Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026
A Computerized Functional Skills Assessment and Training Program Targeting Technology Based Everyday Functional Skills
Published on: February 13, 2020
Future Forward: Needs Assessment of Performance Experts on Technology Integration Within Mental Performance Training
Kourtney Sappenfield1,2, Megan C Loftin1,3, Robyn S Recker1,2
1Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD 20910, United States.
Introduction:
Advancing technology offers opportunities to incorporate tools from sport and performance psychology to enhance Soldiers' mental performance. User acceptance is important for successful technology adoption; thus, technology should be accepted and usable to those leading mental performance training (MPT) (e.g., Performance Experts [PEs]). This study sought to assess the use, interest, and preferences for technology among PEs.
Materials And Methods:
Performance Experts assigned to Ready and Resilient Performance Centers (R2PCs) at 34 Army installations were surveyed electronically about PEs' use, interest, and preferences for technology, with 119 complete responses. Technology was defined as supplementing/enhancing MPT for mental skills development. Spearman's rank-order correlations analyzed associations between PE technology perceptions and use questions. Descriptive statistics were utilized to present dimension-specific and mean total scores from the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) 2.0. Open-ended responses were summarized using descriptive coding and thematic analysis regarding PE responses to technology use and suggestions.
Results:
Performance Experts indicated low technology use with individuals (2.45 ± 0.90) and groups (2.33 ± 0.93). Performance Experts belief in using technology in MPT positively correlated with knowledge, confidence, and belief that technology enhances MPT for individuals and groups (P's < .001). Performance Experts perceived that technology enhances MPT for individuals which correlated with the frequency of technology with individuals (P < .01), with no relationship observed for groups (P > .05). Technology readiness index 2.0 (TRI 2.0) scores showed PEs tend to be optimistic (3.98 ± 0.71) and have lower discomfort (2.15 ± 0.70) around technology, while neutral on innovativeness (3.09 ± 0.95) and somewhat insecure (3.17 ± 0.93) towards technology. Performance Experts raised issues with technology access and maintenance, and the importance of technology applicability.
Conclusions:
Although PEs show strong interest, confidence, and understanding of technology's potential to improve MPT, barriers such as access and opportunities to apply technology hinder its effective use.
