on empirical findings would
enhance the article's credibility.
Application
The military resilience initiatives addressed in the article would empower me as a
counselor/leader by providing tools, insights, and a supportive framework to enhance the
psychological well-being and readiness of individuals and units under my guidance. These
initiatives enhance the understanding of the overall unit psychological readiness, keeping me
better informed of challenges that service members in my charge or care may be facing. These
initiatives would provide me with a valuable snapshot of the mental preparedness of the
individuals I would be leading, enabling me to not only lead them more effectively but also assist
them with their mental health as needed.
4
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
The ability to identify and mitigate stressors as well as make informed decisions are
added benefits to the application of these resilience initiatives. Using the Navy’s initiative as an
example, Enhanced Operational Stress Control, is an initiative led by leaders aimed at fostering
resilience in military units, Sailors, and family members. The initiative focuses on raising
awareness of stress and equipping leaders with resources and skills to effectively address stress-
related concerns (McInerney et al., 2022).
By incorporating psychological readiness metrics, I would be able to better identify
stressors affecting individuals or units. This knowledge would allow me to take proactive
measures to mitigate these stressors, contributing to the overall well-being of my team.
Additionally, Regular assessments of psychological readiness provide data that would better
inform my decision-making process. Understanding the psychological state of my team allows
me to make decisions that consider the well-being and readiness of individuals and the unit as a
whole.
Conclusion
This article explores the public significance of incorporating a psychological readiness
metric into existing reporting protocols for military resilience programs. The study emphasizes
the prevalence of mental disorders, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), among
U.S. service members after combat deployments and the negative impact on unit readiness and
healthcare costs. The Department of Defense (DoD) has invested in resilience programs to
address these concerns.
The paper reviews resilience theory and existing programs in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air
Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps. It identifies gaps between theory and practice,
emphasizing the need for a comprehensive framework that considers both individual and
5
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
environmental factors influencing resilience. Theoretical foundations of military resilience
programs are discussed, including the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program and Operational
Stress Continuum Model.
The proposed psychological readiness metric aims to assess unit resilience and
psychological readiness regularly, contributing to a better understanding of individual and
organizational trends. The article suggests that integrating this metric into reporting protocols
could enhance commanders' ability to address stressors, promote readiness, and contribute to the
evidence base for resilience programs. The potential benefits include improved awareness of unit
psychological fitness, identification of trends related to resilience training, and enhanced
understanding of force readiness beyond traditional metrics.
However, challenges such as accurate reporting, strategic marketing, and potential
limitations in reporting are acknowledged. Despite these challenges, the authors argue that
measuring psychological readiness in this way could provide valuable insights and reveal trends
not currently known to military leaders. In conclusion, the article underscores the importance of
psychological readiness assessment in military resilience programs and suggests ways to
integrate it into existing reporting processes.
