MistralAI a noté :
Dafotec Récupération De Données

Le 2025-04-21 11:53:11

From Measur om Measurement t ement to Performance: Psy formance: Psychometric V chometric Validity and alidity From Measur om Measurement t ement to Performance: Psy formance: Psychometric V chometric Validity and alidity and Psychological Pr chological Predictors of Reser ors of Reserve Officer T e Officer Training Corps aining Corps Cadets’ Performance on the Army Combat Fitness Test Ari Joseph Sapinsley West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the Sports Studies Commons Recommended Citation Sapinsley, Ari Joseph, "From Measurement to Performance: Psychometric Validity and Psychological Predictors of Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets’ Performance on the Army Combat Fitness Test" (2024). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 12672. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/12672 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu. From Measurement to Performance: Psychometric Validity and Psychological Predictors of Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets’ Performance on the Army Combat Fitness Test Ari J. Sapinsley, MA, MS, CMPC A Dissertation submitted to the College of Applied Human Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology Sam Zizzi, Ed.D., Co-Chair Johannes Raabe, Ph.D, CMPC, Co-Chair Jeanette Garcia, Ph.D. William Hornsby, Ph.D. Department of Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology Morgantown, West Virginia December 13, 2024 Keywords: Psychometric evaluation, ROTC cadets, ACFT (Army Combat Fitness Test), Psychological predictors, Motivation, Resilience, Anxiety Copyright 2024 Ari J. Sapinsley Abstract From Measurement to Performance: Psychometric Validity and Psychological Predictors of Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets’ Performance on the Army Combat Fitness Test Ari J. Sapinsley, MA, MS, CMPC Understanding the psychological and physical readiness of future military leaders is crucial for improving recruitment and retention. The U.S. Army faces increasing obesity rates and declining physical fitness among recruits, reducing the pool of eligible candidates and raising costs. The Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), which commissions 59% of officers, has higher attrition rates than other sources, underscoring the need to identify psychological predictors of performance. This dissertation examines the psychometric properties of psychological instruments used to assess ROTC cadets and their relationship with Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) performance. Two research questions were explored: (1) What are the psychometric properties of instruments measuring the psychological characteristics of ROTC cadets? (2) What psychological characteristics are associated with ACFT performance? A sample of 180 cadets completed assessments, including the Academic Motivation Scale – Revised (AMS-R), Academic Motivation Scale – College (AMS-C), Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS), Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety Inventory – 2 Revised (CSAI-2R), and Resilience Scale (RS). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated acceptable reliability and validity for most instruments, with strong model fit for CSAI-2R (CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, α = 0.94) and AMS-C (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, α = 0.94). Regression analyses identified resilience (β = 0.21, p < 0.05) as a significant predictor of hand-release pushup scores, while self-confidence (β = 0.33, p < 0.05) predicted two-mile run performance. Cognitive anxiety was positively associated with the two-mile run (β = 0.31, p < 0.05), suggesting moderate anxiety may enhance focus. Academic identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were also significant predictors. This study provides insights into the psychometric properties of thirteen instruments among ROTC cadets and elucidates how psychological traits affect ROTC performance. These findings support integrating psychological assessments into training and selection processes to improve cadet identification, training, retention, and cost efficiency. Future research should validate these results in larger, diverse samples and use longitudinal designs to explore long-term impacts. iii Acknowledgments Although, technically, this is my dissertation, this document and project only exist because of a village of wonderful and supportive family, friends, colleagues, and mentors. First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Raabe. Your work ethic, perspective, and guidance have been and will continue to be pivotal to my development as a researcher and writer. I am incredibly grateful for your support and commitment to my (our) work, and the skills you have helped me hone over the past three and a half years. To Dr. Zizzi – thank you for stepping in when you, most certainly, had enough on your plate, making me feel comfortable and confident as a student and researcher, and for your limitless supply of pragmatism. If not for you, I would have never seen the forest through the trees or been able to traverse Research Mountain. I will forever be grateful for the impact you have had on me during my time in the Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology program at WVU, as well as for your continued contributions to our program and the broader field. To Dr. Shigeno and Dr. Fletcher – thank you both for your patience and your open doors. When I thought, “I think I want to pursue even more education,” you both met me with excitement and encouragement. Under your tutelage, I began my journey in the field of sport psychology, and you both have continued to be voices of reason and mentorship long after my departure. To my parents – thank you for providing me with the privilege and opportunity to pursue any dream, no matter how far-fetched it may have seemed. Your unwavering support, unconditional love, and steadfast belief in me have been the bedrock of everything I have accomplished. You taught me the value of hard work, resilience, and the courage to forge my own path, even when that path was unclear or daunting. I am endlessly grateful for your encouragement, your wisdom, and the example of love and perseverance you’ve set for me. To my brothers – Aaron, Zack, and Josh, thank you for your friendship (although mostly involuntary). From you all, I have learned about debate, intellectual curiosity, competition, friendship, and cooperation. You have each shaped who I am in your own unique way, challenging me to think critically, encouraging me to strive for excellence, and teaching me the value of both standing my ground and finding common ground. Our shared experiences, whether marked by laughter, spirited disagreements, or quiet support, have been a source of strength and inspiration throughout my life. I am grateful for the bonds we share and the lessons I continue to learn from you. Thank you for always being in my corner, even when we didn’t see eye to eye— it has made the journey all the more meaningful. To my in-laws – Mike and Peggy, thank you for your endless supply of generosity, for opening your home to me, and for always having a koozie at the ready. Your unwavering support and kindness have had a profound impact on my educational journey. From the very beginning, you welcomed me into your family with open arms, creating a space where I felt cared for and supported. Your constant encouragement, whether through thoughtful conversations, shared laughter, or the take-home supply of minestrone, has been invaluable. Thank you for being such a vital part of this journey, your impact on my life and this accomplishment is something I will always treasure. To my wife – thank you, Mary, for your unwavering support, love, and friendship. You have been my rock, my cheerleader, and my constant through every stage of this journey, from undergrad to my master's and now my PhD. Together, we have navigated the highs and lows, celebrated victories, and weathered the challenges that came with this long and winding path. iv Your patience, encouragement, and belief in me, even on the days when I doubted myself, have been nothing short of extraordinary. You’ve sacrificed so much to support my goals, and your faith in my ability to succeed has never faltered. I am endlessly grateful for your partnership and the countless ways you’ve made this journey not only possible but meaningful. This accomplishment is ours, and I am so lucky to have you by my side, not just in this, but in all things. Lastly – thank you to Lyla, our dog, you are, without a doubt, a good girl. When I was stressed, you were always available for a pet and a cuddle. When I was huddled over my computer for long stretches, you were always there to remind me that we should go outside for a walk. Your resolute loyalty and cheerful spirit brought light to even the most challenging days, and your gentle nudges reminded me to pause, breathe, and appreciate the world beyond my work. You’ve been my constant companion, my motivator, and my joy through this journey, and for that, I’m endlessly grateful. v Table of Contents From Measurement to Performance: Psychometric Validity and Psychological Predictors of Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets’ Performance on the Army Combat Fitness Test............ 1 Method ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Participants.................................................................................................................................. 9 Study Design............................................................................................................................... 9 Measures................................................................................................................................... 10 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 17 Results........................................................................................................................................... 19 Psychometric Properties of Psychological Instruments (RQ1)................................................. 19 Psychological Predictors of ACFT Performance Among ROTC Cadets (RQ2)...................... 20 Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 21 Psychometric Properties of Psychological Instruments (RQ1)................................................. 21 Psychological Predictors of ACFT Performance Among ROTC Cadets (RQ2)...................... 31 Limitations and Future Directions................................................................................................ 37 Summary and Conclusion............................................................................................................. 39 References..................................................................................................................................... 41 Tables............................................................................................................................................ 58 Extended Review of the Literature ............................................................................................... 89 Military ..................................................................................................................................... 89 Psychosocial Factors............................................................................................................. 90 Psychosocial Predictors of Physical Performance and/or Selection ................................... 106 Sport........................................................................................................................................ 123 Psychosocial Factors........................................................................................................... 128 Psychosocial Predictors of Physical Performance and/or Selection ................................... 137 Future Research Directions..................................................................................................... 148 Extended References................................................................................................................... 151 Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 169 PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 1 From Measurement to Performance: Psychometric Validity and Psychological Predictors of Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets’ Performance on the Army Combat Fitness Test Talent development within the United States (U.S.) Army is essential for maintaining operational readiness, ensuring mission success, and fostering organizational adaptability. Army officers must possess a blend of physical endurance, psychological resilience, and cognitive adaptability to navigate the multidimensional demands of military service (U.S. Department of the Army, 2023). However, challenges in officer recruitment, selection, and retention persist, threatening the sustainability of the Army’s leadership pipeline. Only approximately 23% of Americans aged 17 to 25 meet the eligibility requirements for military service, further emphasizing the importance of retaining already trained personnel to sustain the force’s effectiveness (Office of People Analytics, 2023). In response, the Army has renewed its focus on prioritizing quality over quantity in officer development, shifting toward a holistic approach to recruitment, training, and retention. Understanding the factors that predict successful officer performance, as well as why officers choose to remain or exit after fulfilling their Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO), has become a burgeoning area of research aimed at improving resource allocation and organizational maintenance (Russell & Tremble, 2011). To address these challenges, the Army has emphasized integrating physical, cognitive, and psychological measures into its assessment systems. This holistic approach seeks to ensure the selection and development of officers capable of meeting evolving operational requirements (Allen et al., 2016). For example, standardized assessments such as the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) have undergone extensive psychometric evaluation to improve the precision of personnel selection and position assignments. These tools have provided valuable insights into factors that facilitate or inhibit organizational commitment PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 2 among active-duty soldiers (Kirkendall et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2023). However, while efforts to evaluate and refine psychological assessment tools have yielded meaningful advances for activeduty personnel, little attention has been devoted to understanding psychological predictors of performance within the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), the Army’s largest source of commissioned officers. The Role of ROTC The ROTC is a college-based program that integrates military training with higher education, preparing students to become commissioned officers in the Active Duty Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard. Approximately 60% of newly commissioned Army officers come from ROTC programs, making it a cornerstone of the Army’s leadership pipeline (Paullin et al., 2014). Cadets participating in ROTC take military science courses covering leadership principles, team dynamics, physical readiness, and military tactics (U.S. Department of the Army, 2023). Beyond classroom instruction, cadets engage in field training exercises, leadership development activities, and physical fitness programs designed to foster the skills and competencies necessary for future leadership roles. Upon completing the program and earning their degrees, cadets are commissioned as Second Lieutenants, assuming critical leadership responsibilities within the Army. Additionally, cadets participate in summer training programs like Advanced Camp, a rigorous evaluation of leadership potential and tactical proficiency held at Fort Knox, Kentucky (U.S. Army Cadet Command, n.d.). These experiences, alongside regular ROTC training activities, immerse cadets in military culture, teamwork, and the demands of active-duty service. While invaluable for preparing cadets for their future roles, these requirements highlight the dual PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 3 pressures of balancing civilian life with military expectations, a challenge unique to the ROTC pathway compared to academy cadets or enlisted personnel (Baldwin & Young, 2020). Despite its importance, ROTC remains underexplored in research on military performance and retention. Compared to their counterparts at U.S. Military Academies, ROTC cadets operate in a dual-context environment that combines civilian academic responsibilities with military training. While this structure allows cadets to benefit from a less regimented experience and broader social interactions, it also introduces unique stressors. Cadets must balance the demands of academic coursework, leadership roles, and physical fitness requirements, all of which contribute to their overall readiness and success (Baldwin & Young, 2020; Legree et al., 2014). These challenges are compounded by ROTC’s more flexible structure, which contrasts sharply with the fully militarized environments of academies like West Point. Understanding the specific factors influencing ROTC cadet performance and retention is critical for sustaining the Army’s leadership pipeline and ensuring the readiness of future officers. Assessment of ROTC Cadets’ Performance The evaluation of ROTC cadets encompasses several performance domains, including academic achievement, leadership capability, and physical readiness. Key metrics include Grade Point Average (GPA), evaluations during the Leadership Development and Assessment Course (LDAC), cadre ratings of leadership potential, and scores on the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT). Together, these metrics contribute to the Order of Merit List (OML), which determines cadets’ branch assignments and positions upon commissioning (U.S. Army Cadet Command, n.d.; Baldwin & Young, 2020). Among these, the ACFT—introduced in 2020 to replace the Army Physical Fitness Test—plays a pivotal role in assessing physical readiness. Comprising six PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 4 events, including the deadlift, standing power throw, hand-release push-ups, sprint-drag-carry, plank, and a two-mile run, the ACFT provides a comprehensive measure of physical fitness (U.S. Department of the Army, 2023). While the ACFT offers valuable insights into cadets’ physical capabilities, it fails to account for the psychological factors that influence performance. Improving ACFT performance is vital not only for individual cadets’ success but also for broader Army organizational readiness. Cadets who fail to achieve high ACFT scores risk failure and attrition in their ROTC program along with stagnation in their military careers (Newman et al., 2022). These individual outcomes have cascading effects on leadership development and retention within the Army. For instance, as the Army faces a drastically reduced pool of eligible recruits, with only 23% of Americans between 17 to 25 years of age meeting military eligibility criteria (Office of People Analytics, 2023), reducing attrition of eligible ROTC cadets and retaining already trained personnel is paramount to organizational maintenance and continuity (Wardynski et al., 2010; White et al., 2017). Therefore, it is financially and institutionally essential to understand how to improve ROTC cadets’ physical readiness and ACFT capabilities. Psychosocial Predictors of Military Performance Maximizing ACFT performance requires a comprehensive approach that considers not only physical capabilities but also the psychological factors that underpin consistency and adaptability in high-pressure environments (U.S. Department of the Army, 2023). While physical attributes like aerobic capacity, muscular strength, and agility are well-documented performance predictors in fitness tests and occupational tasks (Acevedo et al., 2024; Hauschild et al., 2016; Hydren et al., 2017; Orr et al., 2021), psychological readiness plays an equally critical role in military performance and career longevity (Flood & Keegan, 2022). Initiatives like the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness program underscore the military's commitment to PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 5 psychological readiness for long-term career success (Casey, 2011). Maintaining mental wellbeing has also been found to reduce attrition and improve operational effectiveness among active-duty and reserve soldiers (Tidwell & Lucier-Greer, 2024), underscoring that mental preparation is essential for sustained military effectiveness. Emerging research further emphasizes the importance of psychological factors in predicting performance, especially under stress, to boost readiness and retention (Richardson, 2023). The literature exploring psychological predictors of military performance has identified numerous traits associated with success. Key psychosocial factors – emotion regulation (Giles et al., 2023), psychological skills (Arthur et al., 2017; Hammermeister et al., 2010), mental toughness (Gucciardi et al., 2021), and hardiness (Normdo et al., 2022) – appear to correlate with military performance and selection. Longitudinal investigations of military personnel performance and selection in rigorous training courses have also highlighted predictive psychological characteristics such as grit (Benedict et al., 2023; Farina et al., 2019; Kelly et al., 2014; Schaefer et al., 2020a), resilience (Farina et al., 2019; Schaefer et al., 2020a), hardiness (Johnsen et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2014), confidence (Schaefer et al., 2020b), optimism (Schaefer et al., 2020b), self-efficacy (Benedict et al., 2023), and coping (Johnsen et al., 2013). Among these studies, Giles et al. (2023) have been the sole research endeavor to incorporate the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) as an outcome variable. This study employed psychometric network analysis on a sample of male active-duty US Army personnel (N = 191, Mage = 23.1, SD = 3.5) to examine cognitive, health, physical, and social-emotional factors associated with ACFT performance. Giles and colleagues (2023) found that social-emotional components, such as resilience, extraversion, and grit, significantly explained performance variance with minimal redundancy. However, the author’s focus on active-duty male soldiers and PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 6 the absence of psychometric validation limit the applicability of their findings to ROTC cadets, whose training context and developmental stage differ significantly (Baldwin & Young, 2020). Despite these limitations, such findings are promising and potentially foretell psychological factors as significant predictors of ROTC students’ performance on the ACFT. Although prior studies provide valuable insight into psychological predictors of military performance, research exploring military populations still faces several limitations. First, many studies are constrained by the relative homogeneity of their samples (e.g., Benedict et al., 2023). Second, while military academy studies (e.g., Kelly et al., 2014; Schaefer et al., 2020a) may display improved heterogeneity, they typically involve participants who meet higher academic and physical performance standards compared to traditional ROTC cadets (The United States Military Academy, n.d.). Third, much of the literature has been conducted outside the US (e.g., Bekesiene, 2023; Normdo et al., 2022), limiting the generalizability of findings to U.S. military settings due to significant differences in structure, requirements, and education. Lastly, many studies suffer from a lack of female representation in their samples, with some studies including no female participants at all (e.g., Hormeño-Holgado et al., 2019). This underrepresentation fails to reflect the makeup of the U.S. Army, which comprises 15.6% women (U.S. Department of the Army, 2022), further limiting the applicability of the research. Validity and Reliability of Psychological Instruments for ROTC Cadets To address the research gaps, the current study aimed to evaluate psychological constructs crucial for military performance, particularly in the context of ROTC cadets. Quantitative instruments must be rigorously assessed to ensure their relevance and utility in identifying the psychological characteristics that most influence performance (Haynes et al., 2018). Reliable and valid measures enhance assessment accuracy, enabling the identification of PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 7 key psychological predictors and supporting the development of tailored training programs that meet cadets' unique needs (Brunyé et al., 2024). Such programs not only improve training effectiveness and readiness but also foster long-term success and retention by aligning development pathways with individual psychological profiles (Seligman & Fowler, 2011). This study employed 13 established psychological instruments selected for their proven relevance in military, sport, and academic contexts. While these measures have demonstrated validity in various populations, their use within the ROTC population remains limited. Among these 13 instruments, only a subset has been tested in military populations (e.g., Barbour, 2014; Gucciardi et al., 2021; Kastle et al., 2021; Rice et al., 2013). Furthermore, only four studies utilizing these scales have been conducted within the U.S. (Barbour, 2014; Francis, 2021; Kastle et al., 2021; Seipel, 2020), with a singular study employing one of these tools among non-U.S. military cadets (Lepinoy et al., 2023). The limited use of psychological instruments within ROTC populations raises important concerns about their applicability and accuracy in this unique context. Psychological constructs such as motivation, resilience, and stress may manifest differently in ROTC cadets compared to other military populations due to their transitional developmental stage and the interplay of multifaceted responsibilities (Baldwin & Young, 2020). Unlike active-duty soldiers who operate within a singular military framework, ROTC cadets navigate a hybrid environment where civilian, academic, and military roles intersect. This intersection introduces variability in psychological experiences that existing instruments, often validated in more homogenous military or academic samples, may not adequately capture (Haynes et al., 2018; He & van de Vijver, 2012). For example, the construct of motivation in cadets may be shaped by the competing demands of completing academic degrees while simultaneously adapting to military PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 8 leadership structures (Raabe et al., 2020). Similarly, constructs like burnout—linked to performance and retention in military settings—may have distinct antecedents and manifestations in cadets due to their unique stressors (Hosseini et al., 2023). Instruments designed for active-duty personnel often overlook the dual civilian-military realities of cadets, risking biased or inaccurate assessments of psychological traits essential for success on the ACFT and in future military careers. These gaps underscore the need for more tailored approaches to measuring psychological constructs in this population. Accurate measurement of psychological constructs in ROTC cadets has direct implications for readiness, retention, and leadership development. Validating these instruments ensures they reliably identify key predictors of performance, such as mental toughness, resilience, and motivation regulation, which may be critical for success on the ACFT and broader military careers (Gucciardi et al., 2021; Brunyé et al., 2024). Following best practices in psychometric validation is essential for ensuring these tools are accurate and applicable to diverse populations (Boateng et al., 2018). Given the Army’s reliance on data-driven interventions to improve training and reduce attrition (e.g., Royston et al., 2022; Russel et al., 2023), validating these instruments aligns with organizational goals of readiness and leadership development. Without such evaluations, the risk of inaccurate assessments undermines efforts to optimize training, enhance cadet success, and support their progression into effective military leaders (Baldwin & Young, 2020; Flood & Keegan, 2022). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the psychological factors that may influence ROTC cadets' ACFT performance, focusing first on the suitability of existing assessment tools and then on identifying specific psychological traits linked to performance outcomes. PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 9 [RQ1] What are the psychometric properties of existing instruments measuring relevant psychological characteristics of ROTC cadets? [RQ2] What psychological characteristics are associated with ROTC cadets’ performance on the ACFT? Method Participants The study sample consisted of N = 180 ROTC cadets with an average age of 19.99 (± 2.07) years. There were n = 72 (40.0%) Military Science (MS) I cadets, n = 42 (23.3%) MSII cadets, n = 36 (20.0%) MSIII cadets, and n = 30 (16.7%) MSIV cadets. Most participants identified as male (n = 145, 80.56%), with 33 cadets identifying as female (18.33%) and two (1.1%) preferring not to disclose their gender. Most cadets identified as White/Caucasian (n = 149, 82.78%), followed by smaller groups identifying as Black or African American (n = 8, 4.44%), Asian (n = 4, 2.22%), Hispanic or Latino (n = 6, 3.33%), and multi-racial (n = 11, 6.11%); two participants (0.56%) preferred not to disclose their race. A total of 65 cadets (36.11%) held an ROTC scholarship, while 115 (63.89%) did not; 72 cadets (40.00%) reported prior enlistment experience, whereas 108 (60.00%) did not (see Table 1). Study Design Following Institutional Review Board approval, ROTC cadets actively enrolled at the first author’s university were invited to participate in this study. ROTC cadets were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. Approval was first obtained from the ROTC cadre, after which we were granted permission to recruit participants in person during military science courses and pre-ACFT procedures, such as cadre-led cadet weigh-ins. Participants were PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 10 informed that their involvement in the study was entirely voluntary and that all data collected would remain anonymous and confidential. The current study employed a cross-sectional design in which data was collected at four total time points over a two-year academic period: time point one (T1) occurred in Fall of 2022, time point two (T2) occurred in Spring of 2023, time point three (T3) occurred in Fall of 2023, and time point four (T4) occurred in Spring of 2024. However, only the initial time point for each participant was used in the analysis. Of the 427 total cadets who were contacted, 334 cadets agreed to participate (78.2% response rate). In line with the research questions for the current research, only the data of participants’ first participation in the study were analyzed for this study (N = 180). Measures The measures employed in the current study comprised 244 items and took approximately 30 minutes to complete. The following measures were presented in the order provided below and remained consistent across all data collection time points. Of the 244 survey items, eight questions collected demographic information on participants, including their age, gender, race, cadet class, years as a cadet, years in ROTC, ROTC scholarship status, and prior military enlistment. Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) ACFT data was collected via official scorecards filled out and submitted by the ROTC cadre (see Appendix O). The ACFT is comprised of a max deadlift (three repetitions), a standing power throw, hand-release push-ups, a spring/drag/carry, a plank, and a two-mile run (U.S. Department of the Army, 2023; see Appendix P). All scoring in the ACFT events is normed by age group and gender (e.g., 17-21 years old, male, and female) and each event has a total PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 11 possible score of 100 points. The max deadlift (3RMD) requires three successful repetitions of 140 pounds for males and 120 pounds for females regardless of age group. The standing power throw (STP), in which a cadet tosses a 10-pound medicine ball for maximum distance, requires a 6.0-meter and 3.9-meter score for males and females respectively in the 17–21-year-old age group. The hand-release push-up (HRP) event requires 10 successful repetitions of the push-up to pass regardless of age or gender. The sprint/drag/carry (C) event requires cadets to first sprint 50 meters, then drag a 90-pound sled 50 meters, then laterally sprint 50 meters, then carry two 40-pound kettlebells 50 meters, and lastly spring another 50 meters. Passing scores for the sprint/drag/carry event vary by age and gender, with a 2:28 minute and a 3:15 minute passing time for male and female cadets aged 17-21. The plank (P), also scored by time and varied by age and gender, has a passing score of achieving at least 1:30 seconds for male and female cadets aged 17-21. Lastly, the two-mile run (2MR) requires cadets to complete the event in under 22:00 minutes for males and under 23:22 minutes for females aged 17-21. To officially pass the ACFT, cadets are required to score a minimum of 60 points on each event and an overall raw score of at least 360 points. Academic Motivation Scale – College (AMS-C) The AMS-C (Vallerand et al., 1992) is a 28-item instrument measuring the degree of motivational regulation in the context of a university across seven subscales including: amotivation (four items; e.g., “”I don’t know; I can’t understand what I am doing in school”), extrinsic motivation – external regulation (four items; e.g., “in order to obtain a more prestigious job later on”), extrinsic motivation – introjected regulation (four items; e.g., “because I want to show myself that I can succeed in my studies”), extrinsic motivation – identified regulation (four items; e.g., “because this will help me make a better choice regarding my career orientation”), PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 12 intrinsic motivation – to experience stimulation (four items; e.g., “for the intense feelings I experience when I am communicating my own ideas to others”), intrinsic motivation – toward accomplishment (four items; e.g., “for the pleasure I experience while surpassing myself in my studies”), and intrinsic motivation – to know (four items; e.g., “because my studies allow me to continue to learn about many things that interest me”). Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly) with a mid-point of 4 (corresponds moderately). To score the AMS-C, the responses for each subscale are first summed for each participant. A Self-Determination Index (SDI) is then calculated to determine the degree to which participants are self-determined in college, ranging from -18 (low selfdetermination) to +18 (high self-determination). The SDI is calculated by assigning weights to the motivation regulation subscales, multiplying each subscale’s mean score by its corresponding weight (Howard et al., 2020). The weighted scores across all subscales are then summed to compute the total SDI. Higher SDI values indicate greater self-determined motivation, while lower values suggest controlled or amotivated forms of motivation (Howard et al., 2020). Achievement Motives Scale – Revised (AMS-R) The AMS-R (Lang & Fries, 2006) is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses participants’ achievement motives across two subscales: hope for success (five items; e.g., “I like situations in which I can find out how capable I am”) and fear of failure (five items; e.g., “I feel uneasy to do something if I am not sure of succeeding”). Participants respond on a four-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Scores for each achievement motive are calculated by averaging items for each subscale. Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale (BNSC-S) PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 13 The BNSC-S (Jenkins-Guarniere et al., 2015) is a 13-item instrument measuring students’ need satisfaction in a university context across three subscales: autonomy satisfaction (four items; e.g., “I feel like I can pretty much be myself at school”), competence satisfaction (five items; e.g., “I do not feel very competent with school”), and relatedness satisfaction (four items; e.g., “I really like the people I go to school with”). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true), with a mid-point of 3 (somewhat true). The score for each basic psychological need subscale is computed by averaging the respective items. Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS) The BPNSFS (Chen et al., 2015) is a 24-item scale measuring participants’ basic psychological need fulfillment across six subscales: autonomy satisfaction (four items; e.g., “I feel my choices express who I really am”), autonomy frustration (four items; e.g., “my daily activities feel like a chain of obligations”), competence satisfaction (four items; e.g., “I feel capable at what I do”), competence frustration (four items; e.g., “I feel disappointed with many of my performances”), relatedness satisfaction (four items; e.g., “I feel that the people I care about also care about me”), and relatedness frustration (four items; e.g., “I feel the relationships I have are just superficial”). Participants answer each item on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (completely true). The scoring of the BPNSFS can be computed in many ways (see Van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2020). For instance, need satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction) and need frustration may be scored separately by averaging the respective items to be then contrasted within the sample. To best fit the sample, the stem of the scale was changed from “we ask about the kind of experiences you actually have in your life” to “we ask about the kind of experiences you actually have in your life as a cadet.” Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety Inventory – 2 Revised (CSAI-2R) PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 14 The CSAI-2R (Cox et al., 2003) is a 17-item instrument assessing participants’ state anxiety and confidence levels regarding a specific task across three subscales: cognitive anxiety (five items; e.g., “I’m concerned about performing poorly”), somatic anxiety (seven items; e.g., “I feel jittery”), and self-confidence (five items; e.g., “I’m confident I can meet the challenge”). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so), with midpoints of 2 (somewhat) and 3 (moderately so). To better fit the sampled participants, the stem of the CSAI-2R included “Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT)” (e.g., “indicate how you typically feel right before your Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT)”). The CSAI-2R is scored by first averaging each subscale for each participant and then multiplying the averages by 10. Coping Function Questionnaire (CFQ) The CFQ (Kowalski & Crocker, 2001) is an 18-item instrument that assesses individuals’ use of different coping functions across three subscales: problem- (six items; e.g., “I work harder to try to change the situation”), emotion- (seven items; e.g., “I try to find ways to control my emotions”), and avoidance-focused coping (five items; e.g., “I try to get away from the situation to reduce the stress”). Participants respond on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Scores for each coping function are calculated by averaging items for each subscale. Locus of Control Scale (LCS) The LCS (Rotter, 1966) is a 29-item instrument that measures participants’ degree of external versus internal control of reinforcement by employing dichotomous questions (e.g., “many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to bad luck” versus “people’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make”). The survey is scored by summing scores on all PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 15 items, in which a high score corresponds to greater levels of an external locus of control, whereas a low score corresponds to greater levels of an internal locus of control. Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI) The MTI (Gucciardi et al., 2015) is an eight-item instrument assessing a person’s perceived mental toughness (e.g., “I consistently overcome adversity”). Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (false, 100% of the time) to 7 (true, 100% of the time). To better fit the sampled participants, the stem of the MTI was adapted from “how you think, feel, and behave as an athlete” to “how you think, feel, and behave as a cadet.” The score for the entire scale was calculated by averaging responses to all items, in which lower scores represent smaller indices of mental toughness for cadets. Military Academic Motivation Scale (MAMS) The MAMS (Filosa et al., 2021) is a 17-item instrument that measures cadets’ military academy motivation regulation across five subscales: amotivation (four items; e.g., “I am in ROTC just because I have to”), external regulation (four items; e.g., “because I want to move up and make lots of money”), introjected regulation (four items; e.g., “to show that I’m able to do anything, if I want to), identified regulation (four items; e.g., “to achieve the position I want in the future”, and intrinsic motivation (four items; e.g., “because in ROTC I can do things that I like”). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). To better fit the sampled participants, the stem of the MAMS was adapted from “why did you decide to join the Guardia di Finanza?” to “why you are in ROTC.” Additional changes were made to six items by substituting the words “Guardia di Finanza” with “ROTC”. Scoring for the MAMS is equivalent to that of the AMS-C, in which an SDI is calculated to determine the PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 16 degree to which participants are self-determined in their military academy setting (Howard et al., 2020). Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) The OLBI (Halbesleben & Demerouti, 2005) is a 16-item questionnaire that measures burnout across two subscales: disengagement (eight items; e.g., “I find my work to be a positive challenge”) and exhaustion (eight items; e.g., “when I work, I usually feel energized”). Participants respond to each item on a four-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The instrument is scored by first summing the two subscales, and then by summing the two subtotals, in which higher total scores are associated with greater levels of burnout. Perceived Stress Scale – 10 (PSS-10) The PSS-10 (Cohen & Williamson, 1988) is a 10-item survey measuring participants’ frequency of perceived stress (e.g., “in the last month, how often have you felt nervous and ‘stressed’”?). Responses to each item fall on a five-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), with a mid-point of 2 (sometimes). The total score is calculated by adding the scores for all 10 items, in which higher total scores are indicative of higher levels of perceived stress. Resilience Scale (RS) The RS (Wagnild & Young, 1993) is a 25-item instrument that measures the resilience of participants (e.g., “I take things one day at a time”). Items in the RS are rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The RS is scored by summing the scores across all items, in which larger scores are associated with higher levels of resilience. Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 17 The TEOSQ (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) is a 21-item instrument that measures the degree of participants’ beliefs about the causes of success across four subscales: ego orientation (eight items; e.g., “others can’t do as well as me”), task orientation (eight items; e.g., “I learn something interesting”), work avoidance (three items; e.g., “I don’t have to try hard”), and cooperation (two items; e.g., “my friends and I help each other”). Each item is rated on a fivepoint Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The score for each subscale is computed by averaging the respective items. Data Analysis The data was analyzed using SPSS (version 26) and R Studio (version 4.4.1). Preliminary analyses included an evaluation of missing data patterns and outlier detection. Little’s MCAR test (Little, 1988) was conducted to determine if the missing data were missing completely at random, justifying listwise deletion for subsequent analyses. Cases with values beyond ± 3 standard deviations from the mean were identified as outliers and removed from the dataset to mitigate potential distortions in the analysis, following recommended practices to prevent undue influence by extreme values (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). To examine the psychometric properties of the instruments, internal consistency reliability was assessed for each scale and subscale using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha values provide an estimate of reliability by measuring the extent to which items within each instrument are consistent with one another, with values closer to 1.0 indicating higher reliability. According to widely accepted guidelines, alpha values above 0.90 are considered excellent, values between 0.80 – 0.89 are good, values between 0.70 – 0.79 are acceptable, values between 0.60 – 0.69 are questionable, and values below 0.60 are poor (Taber, 2018). PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 18 Descriptive statistics were computed to summarize the characteristics of the study sample and the distribution of the variables of interest. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using R Studio with the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV) estimator. This estimator, a type of Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator, is appropriate given the ordinal nature of the data and the sample size (n < 200). The WLSMV estimator accounts for potential heteroscedasticity and non-normality, providing greater accuracy in parameter estimates and model fit assessments (DiStefano et al., 2019). Model fit was evaluated following the recommendations laid out by Hu and Bentler (1999) using scaled fit indices, including Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values close to 0.95, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values close to 0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values close to 0.08, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values close to 0.06 (DiStefano et al., 2019). Factor loadings of 0.40 or higher were considered acceptable, as recommended by Hooper et al. (2008), to ensure items meaningfully represented the latent constructs. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to examine the bivariate relationships between each psychological characteristic and performance on each component of the ACFT and ACFT totals. Correlation analyses were used to identify potential associations between psychological traits and physical performance among ROTC cadets. Subsequent multiple linear regression modeling was performed to determine the extent to which psychological characteristics predicted performance on the components of the ACFT. ACFT sub scores served as the dependent variable, while the non-collinear psychological characteristics measured by the scales served as independent variables. Regression coefficients and associated p-values were PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 19 examined to assess the strength and significance of the relationships between psychological traits and ACFT performance. Results Psychometric Properties of Psychological Instruments (RQ1) The internal consistency of each instrument and the respective subscales was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Following conventional reliability thresholds (i.e., Taber, 2018), analyses confirmed that most instruments and subscales possessed satisfactory internal consistency, supporting their use in psychological characteristics among ROTC cadets (see Table 2). Specifically, among the 13 total instruments and 35 scales (48 total), six were found to be poor or questionable: the BNSC-S competency satisfaction subscale (α = 0.51), the MAMS identified regulation subscale (α = 0.59), the TEOSQ work avoidance subscale (α = 0.65), the BNSC-S autonomy satisfaction subscale (α = 0.65), the LCS scale (α = 0.66), and the MAMS amotivation subscale (α = 0.68). Model fit indices and factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analyses are presented in Table 3 for all 13 instruments. Among these, five instruments demonstrated acceptable model fit and were included for further analysis: Academic Motivation Scale-College (AMS-C; CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.07, 0.58 ≤ λ ≤ 0.96), Achievement Motives ScaleRevised (AMS-R; CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.07, 0.45 ≤ λ ≤ 0.90), Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety Inventory-2 Revised (CSAI-2R; CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05; 0.75 ≤ λ ≤ 0.97), Resilience Scale (RS; CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.07, 0.36 ≤ λ ≤ 0.77), and Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS; CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07, 0.58 ≤ λ ≤ 0.93). PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 20 The initial CFA of the RS resulted in three items below 0.40 (i.e., 0.01, 0.39, 0.46). The item with a factor loading of 0.01 was removed to enhance model fit, while the remaining lowloading items were retained to preserve the integrity of the original scales (Hooper et al., 2008). Psychological Predictors of ACFT Performance Among ROTC Cadets (RQ2) The descriptive statistics for the psychological instruments administered to the cadets and correlational analysis among the psychological variables and ACFT events are presented in Tables 17 and 18. For each ACFT event, regression analyses were conducted to examine the predictive role of psychological factors. Significant models are presented first, followed by models without significant main effects. The regression model for the two-mile run (see Table 26) was significant, explaining 33% of the variance (R 2 = 0.33, Ajd. R 2 = 0.17, F(19, 148) = 1.91, p < .05). Altogether, five psychological constructs positively predicted performance on the 2MR: Amotivation (β = 0.41, p < .05), Identified Regulation (β = 0.42, p < .05), Intrinsic Regulation – Toward Accomplishment (β = 0.35, p < .05), Cognitive Anxiety (β = 0.31, p < .05), and Self-Confidence (β = 0.33, p < .05). Both External Regulation (β = -0.53, p < .05) and Intrinsic Regulation – To Know (β = - 0.33, p < .01) were significant negative predictors of cadet performance on the 2MR. The regression model for the deadlift (see Table 21) was significant, explaining 37% of the variance (R 2 = .37, Ajd. R 2 = .22, F(19, 148) = 2.13, p < .01). Within this model, Intrinsic Regulation to Experience Stimulation was a significant positive predictor of performance (β = 0.33, p < .05). PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 21 The regression model for the hand-release push-ups (see Table 23) was significant, explaining 32% of the variance (R 2 = 0.32, Ajd. R 2 = 0.16, F(19, 148) = 2.12, p < .05). Resilience was a significant positive predictor of performance (β = 0.21, p < .05). The regression model for the plank (see Table 25) was significant, explaining 33% of the variance (R 2 = 0.33, Ajd. R 2 = 0.18, F(19, 148) = 1.91, p < .05). Fear of Failure (β = -0.36, p < .05) negatively predicted performance, whereas Self-Confidence (β = 0.24, p < .05) positively predicted plank scores. Both the standing power throw (R 2 = 0.25, Ajd. R 2 = 0.07, F(19, 148) = 1.91, p > .05) and the sprint-drag-carry (R 2 = 0.28, Ajd. R 2 = 0.11, F(19, 148) = 1.68, p > .05) models did not reach significance. (see Tables 22 and 24). Discussion This study evaluated the psychometric properties of multiple psychological instruments in an ROTC cadet population (RQ1) and explored the relationships between these psychological constructs and ACFT performance (RQ2). The first section of this discussion provides a discussion of the key findings relative to RQ1, while the second section explores and integrates the results of RQ2 analyses. This section will conclude with a discussion of limitations and future directions for research. Psychometric Properties of Psychological Instruments (RQ1) Included Instruments The psychometric evaluation of 13 instruments within the ROTC cadet population provided insights into their strengths and limitations in predicting ACFT outcomes. Five instruments – AMS-C, AMS-R, BPNSFS, CSAI-2R, and RS – demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, model fit, and factor loadings, suggesting these measures effectively captured their PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 22 respective constructs in this sample. These results provide initial evidence that these scales can yield valid and reliable measurements, which may support future efforts to identify cadet characteristics aligned with ROTC training methods. To the author’s knowledge, these five instruments’ internal consistency results have been provided in a few prior studies with military samples, yet no factor loadings or fit indices were described. Across the six studies which reported Cronbach’s alpha of instruments among military participants, the current internal consistency of the AMS-C (Buekers, 2023; 2024; Seipel, 2020), the AMS-R (Cheng & Magraw-Mickelson, 2023), the BPNSFS (Lepinoy et al., 2023), the CSAI2R (Sánchez-Molina et al., 2019) and the RS (Francis, 2021) are in alignment. Notably, six studies utilizing the AMS-C, AMS-R, BPNSFS, CSAI-2R, or RS did not report psychometric properties (Barbour, 2014; Clemente-Suárez et al., 2016; Fuentes-García et al., 2021; Kastle et al., 2021; Sánchez-Molina et al., 2019; Wesemman et al., 2018). The scarcity of reported psychometric values presents challenges in ascertaining consistency with other tested military samples. Thus, it is necessary to juxtapose the current results across literature that sampled nonmilitary personnel. The AMS-C retained its seven-factor structure with acceptable loadings and fit, consistent with previous validations across diverse cultures, languages, and educational contexts (e.g., Akoto, 2014). However, alternate structures, such as the three-factor model reported by Colebrusco de Souza et al. (2021), suggest cultural or contextual influences and preferences for streamlined models, warranting careful evaluation in ROTC settings. Similarly, the AMS-R demonstrated factor loadings and fit indices consistent with its initial validation (Lang & Fries, 2006). However, the lack of subsequent studies validating the AMS-R in diverse contexts highlights a significant research gap, underscoring the current PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 23 study’s contribution to its applicability in military populations. Future research should replicate these findings with larger, more varied samples. The BPNSFS supported a six-factor model, in line with previous studies validating the distinction between need satisfaction and frustration (e.g., Chen et al., 2015). The corroborative support of the six-factor model, as opposed to the two-factor model (i.e., need satisfaction and need frustration), is further evidenced by the current results and may confirm the theoretical nature of basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration as distinct constructs (Chen et al., 2015). In the context of ROTC cadets, the ability to differentiate between need satisfaction and frustration may provide critical insights into how these constructs influence other factors (e.g., motivation, and performance). Future research is needed to validate the six-factor model in other ROTC cadet and military populations. The CSAI-2R demonstrated robust psychometric properties, consistent with prior research validating its three-factor model across languages and populations, including athletes and children (e.g., Martinent et al., 2010; Stadulis et al., 2002). The consistency of these results highlights the robustness of the CSAI-2R in measuring performance-related psychological constructs across diverse populations. In the current study, the CSAI-2R demonstrated psychometric properties consistent with prior findings, suggesting its applicability to high-stakes, structured environments like ROTC training. Finally, the RS displayed adequate reliability and validity across various populations and languages (e.g., Seong et al., 2024; Serrão et al., 2021). However, ongoing disputes about its dimensionality, with some studies supporting a unidimensional model (Serrão et al., 2021) and others a five-factor structure (Konaszewski et al., 2021), underscore the need for further investigation. Notably, this study identified a problematic item consistent with prior findings, PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 24 suggesting potential context-specific challenges. These somewhat contradictory results across the literature may be a consequence of cultural context (He & van de Vijver, 2012), methodological approach (Podsakoff et al., 2012), or item interpretation (DeVellis, 2016). For instance, it is possible that differences in statistical methods, such as exploratory factor analysis, may yield variations in the scale’s dimensionality. Yet, exploratory factor analysis, nor exploratory structural equation modeling, was employed in the current study, so further interpretation of the dimensionality variability of the RS in the current population is challenging. This study appears to be the first to assess ROTC cadets using these five instruments, emphasizing the need for additional psychometric reporting to reinforce evidence of reliability and validity within diverse military samples. Given the limited sample size and the specificity of the population examined here, future research should aim to replicate these findings across larger and more diverse military samples. Expanding the sample size and scope would allow for more robust testing of model fit and factorial invariance, helping to establish greater generalizability (Kline, 2016). Additionally, longitudinal studies could explore the stability of these instruments' psychometric properties over time and in varied military training contexts. Excluded Instruments The remaining eight scales (i.e., BNSC-S, CFQ, LCS, MAMS, MTI, OLBI, PSS, TEOSQ) did not demonstrate adequate psychometric properties in this study, suggesting potential misalignment between these instruments and the current sample population. Particular items across four of the excluded scales presented poor factor loadings. In the context of the current study, low item factor loadings may be indicative of a myriad of reasons, such as item irrelevance for the population (He & van de Vijver, 2012), poor item-construct alignment (Putnick & Borstein, 2016), complex or ambiguous wording of items (Clark & Watson, 2019), PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 25 lack of variability in responses (DeVellis, 2016), multidimensionality of constructs (Reise et al., 2007), small sample size, and possible random measurement error (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Specifically, two items from the BNSC-S (e.g., “I have been able to learn interesting new skills in college”), two items from the OLBI (e.g., “There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work”), 14 items from the LCS (e.g., “One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take enough interest in politics”), one item from the TEOSQ (e.g., “I can goof off”), and one item from the MAMS (e.g., “Honestly, I joined ROTC because I felt compelled”) had factor loadings below 0.40. These poor item factor loadings might be suggestive of potential issues with content validity (Boateng et al., 2018), in which items may have weak associations with the underlying factor and, possibly, poor representation of the latent constructs (Hooper et al., 2008). Given the current study sample, (i.e., public university, a high proportion of 1st year cadets) for whom participation may have occurred in their first semester in university, participants may not have had enough exposure to university or ROTC experiences, possibly reducing the relevance of items and potentially impacting factor loading (He & van de Vijver, 2012). The fact that other instruments (e.g., AMS-C, AMS-R, BPNSFS, CSAI-2R, RS) maintained their psychometric integrity despite the sample characteristics may be due to the nature of the constructs they measure. Constructs like academic motivation may be more stable and less dependent on specific experiences, resulting in robust psychometric properties even for 1st-year cadets. Additionally, instruments like the AMS-C and RS have undergone extensive validation, enhancing their reliability across diverse contexts, which may account for their stronger performance in the current study. As seen with the BNSC-S in the current study, it is probable that the items with low factor loadings did not contribute strongly to the factor they are meant to measure (e.g., PSYCHOMETRICS & PREDICTORS OF ROTC PERFORMANCE 26 Competence Satisfaction), or destabilized the factor structure, resulting in fit indices that indicate poorer fit (Heene et al., 2011). Item irrelevance for the population may have also been evidenced within the Work Avoidance subscale of the TEOSQ, originally developed in sport (Duda & Nicholls, 1992), which may be interpreted differently in academic or ROTC settings. This impact on the interpretation of items may, through item irrelevance, affect factor structure. In contrast, the relatively greater psychometric performance of instruments like the AMS-C, AMS-R, BPNSFS, CSAI-2R, and RS may reflect their development in a context that aligns with the ROTC environment. For example, before efforts in validating the BPNSFS across a wide variety of contexts, the instrument was originally tested primarily among undergraduate students (Chen et al., 2015; Cordeiro et al., 2016), likely allowing for a degree of universality among ROTC cadets who must manage academic (i.e., university) responsibilities alongside their military training. Similarly, the CSAI-2R, des