Norwegian NRF soldiers acceptance of Allied nations’ field rations during a military exercise...
-
Upload
horace-dylan-anderson -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Norwegian NRF soldiers acceptance of Allied nations’ field rations during a military exercise...
Norwegian NRF soldiers acceptance of Allied nations’ field rations during a
military exercise
Masters thesis
Pål H. Stenberg
Akershus University College, Norway
Background
NATO’s request for a common field ration (or specifications – STANAG 2937) to satisfy:– Sensory requirements (i.e. acceptability)– Interoperability – Nutritional requirements
Rations must meet all requirements over the full range of environments:
1. Cold (e.g. border of Russia and Norway)
2. Hot Climates – e.g. Desert Storm, Iraq
3. Heat (summer), cold (winter) and altitude, e.g. Faryab, Afghanistan)
Problem
To what extent do Norwegian NATO Response Force (NRF) soldiers accept Allied nations’ field rations during a military exercise?– Sensory/behavioural – Interoperability – Nutrition (how much do soldiers trust the
nutritional adequacy of other nations’ rations?)
Relevance
NATO HFM RTG 154– Development of common standards for field rations
International operations – Menu fatigue causes weight loss, and local food
choices increase the risk of food-related illness
Common result of unwise local food choices
Methods
Prospective cohort pilot study
– Exploratory quantitative study with selection statistics used to show strength of differences between groups
7 platoons, each provided with one of the seven available Allied field rations – USA, Great Britain, France, Slovenia, Canada, Germany, Norway
Methods – Questionnaire and discards
Survey– Electronic questionnaire
QuestBack
– Open question Repeated in the closed questions (questionnaire)
– Quantifying discarded rations Did discards correspond with their answers in the
questionnaire?
Methods – labelling discards
Methods – categorizing discards
Methods – visually estimated amount of intake of each component (1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3)
Methods – study location
Study conducted during a field exercise that took place in Norway (between Rena and Hamar) in late autumn 2009
Methods – Effect size
Effect size and Cohen’s d with corresponding table over % non-overlap between two mean scores – Used in all constructs
Illustrates strength of difference between two mean scores (compared with highest ranked mean)
The different rations
GBR
USA
GER
SVN
FRA
CAN
NOR
Results cont.
Results
Two nations’ rations were found acceptable as an alternative to Norwegian rations for Norwegian soldiers
Three nations’ rations were close to Likert’s neutral point (3/5)
One nation’s rations were found to be unacceptable
Results cont’d
Acceptability reduced during the 8-day study– NRF requires 30 days of adequate acceptability
Results cont’dTable 14: The construct SENSORIAL ACCEPTABILITY of the allied nations’ rations. Mean ranking of the construct is descending. The measurement of CCA (standardised items). Cohen’s d and % non-overlap is based on comparison with the highest mean (USA).
Nation N Mean ± S.D Agree (%) CCA Cohen’s d ≈ Non overlap (%)
USA 114.08 ± 0.88 85 0.88
Slovenia 15 3.77 ± 0.99 88 0.65 0.330 8
Canada 14 3.33 ± 1.05 85 0.82 0.774 33
England 11 3.27 ± 1.18 69 0.87 0.778 33
Germany 17 3.12 ± 0.92 83 0.46 1.066 43
France 15 2.36 ± 1.01 45 0.83 1.816 68
Mean 41 3.30 ± 0.89 76±13
Results cont’d Table 16: The construct INTEROPERABILITY of the allied nations’ rations. Mean ranking is descending. The measurement of CCA (standardised items), Cohen’s d and % non-overlap is based on comparison with the highest mean (SVN).
Nation N Mean ± S.D Agree (%) CCA Cohen’s d ≈ % non-overlap
Slovenia 11 3.70 ± 0.82 70 0.78
USA 15 3.65 ± 0.65 75 0.80 0.068 15
Britain 11 2.71 ± 1.06 55 0.85 1.045 59
Germany 17 2.50 ± 0.86 49 0.45 1.428 71
Canada 14 2.27 ± 0.96 45 0.89 1.602 75
France 15 2.14 ± 0.96 35 0.75 1.747 79
Mean 14 2.81 ± 0.89 55 ± 12
Results cont’dTable 18: The construct NUTRITION and the respondents’ trust regarding nutritional aspects in allied nations' rations. Mean ranking is descending. The measurement of CCA (standardised items). Cohen’s
d and % non-overlap is based on comparance with the highest mean (USA).
Nation N Mean ± S.D. Agree (%) CCA Cohen’s d ≈ % Non-overlap
USA 15 3.43 ± 0.76 76 0.77
Slovenia 10 3.43 ± 0.83 86 0.54 0.000 0
England 10 3.18± 1.00 72 0.85 0.281 21
Canada 14 3.01 ± 0.91 78 0.74 0.501 33
Germany 15 2.88 ± 0.98 55 0.55 0.627 38
France 16 2.64 ± 1.07 45 0.79 0.851 52
Mean3.10 ± 0.66 69 ± 12
Results – most accepted
NationMain courses Spreads Snacks Beverage
GER3.96 ± 0.96 2.71 ± 1.28 3.13 ± 1.16 (2.56 ± 1.35)
SVN4.06 ± 1.00 2.74 ± 1.38 3.12 ± 0.98 (3.04 ± 1.33)
FRA(2.27 ± 0.99) (1.84 ± 1.15) (2.73 ± 1.29) 3.48 ± 1.26
GBR3.30 ± 1.23 3.50[1] ± 1.52 3.78 ± 1.07 3.32 ± 1.11
USA3.99 ± 0.85 3.48 ± 1.27 3.98 ± 0.92 3.78 ± 1.10
CAN3.35 ± 1.03 3.10 ± 0.86 3.24 ± 0.80 3.38 ± 1.08
NOR2.95 ± 0.97 2.76 ± 1.38 2.88 ± 1.30 2.87 ± 1.19
Results cont’dTable 19: ACCEPTABILITY, all variables (20 items) in the three sub constructs SENSORYACCEPTABILITY, INTEROPERABILITY and NUTRITION listed with” % agree”, mean ± S.D., CCA, Cohen’s d and % non overlap
(compared with highest mean; rations from USA).
Nation N Mean ± S.D Agree (%) Mean ± S.D CCA Cohen’s d ≈ % Non-overlap
USA 15 3.72 ± 0.76 79 3.72 ± 0.76 0,92
Slovenia 10 3.63 ± 0.88 81 3.63 ± 0.88 0,83 0.109 7
England 10 3.06 ± 1.08 65 3.06 ± 1.08 0,95 0.707 43
Canada 14 2.87 ± 0.98 68 2.87 ± 0.98 0,90 0.969 52
Germany 15 2.83 ± 0.92 62 2.83 ± 0.92 0,76 1.055 55
France 16 2.38 ± 1.01 42 2.38 ± 1.01 0,81 1.499 71
Mean 15 3.06 ± 0.52 66 3.06 ± 0.52
Conclusions and implications
If NATO in the future will provide a multinational force (as NRF), further research should include:
– Acceptance measured 2 – 4 weeks Menu fatigue, see table 41
Questions…