Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:37:41.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Instrument Development and Evaluation of Domestic Preparedness Training for First Responders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Randal D. Beaton  and
L. Clark Johnson
Randal D. Beaton*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial and Community Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
L. Clark Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial and Community Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
*
Department of Psychosocial and Community Health, Box 357263, University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195–7263 USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

In the wake of domestic terrorists attacks on 11 September 2001 and subsequent bioterrorist events employing anthrax, there no longer can be any debate about the potential for attacks employing Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical (NBC)/Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). As one way of acknowledging this long-standing threat and, in a concerted effort to mitigate the effects of possible future domestic NBC/WMD terrorist attacks, the US Department of Defense (DOD) and other US governmental agencies already had mounted an effort to provide Domestic Preparedness Training for First Responders in urban centers throughout the USA.

Methods:

A paper and pencil questionnaire specifically designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Domestic Preparedness Training for Emergency First Responders has been developed. An earlier version of this instrument was piloted with a convenience sample of firefighters and paramedics (n = 78) in a northwest state. Based on replies to the pilot questionnaire, a pool of 27 items based on the objectives and content of the NBC/WMD Domestic Preparedness Awareness and Operations courses (plus additional background and appraised competency items) were selected for inclusion in a Domestic Preparedness Questionnaire (DPQ).

Results:

This paper first describes the essential psychometric properties of the DPQ based on replies from baseline and follow-up samples (n = 206 and n = 246 respectively) of urban firefighters and paramedics employed by a metropolitan city in a northwest state. The DPQ was employed to evaluate the outcomes of Domestic Preparedness training provided to a sample of urban fire-service personnel. The DPQ documented significant improvements in a group of “DP trained”-urban firefighters (n = 80) both in their awareness and operations content knowledge as well as in their perceived competencies to respond to acts of biological, chemical, or nuclear terrorism “in their own community” at four months post-training. A comparison group of “Not DP-trained” firefighters (n = 78) showed no statistically significant changes on these DPQ indices, suggesting that the documented improvements in the “DP-trained” firefighters on the DPQ were not due to “test reactivity” or to “historical” factors.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest that the DPQ has adequate inter-item and test-retest reliability, possesses concurrent validity, and appears to be a sensitive measure of the Domestic Preparedness Training provided for urban firefighter and paramedic First Responders.

Keywords

bioterrorismchemical nerve agentsdomestic preparednessfirst respondersnuclear eventsterrorist attacksweapons of mass destruction
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 119 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Oklahoma Fire Protection (OFP) Publications: Final Report: Alfred P Murrah Federal Building Bombing 1996.Google Scholar
2.American National Red Cross: American Red Cross Emergency Response. Mosby Lifeline, St. Louis, MO. 1997.Google Scholar
3.Gunby, P: RAID teams respond to terrorism threat. JAMA 1998; 279: 1855.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Tucker, J: National Health and medical service response to incidents of chemical & biological terrorism. JAMA 1997; 278: 362–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Department of Defense (DOD)[US]: Senior Officials' Workshop Participant Manual. Domestic Preparedness Office Document, 1999Google Scholar
6.Treat, K, Williams, J, Furbee, P, Manley, W, Russell, F, Stampers, C: Hospital preparedness for weapons of mass destruction incidents: An initial assessment. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 562–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Gwerder, L, Beaton, R, Daniell, W: Bioterrorism: Implications for the occupational and environmental health nurse. AAOHN Journal 2001; 49: 512–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Yamaguchi, M: For victims of subway nerve gas attack, The nightmare goes on. Associated Press 18 March 1998.Google Scholar
9.Okumura, T, Suzuki, K, Fukuda, A, et al: The Tokyo subway sarin attack: Disaster management, Part 2, Hospital response. Academy of Emergency Medicine 1998; 5: 618–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Wall Street Journal: First Responder Fatalities at WTC. 16 October 2001; p 1.Google Scholar
11.SBCCOM: Domestic Preparedness Responder Awareness Course Manual. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 1999.Google Scholar
12.SBCCOM: Department of Domestic Preparedness Senior Officials’ Workshop Participant Manual Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 1999.Google Scholar
13.Beaton, R, Murphy, S, Johnson, C, Pike, K, Corneil, W: Exposure to duty-related incident stressors in urban fire fighters and paramedics. Journal of Traumatic Stress 1998; 11: 821–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Beaton, R, Murphy, S, Johnson, C, Pike, K, Corneil, W: Coping responses and posttraumatic stress symptomatology in urban fire service personnel. Journal of Traumatic Stress 1999; 12: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Beaton, R, Murphy, S, Pike, K: Work and non-work stressors, negative affective states and pain complaints among firefighters and paramedics. International Journal of Stress Management 1996; 3: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Beaton, R, Murphy, S, Pike, K, Corneil, W: Social support and network conflict in firefighters and paramedics. Western Journal of Nursing Research 1997; 19: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Gift, A: Visual analogue scales: Measurement of subjective phenomenon. Nurs Res 1989; 38: 286–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Cronbach, L: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Cronbach, L: Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3rd ed, New York: Harper & Row, 1970.Google Scholar
20.Johnson, LC, Beaton, R, Murphy, S, Pike, K: Sampling bias and other methodological threats to the validity of health survey research. International Journal of Stress Management 2000; 7: 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Campbell, D, Stanley, J: Experimental & Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing Co. 1966.Google Scholar
22.Cohen, J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2d ed, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.Google Scholar
23.Cohen, A: A multidimensional evaluation for firefighter training for hazardous materials response: First results from the IAFF program. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1998; 34: 331–341.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. US Congress: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. Pub. L No. 104–201, Title XIV, Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, Subtitle A, Domestic Preparedness § 1412 – § 1415 (September 1996).Google Scholar
25.Farlow, JP: US Army SBCCOM Domestic Preparedness Office Personal Communication, June, 2000.Google Scholar