Peer

Reviewed

Investigating U.S. Army Unit-Specific

Psychological Skills Training Through
Soldier and Embedded Performance
Expert Perspectives
A Mixed Method Exploratory Evaluation
Amanda L. Adrian1, John Eric M. Novosel-Lingat2, Kelly A. Toner1,
Coleen L. Crouch3, and Susannah K. Knust4
1
TechWerks LLC
2
Medical Services Corps
3
Aviation Test Directorate, U.S. Army Operational Test Command
4
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

Abstract
Soldiers are expected to consistently perform at optimal levels to
meet mission objectives and prevent mission failure despite fac-
ing adversity related to aspects of their professional and person-
al lives. To empower soldiers to face these challenges effectively,
the U.S. Army Directorate of Prevention, Resilience and Readiness
(DPRR) provides access to resources, programs, and training relat-
ed to increasing readiness and resilience. One such program utiliz-
es performance psychology practitioners, or performance experts
(PEs), as a primary prevention resource to train and coach skills
and concepts to improve soldier readiness and resilience. These
professionals are auxiliary resources outside the unit who provide
cognitive and behavioral health expertise, complementing soldiers’
tactical and technical training. To improve the PEs’ impact, DPRR
wanted to embed PEs directly into units. A mixed-methods explor-
atory evaluation was conducted to understand the perceived ben-
efits and challenges of embedment. Data collected across multiple

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 3

 sites over two years identified the perceptions of the embedment
process using an integrated analysis of qualitative leader inter-
views, quantitative surveys of soldiers, and qualitative interviews
and quantitative survey data from embedded PEs (EPEs). Results
suggest that soldiers and leaders perceived EPEs to be value-add-
ed experts who contributed to soldiers’ resilience and readiness,
ultimately impacting unit performance and lethality. Despite the
positive perceptions, EPEs experienced critical barriers, including
misaligned communications and expectations. By identifying these
embedment challenges and successes, the evaluation aims to en-
sure the program can continue effectively and efficiently improving
unit readiness and resilience.

P
erformance psychology practitioners trained in sport psychology or kinesiol-
ogy, with a focus on cognitive and behavioral optimization, are successfully
utilized to facilitate, support, and evaluate cognitive skills training of civilian
individuals or organizations (Lochbaum et al., 2022; Partington & Orlick, 1987). Tac-
tical communities that function within uncertain, challenging, and dynamic envi-
ronments like the U.S. military utilize performance psychology principles to improve
readiness and resilience (Raabe et al., 2021). While the use of psychological training
within tactical communities is not novel, leveraging performance psychology practi-
tioners and principles as a preventative approach to enhance readiness and resilience
before engaging in high-stakes, operational environments is a strategic, contempo-
rary application (Park et al., 2022).
Currently, the U.S. Army utilizes the Directorate of Prevention, Resilience and
Readiness (DPRR), formerly known as the Army Resilience Directorate, to empha-
size and highlight resources and programs that promote readiness, resilience, and
overall well-being (DPRR, n.d.). More than 200 performance psychology practi-
tioners, or performance experts (PEs), at 32 U.S. Army installations deliver resil-
ience, performance, social, and organizational psychology training to improve the
overall readiness (or fitness to execute mission essential or combat related tasks) of
soldiers. Soldiers who demonstrate readiness are physically capable of accomplishing
their tasks and mentally and emotionally fit to tackle the challenges they may face
(U.S. Department of the Army, 2024). PEs offer capabilities that include a variety of
individual and group psychological skills delivered in different modalities (i.e., di-
dactic, experiential, in vivo, and during performance). PEs teach, coach, and consult
on performance psychology concepts and skills related but not limited to resilience,
physical and operation readiness, leader development, and bystander intervention.
A critical benefit of the PEs and their training is the application of these concepts
and skills to real-world examples. This application is necessary for seeing behavior
change related to improved readiness and resilience.

4 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

Conceptual Framework
The capabilities PEs offer are grounded in the transtheoretical model (Prochaska
& DiClemente, 1982), which explains how awareness and perceptions lead to behav-
ior change. In accordance with this conceptual framework, PEs most effectively deliver
their support by recognizing where individuals are on their path to change and how to
enhance the environment around them to better support that change. Furthermore, PEs
may apply these stages of change to identify soldiers’ readiness for change, informing
how PEs can tailor interventions to optimize performance, readiness, and resilience.
Ideally, the PEs’ support of the soldiers’ endeavors will result in enduring improvement
that can impact performance, readiness, and resilience within individuals and through-
out the organization. Considering the transtheoretical model and stages of change en-
hance the impact of PEs’ performance psychology training in this applied setting.

Embedding Performance Experts

Understanding how PEs facilitate enduring performance improvement is critical
for the U.S. Army as soldiers train for combat readiness and resilience. Wagstaff et

Amanda L. Adrian, PhD, is a research psychologist with TechWerks LLC. She currently
consults with the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. She has degrees in kinesiology
and psychology.

Capt. John Eric M. Novosel-Lingat, PhD, is a research psychologist in the U.S. Army’s
Medical Services Corps. He is currently serving as a principal investigator and the deputy
director of the Research Transition Office in the Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuro-
science at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Kelly A. Toner, MS, is research associate with TechWerks LLC and consults with the Wal-
ter Reed Army Institute of Research. She is currently pursuing her PhD in clinical psychol-
ogy at Drexel University.

Coleen L. Crouch, PhD, is an operations research systems analyst with the Aviation Test
Directorate at U.S. Army Operational Test Command, Fort Cavazos, Texas. She has de-
grees in industrial/organizational psychology.

Susannah K. Knust, PhD, is a research psychologist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research. She is the director of the Research Transition Office at the Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research and is also a principal investigator. Prior to becoming director, she
was the liaison officer to the current Directorate of Prevention, Readiness and Resilience
for six years. She has degrees in sport psychology and motor behavior, coach education,
and Spanish education.

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 5

al. (2017) described the “structured, time-bound, and competency-based nature” (p.
6) as a natural link between the military training environment and performance psy-
chology training. PEs are valued assets in the military training environment (Knust
et al., 2022); however, their impact on unit-specific training and ability to affect be-
havior change are major hurdles, limited due to perceptions of PEs. Specifically, sol-
diers and leaders are unaware that PEs provide overall readiness training and offer
job-related performance optimization support (Novosel-Lingat et al., 2024). For PEs
to be effective, soldiers and leaders must know how to connect with PEs, that PEs are
available resources, what the PEs’ capabilities are, and how to benefit from the PEs.
To overcome these hurdles, the U.S. Army and DPRR decided to embed PEs within
combat and combat support units, increasing PEs accessibility to soldiers.
PEs embedding directly into units allows them to use their training and exper-
tise to identify situations that would benefit from improved performance. Ideally,
this shift in practice would enhance soldier performance, readiness, and resilience.
Embedded PEs (EPEs) have the skills to support soldiers in their day-to-day work
environment while tailoring their performance psychology training support with the
unit’s conditions and priorities. Units with EPEs would have access to these profes-
sionals more regularly, and EPEs could offer soldiers in-the-moment training, sup-
porting resilience and readiness.

Mixed-Methods Evaluation
The current evaluation explored the perceived impact of embedding PEs directly
into selected combat and combat support units. This shift in the assigned location
from the installation level to specific units provided EPEs with more direct oppor-
tunities to work with soldiers through unit-specific training and day-to-day inter-
actions. To evaluate the embedment process, the Headquarters Department of the
Army’s DPRR created a pilot program at four installations. Selected PEs embedded
into the combat and combat support units for the pilot program, and nonembed-
ded PEs continued to support all other units across the installation from the Ready
and Resilient Performance Centers (DPRR, n.d.). EPEs were directed to provide ex-
clusive regular and ongoing training services to soldiers in collaboration with unit
commanders. The aim was for embedment to establish rapport, or mutual trust and
connection between EPEs and soldiers, and leader buy-in, or leader willingness to
understand and promote the EPEs’ training and skills, all to facilitate effective psy-
chological skills training.
Ultimately, DPRR was interested in the perceived effectiveness of embedding PEs
within brigades and battalions. To assess the effectiveness, the research team evaluated
the perceptions of the program from three perspectives: the EPEs, leaders, and sol-
diers. The following research questions (RQ) guided this mixed-methods evaluation:

6 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

• RQ1: Using a semistructured interview process, what were the EPEs’ percep-
tions of the embedment process?
• RQ2: Using a semistructured interview process, what were the leaders’ percep-
tions of having an EPE in their unit?
• RQ3: Using a quantitative survey, what were the soldiers’ perceptions of working
with the EPEs?

Methods
Using multiple data sources, a mixed-methods approach (Fetters et al., 2013) was
utilized to understand the embedment process. Recommended practices for evalu-
ating programs conducted within the military context (Kaimal et al., 2019; Santo et
al., 2021) were followed to structure the reported findings. The Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research (WRAIR) collected data for the evaluation as part of a larger
program evaluation after receiving approval from the Human Subjects Protection
Branch. The WRAIR evaluation team partnered with performance centers across
four installations, coded for anonymity as Sites 1 to 4, to observe training sessions
and collect data from EPEs, soldiers, and leaders from November 2019 to June 2022.
As part of the pilot evaluation, EPEs completed surveys, semiannual reflection es-
says, and in-depth interviews, soldiers completed surveys, and leaders provided
feedback via semistructured interviews. For the current evaluation, the evaluation
team employed a mixed-methods exploratory evaluation design to collect qualitative
data from EPEs and leaders along with selected quantitative survey responses from
soldiers to answer the three RQs.

Sample
Participants for this evaluation were from four large U.S. Army installations in
the continental United States. First, the evaluation team collected qualitative data
by conducting interviews with 81 active-duty leaders and 27 EPEs, who provided
consent. Then, the team collected quantitative survey data from soldiers who worked
with EPEs. Of the 463 soldiers invited, 426 (92.0%) provided consent. Survey partic-
ipants were active duty; half (49.3%) of the participants were junior enlisted soldiers
(E1–E4), 25.2% were senior enlisted soldiers (E5–E9), and 25.5% were officers. See
Table 1 for complete participant demographics.

Qualitative Instruments
The evaluation team employed a semistructured interview protocol with EPEs
to facilitate their reflection throughout the pilot. The first qualitative reflection in-

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 7

Table 1
Number of Participants by Site

Overall Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

EPEs Interviewed 27 6 4 8 9
Leaders
81 16 28 16 21
Interviewed
Soldiers Surveyed 426 63 140 147 72
Soldiers’ Rank
E1–E4 205 (49.3%)
E5–E9 105 (25.2%)
Officers 106 (25.5%)

Note. 4 soldier surveys were missing site responses. E1–E4 = Junior enlisted soldiers; E5–E9 =
Senior enlisted soldiers

terview occurred six months into the embedment period. Due in large part to the
COVID-19 restrictions, these initial six-month interviews took place over Microsoft
Teams or Zoom. EPEs were subsequently asked to provide responses to the same
prompts as a written reflection at 12 and 18 months into their embedment. The eval-
uation team requested EPEs (n = 25) to complete additional essays or interviews
based on special circumstances (e.g., personnel transitions). The combination of in-
terview and written responses over the embedment period allowed the collection of
data that would provide insight on the characteristics necessary for successful em-
bedment into assigned units while also allowing the EPEs to share key information
that may not have been discovered through the qualitative protocol. Furthermore,
this series of opportunities to respond qualitatively allowed for follow-up questions
from the evaluation team.
Leaders were also interviewed using a semistructured interview protocol tailored
for their experience, designed to elicit feedback about their perceptions of the pilot
program. EPEs helped select the leaders from their embedded units, though they
were not present during the actual leader interviews. These interviews took place at
least eight months into their EPE’s embedment. Similarly, most interviews took place
over Microsoft Teams or Zoom, and a few interviews were conducted in person as
the COVID-19 restrictions started to lift.
For most of the interviews, conducted both online and in person, at least two re-
search team members were present. One team member led by asking the interviewee
questions, and the second team member conducted a live transcription. Addition-
al team members joined the interview when available to ask additional follow-up

8 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

or clarifying questions. Following the interview, the transcriber conducted quality

control on the transcript and a team member removed identifying information from
the transcribed interviews. Participants did not validate qualitative products prior to
analysis due to the operational tempo of the military units, however the lead interview
conducted an intensive quality control review of transcripts and written products.

Quantitative Instruments
Soldiers trained by the EPEs were administered the 21-item Military Coaching
Behavior Scale (MCBS) survey consistent with the psychometric recommendations
from Wagstaff and colleagues (2017). The MCBS has five subscales: Observation (four
items), Questioning (four items), Goal Setting (five items), Developmental Feedback
(four items), and Motivational Feedback (four items). Using a 5-point Likert-type
response scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all of the time), soldiers indicated
their perceived satisfaction with the support received from their EPE. Mean scores
were calculated for each subscale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction
with the EPE.

Data Analysis
The mixed-methods evaluation required both qualitative and quantitative data
analyses.
Qualitative Analysis. Pairs of researchers conducted deductive analysis (Lev-
itt, 2018) of the prompted responses, with the principal investigator available to re-
view any discrepancies or disagreements between the paired coders. Using NVivo
software (version R1), one team of pairs analyzed the EPE interviews and reflection
essays, while the second pair analyzed the leader interviews. Before the qualitative
analysis, both coding teams developed agreed-upon priori codes and refined cod-
ing as batches of data were received throughout the pilot. Intercoder reliability was
established through discussions, consensus building, and ongoing communication
throughout the coding process. When the intercoder reliability coefficient fell below
0.70, the predetermined agreed-upon level of acceptable reliability rating (Landis &
Koch, 1977; O’Connor & Joffe, 2020), coders convened to address discrepancies and
achieve agreement through discussion. The coders then used grounded theory (Gla-
ser & Strauss, 1967) to determine key themes from the qualitative data inductively.
Finally, the coders engaged in a reflexive process (Braun & Clark, 2019) during the
coding and thematic analysis to mitigate any bias that may impact the process and
impede the development of valid interpretations.
Quantitative Analysis. Descriptive statistics were generated from the soldiers’
surveys. Data from the soldiers’ surveys were analyzed across the four installations
using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons as-

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 9

sessed specific site differences if a significant main effect was identified. All statistical
analyses were conducted on R 4.2.2 statistical computing software by a lead quanti-
tative analyst and reviewed with the evaluation team to ensure a valid interpretation
of the data.

Integration
Due to the complexity of the pilot program, an approach to intentionally inte-
grate the qualitative and quantitative data was configured during the design phase
of the evaluation. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated through merged
results reporting (Fetters et al., 2013). The evaluation team selected this approach to
merge interview and survey data for a more complete and valid interpretation after
analysis—not during the data collection—to facilitate a more streamlined process to
address each guiding research question.

Results
EPE Perceptions of the Embedment Process (RQ1)
To answer RQ1, the 27 EPEs provided feedback via interviews and written essays
about their embedment experience. After coding the input, the team determined
recurrent themes, including establishing rapport with soldiers and leaders, the im-
portance of buy-in, the impact on mission-essential tasks, and embedment of mis-
understandings.
Establish Rapport. To be effective, EPEs needed to establish rapport with their
soldiers and leaders. “I think that’s a struggle that some PEs may have, the building
rapport and being approachable. I think that’s a big win, being the approachable PE
so troopers feel comfortable talking with us and learning new stuff.”
Being present when and where the soldiers were training for a field exercise was
another opportunity for EPEs to establish rapport. Some EPEs went to the field and
observed the soldiers’ training firsthand. This time provided context for the EPEs and
a shared experience for the soldiers and EPEs. “Less talking more action, this unit is
busy so instead of constantly meeting, just head out to the motor pool or field and
attach and be present working with cadre and observing soldiers train.”
Finally, walking around the unit and being seen worked to build relationships be-
tween EPEs and their soldiers and leaders. “I realized it’s just showing up and being
available and just talking to people and hanging out at the staff duty desk, talking to
people. That’s how you build rapport. Having availability.”
The EPEs who built relationships with their soldiers experienced success in terms
of being sought out for additional training.

10 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

My greatest success has been the direct requests for trainings. I had to work
pretty hard to be established within the battalion once we redistributed after
the first of the year, and now I’m continually getting requests. Feeling estab-
lished, having literally hundreds of soldiers walk by and greet me by name tells
me that I’m doing something right, that I’ve providing [sic] value and them
[sic] I’m providing a positive contribution to the formation.

Importance of Buy-In. The EPEs selected to embed with units established them-
selves as qualified PEs who could positively impact performance; however, many
leaders and soldiers did not understand the EPEs’ role or what they were capable of
doing. To counteract this lack of understanding, EPEs needed to build buy-in among
leaders and soldiers.

Soldiers love stories and proof. Anytime as an EPE we can provide past success
stories or proof such as research suggests, studies show, it buys attention, rap-
port, and buy-in to listen to the research; especially if the end goal or the why is
for us to collect data on improved performance metrics such as qualifications,
promotion board, etc.

Having a leader who understood the potential for an EPE to impart change
on a unit, a form of meta-coaching, was found to be one of the most effective
strategies for increasing buy-in from a unit because of the leader’s ability for force
multiplication.

I think that the impact that we had with the master gunner is probably the
most impactful because he dictates so much of the training that happens. He’s
the one training people who are giving feedback. At that level, we’re having our
best impact. So, the success would be developing that relationship with him as
key personnel and him being so on board that he’s then helping others and is
kind of doing our job for us.

One way to improve buy-in within the unit was to work directly with leaders. One
EPE acknowledged the benefit of finding coachable moments with leaders. Capitaliz-
ing on a moment to work with key leaders increased the EPEs’ chances of having that
leader then become an advocate for working with the EPE.

It helps with your reputation, and I’ve generated more business from having
coachable moments with Company Commanders—they’re (EPE) an asset
for me (Company Commander)—and they want you to help their Platoon
Leaders. Everything you do is always evaluated. It’s always game-time when
you’re around or in the field. Just take it seriously.

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 11

 Impact on Mission Essential Tasks. When asked directly what, if any, mis-
sion-essential tasks EPEs supported, many responded with a range of responses. One
EPE stated, “The mission essential task list, like I when I come to work with a unit, I
take a picture of that list and make it my to-do list.” In support of mission readiness,
EPEs either supplemented unit training like time at the range or provided stand-
alone training in conjunction with other support resources on the unit to enhance
lethality. “Gunnery is like their big thing and there are all the tasks that falls under
that. That is our main focus because it’s their main focus.”

I’ve been integrated with the rifle range, gunnery ranges, Strykers, platoon
and squad live first events, I did some stuff with the medics who were recerti-
fying, team leader academy, platoon leader academy, observed company and
platoon training events that were in the field for several days. One day I stayed
overnight, buy typically, I would be there really early to really late. I would
find teachable moments. I’ve done some work with individual soldiers before
they go to schools—snipers, ALC [Advanced Leader Course], master gunnery
school. That is academically rigorous.

The projects that I am currently working on are the BDE [Brigade] Foundational
Readiness Training which is for the TOP 15 members at BDE. This is a month-
ly training. Additionally, I created the BDE counseling course POI [Program
of Instruction] which does include R2 [Ready and Resilient], legal, CDRs/1SGs
[Commanders/1st Sergeants] (experienced soldiers), MFLC [Military Family
Life Counselor], CH [Chaplain], BH [Behavioral Health] and other entities.
This is a holistic approach.

Often the EPEs’ work supplements unit training, which aims to improve qualifi-
cation success rates or physical fitness. More soldiers qualified and physically pre-
pared indicates that there are more soldiers ready to tackle the unit’s mission. “I
helped get all the crews certified at gunnery, everyone has made tape and morale
has increased.” From another EPE, “We participated in a lot of airborne operations
because it is essential and that’s what they need.”
Finally, EPEs can tailor their training to focus directly on enhancing the unit’s
lethality.

Yeah, so part of the lethality enhancement training is the sims [simulators]. Part
of it includes the mental skills we teach for them to use in the simulation. And
running them through trainings, helping them run through the sims better. It
helps them be better able to pass the gunnery tables and training licensing and
being able to drive the tanks and stuff. They have to go through them so many
times. The lethality enhancement training is for mission essential tasks. I’ve

12 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

been out to ACFTs doing hip pocket training & coaching while they’re going
through the mock ACFT. I haven’t been to the range or the gunnery tables.

Embedment Misunderstandings. While many EPEs shared positive feedback

and best practices, many shared struggles regarding embedment misunderstand-
ings. Many EPEs felt underutilized and attributed that to a lack of understanding
of their role.

We understood that they have no idea who we are and what we do. Maybe one
person in the battalion understood, but that’s it. One person out of 1100-1200
people—that’s just a lot of ground to cover. It’s just attending and observing,
attending, and observing continually, the more I was there.

Leader Utilization and Perceptions of the Embedded Performance

Experts (RQ2)
To answer RQ2, 81 leaders agreed to discuss their experiences working with EPEs
within their units. The leaders’ feedback informed themes related to successful em-
bedment in terms of recognizing the value of EPEs in units, appreciating proactive
and knowledgeable EPEs, highlighting when EPEs built rapport within the unit, and
emphasizing the EPEs’ participation in unit training. Leader feedback also acknowl-
edged challenges with embedment related to EPEs’ role confusion.
Leaders Recognized the Value of Having an EPE in the Unit. Leaders under-
stand that they have many resources, but some recognize the specific benefit of hav-
ing PEs embedded directly in their unit. This recognition made the resource more
available and the EPE more approachable for soldiers. “If there’s a problem in your
unit, why would you NOT use them?”
Once leaders started to see the expertise and training of the EPEs in mental
skills and performance outcomes within their unit, many leaders understood the
potential impact of EPEs as valuable resources. “[H]is impact has been monumen-
tal, huge impact on the battalion, challenges of preventing suicide, depression, and
high-risk behaviors. I can’t handle all the things on my own. Integral to our success
as a battalion.”
Leaders Appreciated Proactive and Knowledgeable EPEs. Oftentimes, leaders
struggle with having multiple responsibilities and tasks within a day. Having an EPE
who understood the unit mission and had the skillset to coach soldiers on perform-
ing their duties was a critical resource for leaders. It was even better when those
EPEs were confident and knew when to step in and assist soldiers. “He wasn’t waiting
for us to tell him when he could come out. He was actively seeking opportunities.”
Leaders also recognized the value of having outside resources like EPEs who un-
derstood how to make training relatable to their soldiers.

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 13

 Too often we see the Army examples that are exaggerated. That was fake and
not relatable. Everything she presented was relatable and raw and that’s what
people connect with. And she’d be talking about something and get emotional
and that I that, I think we need to see that it’s not some black and white, cookie
cutter kind of thing. Her knowledge level on everything is insane.

Leaders Recognized When the EPE Built Rapport with the Unit. Leaders
must simultaneously take ownership of their unit’s morale and welfare and the suc-
cessful execution of their unit’s mission. While being the primary face of unit mo-
rale may not be their role, leaders should ensure that key personnel and resources
are readily available for their soldiers. Many leaders acknowledged that their EPEs
were crucial in fulfilling that responsibility. “Morale booster, hands-down. Their
faces light up when they see her, that’s hard, the relationship she built, the pres-
ence, they just love her.”
Leaders Appreciate When EPEs Participate in Unit Training. Leaders appre-
ciated the EPEs’ willingness to participate in unit training. By doing so, EPEs made
themselves more available to the soldiers and continued to build relationships within
the unit.

He’s gone to the field, training, counseling certification in the classroom, he’s
always there. We’ve been talking about “threat vs challenge.” A lot of my sol-
diers originally approached training as a threat but now see it as a challenge
because of the things [EPE] has taught them.

Leaders Acknowledged the Initial EPE Role Confusion. Leaders admitted that
they were initially confused about the role of the EPE. This confusion led to missteps
or miscommunication between the EPEs and the leaders. Without a proper under-
standing of the EPEs’ role within the unit, leaders struggled to understand how to
utilize that resource. “First, I thought they were like cheesy life coaches, now I under-
stand what their objectives were. I wish I had known earlier so we could have used
them earlier to get the best performance out of people.”

Soldier Perceptions of Embedded Performance Experts (RQ3)

The MCBS survey given to soldiers in the embedded units assisted the research-
ers in answering RQ3. Mean scores were computed for each of the subscales: Ob-
servation, Effective Questioning, Goal Setting, Developmental Feedback, and Moti-
vational Feedback. The subscale means ranged from 3.86 to 4.09, indicating soldiers
perceived their EPEs positively. There were no significant site differences for the Ef-
fective Questioning subscale (F[3,305] = 1.954, p = .121) though there were for the
Observation, Goal Setting, Developmental Feedback, and Motivational Feedback

14 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

Table 2
Military Coaching Behavior Scale (MCBS) Subscale Means Across All Soldiers and by Site

MCBS Subscale Overall Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F df p

Observation 3.86 1.00 4.21 0.98 3.63 a

0.94 3.94 0.95 3.62 c
1.07 5.103 3,305 .002

Effective
4.09 0.92 4.31 1.00 3.99 0.87 4.11 0.86 3.94 0.98 1.954 3,305 .121
Questioning
Goal Setting 3.92 1.04 4.39 0.88 3.70a 1.09 3.97b 0.97 3.62c 1.13 6.923 3,300 < .001
Developmental
4.06 0.95 4.42 0.87 3.94a 0.92 4.07 0.88 3.84c 1.13 4.220 3,304 .006
Feedback
Moticational
3.89 1.04 4.31 0.96 3.78a 1.00 3.90 1.02 3.61c 1.12 4.963 3,302 .002
Feedback

Note. Due to missing data, the sample sizes used for the subscale analyses ranged from 306 to 313. Significant main
effects were identified after conducting Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference post-hoc comparisons.
a
Site 2 was significantly different from Site 1.
b
Site 3 was significantly different from Site 1.
c
Site 4 was significantly different from Site 1.

subscales (F[3,305] = 5.103, p = .002; F[3,300] = 6.923, p < .001; F[3,304] = 4.220, p
= .006; F[3,302] = 4.963, p = .002, respectively). For the Observation subscale, Site 1
(M = 4.21, SD = 0.98) was rated significantly higher than Site 2 (M = 3.63, SD = 0.94;
p = .006, 95% CI = -1.02, -0.13), and Site 4 (M = 3.62, SD = 1.07; p = .008, 95% CI =
-1.06, -0.12). For the Goal Setting subscale, Site 1 (M = 4.39, SD = 0.88) was rated
significantly higher than Site 2 (M = 3.70, SD = 1.09; p = .001, 95% CI = -1.16, -0.22),
Site 3 (M = 3.97, SD = 0.97; p = .049, 95% CI = -0.84, -0.001), and Site 4 (M = 0.62, SD
= 1.13; p < .001, 95% CI = -1.26, -0.28). For the Developmental Feedback subscale,
Site 1 (M = 4.42, SD = 0.87) was rated significantly higher than Site 2 (M = 3.94, SD
= 0.92; p = .024, 95% CI = -0.91, -0.04) and Site 4 (M = 3.84, SD = 1.13; p = .006, 95%
CI = -1.03, -0.13). Finally, for the Motivation Feedback subscale, Site 1 (M = 4.31, SD
= 0.96) was again rated significantly higher than Site 2 (M = 3.78, SD = 1.00; p = .020,
95% CI = -1.00, -0.06) and Site 4 (M = 3.61, SD = 1.12; p = .001, 95% CI = -1.20, -0.21).
The remaining subscale comparison were not significantly different. See Table 2 for
the means of each subscale.

Discussion
The mixed-methods evaluation sought to assess the embedment of PEs into se-
lected units across the U.S. Army. Overall, findings from the data suggest that sol-
diers and leaders perceived EPEs as positive enablers to soldier performance training

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 15

and valued leadership team members. EPEs enhanced the operational mission and
translated soldier, leader, and mission needs into specific performance skills training,
which leaders identified as a critical benefit and resource. EPEs contributed to great-
er individual soldier readiness and resilience through their efforts to positively im-
pact mission essential tasks and improve morale. Additionally, key leaders perceived
their EPEs as effective assets. Furthermore, EPEs enjoyed the opportunity to be a
resource within units. They identified ways to increase their effectiveness by ensur-
ing leaders understood their capabilities and leveraging those leaders for strategic,
mission-oriented support.
Qualitative data from both EPEs and leaders supported several themes regarding
the experience and professional practice of EPEs. First, responses indicated that the
EPEs enhanced the units’ perceived quality of training and soldiers’ personal readi-
ness. Next, leaders and EPEs identified characteristics, such as building rapport with
soldiers and being present within the unit, that benefitted the EPEs and strengthened
their ability to connect to the unit. By leveraging mission essential tasks lists, EPEs
more easily established rapport and buy-in. Soldiers and leaders recognized the im-
portance of their EPEs understanding their job-specific tasks and valued that time and
effort. This understanding helped EPEs tailor the performance psychology training to
the tactical and technical aspects of their soldiers’ mission. As a mission-focused con-
text, the evaluation team developed themes related to service delivery and the type of
support EPEs could provide for military tasks and unit initiatives. A final theme high-
lighted the misunderstanding of the role and the incorrect association of the work of an
EPE with more familiar assets (e.g., suicide prevention or behavioral health).
More specifically, the EPEs’ feedback during interviews and written essays cen-
tered around the unique experience of embedment. Their responses predominately
focused on individual characteristics that led to their success in this alternative uti-
lization and common hurdles that challenged the program. Responses from leaders
who worked with EPEs in their unit focused mainly on the impact of the EPE on the
unit, the characteristics of a successful EPE, and methods used by EPEs to support
the soldiers. The predominant theme from the leaders centered around valuing EPEs
as a unit-level resource, even considering them as part of the battalion’s special staff
(e.g., chaplain, behavior health officer). Related, leaders also discussed other unit re-
sources or assets that could serve as collaborators for the EPEs to enhance the impact
of the resources, additional ways to utilize EPEs to support training, and improve-
ments to both the EPE program and role within the unit.
Finally, soldiers perceived their EPEs as beneficial and effective for them and their
unit, as indicated by high mean subscale scores across all four sites. Though sol-
dier perceptions at Site 1 were significantly higher than the remaining sites, soldiers
across sites rated their EPEs favorably. As leaders noted in their interviews, their
soldiers “love” working with their EPEs, and leaders observed the morale of their
unit change in a positive way after the unit started working with the EPEs. This estab-

16 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

lished relationship enhanced soldier performance and readiness, which ultimately

improved the unit’s lethality.
From an integrated analysis of the data collected through mixed methods, EPEs
appeared to positively impact their units despite experiencing some challenges. Of-
tentimes, these challenges appeared rooted in leader buy-in or lack thereof. In other
words, when the EPEs had the opportunity to work with the soldiers, their impact
was noticed, and their contributions were appreciated. Leader buy-in appeared to be
a key factor associated with the EPEs’ consistent opportunities to work with soldiers
as the leaders have some control over the unit calendar. EPEs with leaders who un-
derstood their capabilities and who could protect time on the unit calendar for the
EPEs to conduct their training appeared to have more soldier engagement. Even with
last-minute schedule changes due to the requirements of the unit’s mission, support-
ive leaders still found time to reschedule their soldiers’ engagements with the EPEs.
More impactful than protected schedules came when leaders publicly endorsed
the EPEs’ work with soldiers or discussed their experiences with the EPEs. These
leaders led by example and brought awareness of the EPEs and the EPEs’ poten-
tial impact on performance, readiness, and resilience to their soldiers. Alternatively,
when EPEs had challenges with leader buy-in, EPEs tended to struggle to find sol-
diers willing to work with them. Soldiers who worked with EPEs rated their EPEs
positively and felt the interaction was valuable, therefore, developing and maintain-
ing leader buy-in could stand to increase the number of soldiers able to work with
EPEs. Moreover, if soldiers see their leaders attend EPE training, personally use the
skills learned, and reinforce the principles with the unit, the leaders become a force
multiplier for implementing the skills.

Limitations
This mixed-methods evaluation was not without its limitations. First, the
COVID-19 lockdown impacted the EPEs’ ability to work directly with soldiers. The
four sites with EPEs started their embedment process at different times. One site
had its EPEs in place and they were already working with soldiers for approximately
three months prior to the lockdown. Another site locked down two weeks after their
EPEs embedded. All sites felt the lockdown’s impact as it hindered the EPEs’ abili-
ty to connect with leaders and soldiers in conventional in-person observations and
interactions. Ultimately, the constrained interactions impacted the EPEs’ ability to
establish relationships with their soldiers and leaders. The COVID-19 restrictions
also impacted the evaluation as the team had reduced in-person interactions with
EPEs, leaders, and soldiers; had limited opportunities to observe EPE training with
soldiers; and had to conduct most qualitative interviews virtually.
In addition to the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, one site had a unit tasked
with a deployment that started while their EPE was embedded in the unit. The EPE

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 17

had limited opportunities to work with those soldiers during deployment training
and did not deploy with the unit. Next, EPEs were initially told the pilot program
would evaluate one year of embedment; however, due to the limitations related to
the COVID-19 restrictions already mentioned, DPRR extended the evaluation. EPEs
remained in place, and the evaluation team continued their evaluation for an ad-
ditional year. While this extension provided more opportunities for the evaluation
team to observe the EPEs, the extension also led to turnover among the EPEs, as
some left their positions and others were reassigned to additional or different units.
The evaluation team’s ability to assess the pilot program from a strict and narrow
evaluation framework was also limited. First, the evaluation team did not standardize a
performance outcome for all units. This decision allowed the leaders to share their pri-
orities for their unit with their EPEs and then let the EPEs tailor the necessary training
to address those priorities. While this flexibility allowed leaders and EPEs to assess the
best outcome for their unit, it limited comparisons across sites. The evaluation team
also did not conduct any pre-embedment assessments of the units (i.e., unit climate and
morale, or physical training performance) before the PEs embedded nor did the eval-
uation team assess units without EPEs. These decisions limited the evaluation team’s
ability to quantify the EPEs’ impact on their units. Future evaluations should consider
preembedment assessments and have comparison units. Finally, the EPEs provided the
names of unit leaders for the research team to interview during the evaluation. This de-
cision could have led to potentially biased interviews as the EPEs often selected leaders
with greater buy-in to the program. Future evaluations may consider using a random
sampling of leaders to prevent selection bias when choosing interviewees.

Future Directions
As a mixed-methods pilot evaluation, the goal was to assess the perceptions of
the effectiveness of EPEs to better understand how units received and benefited from
the EPEs’ expertise to ultimately inform future embedding professionals. While the
evaluation team observed and reported several successes with the program, they also
observed potential ways to improve the program’s perception. To aid leader buy-in
and implementation of the training, EPEs should consider using a multifaceted ap-
proach in their training. EPEs are uniquely situated to have multiple touchpoints in a
variety of settings with their soldiers. For example, EPEs are not limited to classroom
instruction and can instead walk around the soldiers’ areas of operation. This access
allows the EPEs to observe the soldiers’ job-specific task and provide on the spot,
tailored training along with continual feedback or guidance along the way as needed.
While we found the perception of the EPEs to be primarily positive, EPEs remain
a limited training resource. To improve the reach and impact of EPEs, DPRR should
promote a multifaceted approach to highlight them as a training and teaching as-
set. This approach includes allowing EPEs to teach skills in a classroom, coach to

18 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

reinforce skill application in the field, and meta-coach leaders to be force multipli-
ers and amplify the EPEs’ impact. Coaching and meta-coaching soldiers and leaders
empower them to take on more of the direct instruction typically done by EPEs,
thereby reaching more soldiers within the unit. This shift also allows EPEs more time
to observe soldiers and leaders coaching and offer feedback to enhance those skills.
As embedment continues, further evaluations should assess objective perfor-
mance outcomes to quantify the EPEs’ impact on their units, explore how to effec-
tively use EPEs, and measure how the multifaceted approach implemented in this
pilot program could potentially improve a unit’s performance, readiness, and resil-
ience. Additionally, future research is needed to better understand how unit factors
(e.g., mission set, location, and components), leader qualities, and EPE characteris-
tics impact the effectiveness of embedment.
While not all PEs can embed due to other installation training requirements, it is
valuable for the Army and DPRR to consider how to integrate all PEs with the Inte-
grated Primary Prevention Workforce (IPPW), an effort that the Department of De-
fense recently initiated (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, 2022). The IPPW
is working to decrease risk factors and increase protective factors by using data to
inform unit-integrated primary prevention plans. PEs are valuable supplemental as-
sets to engage with leaders and soldiers related to primary prevention.

Conclusion
While the mixed-methods evaluation had limitations, the findings provide com-
pelling evidence that supports the continued embedment of PEs within units to en-
hance readiness and resilience. After assessing two years of PE embedment with-
in U.S. Army units, perceptions of the program were positive. Soldiers and leaders
found the EPEs’ ability to coach their soldiers through the understanding and appli-
cation of various psychological skills to impart lasting change to be beneficial. Ulti-
mately, soldiers, leaders, and EPEs appreciated the opportunity and saw benefits in
the program. These results are promising given that the EPE program is not the only
resource within the U.S. Army or U.S. military at large that utilizes embedded pro-
fessionals. In fact, sharing the perceptions of embedded professionals and of those
working with embedded professionals may benefit fellow embedded assets. Future
research could work to better understand best practices to embody and implement
to mitigate embedment challenges and enhance embedment impact.

Disclaimer
Material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There
is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions or assertions con-
tained herein are the personal views of the authors and are not to be construed as

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 19

official or as reflecting true views of the Department of the Army or the Department of
Defense. The investigators have adhered to the policies for protection of human sub-
jects as prescribed in Army Regulation 70-25, Use of Volunteers as Subjects of Research.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the following people for their contribu-
tions to this evaluation process: Alex Rivera, Casey Eidemiller, Yvonne Allard, and
Gery Denniswara. They are the embedded performance experts and performance
center managers at the data collection sites.

Data Availability Statement

The data and material for this evaluation are not publicly available due to institu-
tional regulations related to human participant protection requirements. However,
they can be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request
(may require data use agreements to be developed).

References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-prin-
ciples and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6.2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-
6773.12117
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Sociology Press.
Kaimal, G., Carroll-Haskins, K., Mensinger, J. L., Dieterich-Hartwell, R. M., Manders, E., & Levin, W. P.
(2019). Outcomes of art therapy and coloring for professional and informal caregivers of patients
in a radiation oncology unit: A mixed methods pilot study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing,
42, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2019.08.006
Knust, S. K., Crouch, C., Adrian, A. L., Novosel-Lingat, J. E. M., & Allard, Y. (2022). Embedding perfor-
mance experts in a National Guard battalion: Best practices and lessons learned [Poster presenta-
tion]. Annual Conference of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, Fort Worth, TX.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Bio-
metrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Levitt, H. M. (2018). How to conduct a qualitative meta-analysis: Tailoring methods to enhance meth-
odological integrity. Psychotherapy Research, 28(3), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2
018.1447708
Lochbaum, M., Stoner, E., Hefner, T., Cooper, S., Lane, A. M., & Terry, P. C. (2022). Sport psychology
and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0263408.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263408

20 April 2025—Journal of Military Learning

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS TRAINING

Novosel-Lingat, J. M., Knust, S. K., Adrian, A. L., Crouch, C. L., Toner, K. A., Allard, Y. S., & McDonald,
P. N. (2022, August 4–6). Army embedded performance experts: Delivering strategic unit-specific
psychological skills [Poster presentation]. American Psychological Association Annual Convention,
Minneapolis, MN.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and
practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness). (2022). The Department of De-
fense prevention workforce model. https://www.prevention.mil/Portals/130/Documents/Preven-
tion%20Workforce%20Model_SIGNED.pdf?ver=6Lz4kK69oEhj88QKruaLpQ%3d%3d
Park, G. H., Knust, S. K., Haselhuhn, S., Whalen, S. J., Deuster, P. A., Greene, III, C. H., Dretsch, M. N.,
Bonvie, J. L., Lippy, R. D., Lunasco, T. K., & Myatt, C. A. (2022). Advancing the practice of contem-
porary military performance psychology: A full-spectrum approach to psychological health and
readiness. Journal of Special Operations Medicine: a Peer Reviewed Journal for Special Operations
Medical Professionals, 22(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.55460/18DB-ITVE
Partington, J., & Orlick, T. (1987). The sport psychology consultant evaluation form. The Sport Psychol-
ogist, 1(4), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.1.4.309
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative mod-
el of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 19(3), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0088437
Raabe, J., Castillo, E., & Carl, J. (2021). Mental qualities and techniques in tactical populations: A sys-
tematic review. The Sport Psychologists, 35(3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0048
Santo, T., Jr, Clark, B., Hickman, M., Grebely, J., Campbell, G., Sordo, L., Chen, A., Tran, L. T., Bharat, C.,
Padmanathan, P., Cousins, G., Dupouy, J., Kelty, E., Muga, R., Nosyk, B., Min, J., Pavarin, R., Farrell,
M., & Degenhardt, L. (2021). Association of opioid agonist treatment with all-cause mortality and
specific causes of death among people with opioid dependence: A systematic review and me-
ta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(9), 979–993. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0976
U.S. Army Directorate of Prevention, Resilience and Readiness. (n.d.). R2 Performance Centers. Army
Ready and Resilient. https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/R2/R2-Performance-center.html
U.S. Department of the Army. (2024). Comprehensive soldier and family fitness (Army Regulation
350-53). U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/
ARN43066-AR_350-53-002-WEB-3.pdf
Wagstaff, C. R. D., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, L. (2017). The development and initial validation of a measure
of coaching behaviors in a sample of Army recruits. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30(3),
341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1384937

Journal of Military Learning—April 2025 21