2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction
November 27~29, 2007

Development of Disaster Response Competency Profile Indices(An Extended Version)
S.Tatsuki 1*
1

Doshisha University (Kyoto, Japan)

Abstract
This study aimed to identify observable and measurable behavior traits that were shared
among highly competent disaster responders and to construct screening instruments thatassessed disaster responder competency. Focus group interviews to competent experts in
disaster responses were conducted in order to capture statements that typified competentdisaster responders.

Conceptual clustering of the statements produced three major

competency categories and they were found to be associated with three major disaster
response functions. Those were namely 1) incident commander competency, 2) management
staff competency (Intelligence, Planning, and Logistics), and 3) operation competency. Fourexperts on each function/competency from the Kobe City Fire Department were interviewed
in order to examine content validity of the competency statements/items. These validationinterviews formed a basis to construct a preliminary multiple choice instrument to measuredisaster response competencies.

Two other types of instruments were simultaneously

constructed, one a sentence completion questionnaire, the other a questionnaire that asked
respondents to evaluate hypothetical cases on disaster response. Three different instruments
measuring three different competencies were administered to fifty disaster responders at Kobe
City Fire Department and thirty-three questionnaires were returned. Standard item analysis
procedures were conducted and the best items representing each corresponding competency ineach instrument were selected. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique was applied
to test construct validity of the refined instruments by analyzing multitrait-multimethod(MTMM) variance-covariance matrix data obtained from the selected items. The analysis
results validated the construct validity of the refined instruments.

The instrument wasthereafter named the first version of Disaster Response Competency Profile Indices (DRCPI).
Further validation studies of the DRCPI by comparing the results of the simulated disaster
response exercises performed by the most competent teams of incident commander, staff, andoperation personnel with those by teams composed of randomly assigned personnel werediscussed as a future research direction.
Keyword: Disaster Response Competency, Screening Instrument, MTMM experiment*

S. Tatsuki, Department of Sociology, Doshisha University, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan. tatsuki@gold.ocn.ne.jp

1. Introduction
This study aimed to identify observable and measurable behavior traits that were shared
among highly competent disaster responders and to construct screening instruments thatassess disaster responder competencies. At the first stage of the study, a group of sevenexpert emergency responders were invited to a focus group session. They had had
experiences in effectively managing such emergency situations as the 1995 Kobe earthquakeat the response and recovery phases, the prevention of the spread of BSE in Japanese cattle
herds and the recent bird flu epidemic. Their statements were transcribed and conceptual
clustering of the statements was conducted on the basis of semantic affinity. Three major
mutually exclusive semantic clusters were formed. The first cluster consisted of competency
statements related to job execution and attention to keeping an operational unit intact under
any circumstance. The second cluster was characterized by statements related to information,
intelligence and personnel as well as logistics planning. The third cluster contained
statements related to organizational decision making. In order to relate these conceptual
clusters to the standard emergency management functions, the Incident Command System
was used as a template guideline. This revealed that the first cluster corresponded with
operation competency, the second cluster management staff competency, and the third cluster
incident commander competency.
In order to cross-validate the conceptual clustering and the functional interpretation of thosecompetencies, four Kobe City Fire Department experts on each of the operation,
management staff and incident commander functions were interviewed. These crossvalidation interviews supported the three competencies as were extracted from the focus
group session to be crucial in their work as operation personnel officer, management staff orincident commander on site or at the emergency operation center.
2. Method
Out of the above validation interviews, preliminary multiple choice items were produced tomeasure disaster response competencies. The instrument consists of three subscales; tenitems were selected for operation (see Table 1), ten for management staff (see Table 2), andtwelve for incident commander competency (see Table 3). Its response options were
“Almost never true”, “Usually not true”, “It depends/Undecided”, “Usually true”, and“Almost always true”.
Two other types of instruments were simultaneously constructed; one a rating scale and theother a free-answer questionnaire. The rating scale questionnaire presented two particularresponses/judgments made by each of operation personnel officers, management staff
members, and incident commanders. Respondents were asked to evaluate each of those
responses/judgments as being “Appropriate”, “Appropriate if certain conditions are met”,“Not appropriate if certain conditions exist”, or “Not appropriate”.
The free-answer questionnaire asked respondents to describe their own action as an operation
personnel officer, a management staff and an incident commander in a hypothetical largescale mountain fire incident. The first three scenarios were prepared for operation personnel,
the next two for management staff, and the last three for the incident commander (see Table

5). The hypothetical scenarios presented in both rating and free-answer instruments weredrawn partly from the interviews from Kobe City Fire Department experts as well as from
ethnographic interviews with the 1995 Kobe earthquake emergency responders1).
The above three different instruments measuring three different competencies wereadministered to fifty disaster responders belonging to the Kobe city fire department andthirty-three questionnaires were returned. Return rates were equivalent among the threemajor disaster response functions: Eight questionnaires were returned from operation
personnel officers, eight from management staffs, eight from field level incident
commanders, and nine from emergency operation center level incident commanders.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Multiple-Choice Scale
Multiple-choice responses to thirty-two competency items (ten items for operation, ten for
management staff and twelve for incident commander competencies) were analyzed using
Dual/Optimal Scaling method (Nishisato, 1982), which was a kind of principal component
analysis of categorical data. Like principal component analysis that provides optimized item
weights or loadings by means of eigenvalue decompositions of item variance-covariancematrix, Dual scaling analysis produces an eigenvalue for each solution and its internalconsistency reliability estimate as well as response option weights which maximizes theinternal consistency reliability of a given item set. Unlike principal component analysis,
however, Dual Scaling can detect both linear and non-linear relations that exist in the data set(Nishisato, 2007).
Multiple Choice Scale for Operation Competency: The ten-item operation competency
scale showed a clear unidimensional structure (the first eigenvalue 4.746 being far bigger
than the second eigenvalue 2.189) with high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha=.877). Ten operation competency items and their corresponding option weights were
illustrated in Table 1. In general, a linear relation appeared between the successive response
categories that were ordered from “Never true” and “Usually not true” through “Itdepends/Undecided” to “Usually true” and “Almost always true” on one hand, andcorresponding Dual-Scaled response weights on the other. Exceptions were found in items 2(I report my situation at every critical point when I engage in a mission), 3 (I make my own
judgment about what I can do in the current circumstances), 6 (I can summarize aloud what
is going on at the operation site), and 8 (I hang around and play with my team mates outsideof the workplace). In these four items, higher operation competency responses were divided
in a bipolar or non-linear manner. For example, item 2 (I report my situation at every criticalpoint when I engage in a mission) elicited some competent respondents’ choosing “Almost
always true” while the others chose “Usually not true”. These consistent bipolar/nonlinear
response patterns characterized response patterns to items 3, 6, and 8 as well. Both linear
and bipolar/nonlinear response pattern information was used to calculate the operationcompetency scale’s high internal consistency reliability.

=========================================
Insert Table 1 (Operation Competency MC Scale Results)=========================================
Multiple Choice Scale for Management Staff Competency: Dual Scaling analyses wereconducted on the ten-item management staff competency scale. The analyses produced twosolutions with the first solution with eigenvalue 5.054 (Cronbach’s alpha=.891) and thesecond 3.168 (Cronbach’s alpha=.760). The first solution assigned option weights in such a
way that the weights were linearly associated with corresponding ordered categories. The
second solution assigned higher positive weights to moderate responses such as “Itdepends/Undecided” and “Usually true” while both extreme responses such as “Usually nottrue” and “Almost always true” received negative values. Both solutions were kept for the
final multitrait-multimethod confirmatory factor analyses. As will be discussed in the below,
confirmatory factor analyses supported that the second rather than the first solution showed
convergent validation with two other measures for management staff competency. Second
solution response option weights for ten management staff competency items were therefore
listed in Table 2.
================================================
Insert Table 2 (Management Staff Competency MC Scale Results)================================================
Multiple Choice Scale for Incident Commander Competency: Dual Scaling analysis of
the twelve incident commander competency items produced the first eigenvalue of 6.385 andits corresponding Cronbach’s alpha 0.920 while the second eivenvalue was 5.707 and the
Cronbach’s alpha .900. The first solution linearly assigned option weights in accordancewith the order of successive categories where “Almost never true” or “Usually not true” wereassigned large negative values while “Almost always true” consistently received large
positive values. The Dual-Scaled option weights for each of the twelve incident commander
competency items were presented in Table 3.
=================================================
Insert Table 3 (Incident Commander Competency MC Scale Results)=================================================
3.2 Rating Scale
In analyzing rating responses to hypothetical cases, the respondents’ function (e.g.,
operation, management staff, or incident commander) was used as a criterion variable inorder to explore particular response options that were associated with a given function. If
items took values and the criterion variables were categorical, discriminant analysis would
have been used. However, item responses and the criterion variable were both categorical in
the current data set. Therefore, canonical correlation analysis of categorical data, one ofDual Scaling options, was employed (Nishisato, 1980). In this analysis, four functions weretreated as criterion categorical variables while rating responses (“Appropriate”, “Appropriate

if certain conditions are met”, “Not appropriate if certain conditions exist”, or “Notappropriate”) to six hypothetical cases were treated as predictor categorical variables. This
Dual Scaling analysis produced three dimensional solutions where the first solution(eigenvalue 3.104, Cronbach’s alpha .775) assigned a large positive value for operation, thesecond (eigenvalue 2.364, Cronbach’s alpha .659) both field and headquarter incident
commander, the third solution (eigenvalue 2.179, Cronbach’s alpha .618) management staff
functions.
With regard to hypothetical situation responses (see Table 4), approval of the first two
judgments (an operation officer suggesting to his superior about the replacement of an
inexperienced doctor conducting triage and stopping a family member from dashing
frantically into her burning house instead of engaging in fire-extinguishing activities)
showed high positive loadings at the first solution which characterized operation competency.
Reserved approval of the next two cases (management staff informing the incident
commander about a nearby business leader residence and approving a veteran fire fighter
being in charge instead of an inexperienced field commander) showed large positive loadingson the third solution along with that for management staff function. Disapproval of anincident commander parroting the municipality head’s advice as the incident action plan aswell as conditional approval of the incident commander persuading his team member tosocialize more with his team members outside of workplace characterized incident
commander function on the second solution. Those key option weights that characterizedeach function were printed in bold in Table 4.
==========================
Insert Table 4 (Rating Scale Results)==========================
3.3 Free-Answer Scale
A series of a large-scale mountain fire scenarios was created, in which eight scenes wereprepared to elicit critical judgments. At each scene, respondents were asked to describe what
action or judgment they would make as operation personnel, management staff or incident
commander. Their free-answer responses were then conceptually clustered and key response
categories for each scene were created as shown in Table 5. These response categories weretreated as dummy variables where a value of 1 was assigned to “yes” and 0 to “no” for agiven response category/dummy variable. Responses to 21 yes-no (1 or 0) categories werethen factor analyzed with varimax rotation. The four factor structure was chosen because of
its high interpretability. Response category factor loadings were presented in Table 5.
One set of operation-related actions were loaded high on the first factor and their factor
loadings were printed in bold. Those actions included asking for a direction and conveying itto the team and engaging in an action plan as a part of the unified operation units upon
arrival to the incident site as well as calming down an excited member with a nonthreatening manner when the member panicked at the site. The other set of operation-relatedresponses were loaded high on the third factor. Those included judgments to act or stand by
as a unit as well as to solve difficulties by the team unit alone.
Most of the management-staff-related actions were loaded high on the second factor. Those
included establishing the command structure before responding to equipment requests froman operation team, contacting and assisting the commander who seemed to have lost grasp of
the common operational picture. Examining the seriousness of the situation when the teamwas separated and lost the communication with the rest of operation units also loaded highon the same factor.
Incident-commander-related actions loaded high on the fourth factor. Those actions included
firmly pursuing the planned mission while maintaining command control in face of citizen
protests against the operation as well as giving simple and clear directions for team control
when taking a command with newly assigned team units.
==============================
Insert Table 5 (Free Answer Scale Results)==============================
3.4 Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique was applied to conduct confirmatory factor
analysis for testing if the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) structure fitted the observed
variance-covariance matrix obtained from three measures on three different competencies.
The MTMM structure assumed that each observed measure was influenced only by thecorresponding trait and method factors and that the measure was not affected by any othertrait or method factors. The overall goodness of the fit between the MTMM model and thedata can be statistically analyzed by means of goodness-of-fit Chi-squared test: When pvalue exceeds 5% in the goodness-of-fit test, then one cannot reject the hypothesis that themodel fit the data. The Chi-squared statistic for the current MTMM model was 29.189(df=25) and its p-value was .256 suggesting that the MTMM model fitted the data very well.
Figure 1 illustrates the confirmatory factor analysis results of the MTMM structure fitted tothe observed data.
===========
Insert Figure 1===========The MTMM structure implies that although different methods were employed to measure agiven trait, the trait measures showed convergence in what they aimed to capture. At thesame time, a measure for a given trait was demonstrated as being influenced only by thetargeted trait and by the employed method and thus was clearly discriminated from the othertraits or method factors. Both convergence and discrimination supported the constructvalidity of the instruments developed by the current study. Among the three instruments

developed for the study, the free-answer instrument required intensive coding work after datacollection and thus was not practical for a large sample survey. As for the rating scale,because positions or functions of thirty three particular experts at Kobe city fire department
were used as the criterion to select characteristic rating responses associated with eachfunction (e.g., operation, management staff, or incident commander), the generalizability offunction-specific rating responses still remains to be validated through further study. In
contrast, the multiple-choice questionnaire scales showed high to moderate internalconsistency reliabilities and their content validity was supported by the preceding focus
group interview study. It is therefore concluded that the multiple-choice instrument which
was thereafter named the first version of the Disaster Response Competency Profile Indices(DRCPI) should be used for application studies.
It should be noted again that the Dual Scaling second solution score was chosen as themultiple-choice measure for the management staff competency. This was due to the fact that
the MTMM model using the first solution for the management staff competency showedlesser fit: The Chi-squared was 40.136 (df=25) and its p-value was .028 suggesting to reject
the hypothesis that the model fitted to the data. Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) index
was 80.136 as opposed to the final model whose AIC was 69.189. Similarly, Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was .138 while that for the final model was .072.
In each index, the lesser value, the better fit it indicates.
The Dual Scaling first solution of management staff items assigned linear option weights tosuccessive response categories (ordered from “Never true” and “Usually not true” through“It depends/Undecided” to “Usually true” and “Almost always true”) and those who chose avery decisive answer key (i.e. “Almost Always True”) to each question received high total
scores. In comparison, those who opted for more modest or restrained responses (i.e., “It
Depends/Undecided” or “Usually True”) scored high on the second solution. Comparison ofmean scores by functions on the first and the second solutions revealed that operation was
the highest on the first solution while staff recorded the highest on the second solution. Itshould be reminded that all multiple-choice competency measure items were collected fromfocus group interviews with expert emergency responders and that the incident command
system was used as a conceptual framework to cluster those items into three function
categories. This may suggest that such aspects of management staff competency as
information, intelligence and planning capabilities were more clearly demonstrated byoperation officers rather than management staff members at the Kobe city fire department.
Furthermore, Kobe city management staff seemed to engage in a kind of assistantshippractices. In the free-answer questionnaire, management staff was characterized by suchnon-directive judgments as establishing contacts (a weight of 0.568) and assisting theineffective commander (a weight of 0.397) rather than directly pointing out the commander’s
inappropriate decisions. In the case in which the on-site team requested more equipment,
Kobe city management staff members at the emergency operation center were unlikely torespond to the request (a weight of -0.661) and rather were likely to halt the request until thehigher rank commander arrived on the site (a weight of 0.595). It was, therefore, consideredthat the second solution score as well as the rating and free-answer measures consensually
captured a type of assistantship as the management staff common trait and that operation
personnel held operation as well as strategic planning aspect of management staff
competencies. In order to solve these issues, a criterion that was not based on work positions
but on actual performance was needed. When competency items for each function showed
high convergence with behavioral- or performance-based criterion measures in controlled
experimental settings, the external validity of the competency measures would be wellestablished.
4. Conclusion
Based on the content analyses of focus group interviews with expert emergency responders,
the statements that typified the experts’ judgment or behaviors were clustered based on thesemantic affinity. In order to further clarify the functional definitions of experts’ statements,
the notion of North-American-born Incident Command System was introduced as a template
to guide conceptual clustering process. In the end, three different functions of experts’competencies were abstracted. Those were operation, management staff and incident
commander competencies. The study constructed three different types of operational
measures for each of the abstracted competency. The current study demonstrated theconstruct validity of the emergency responding function competency measures by means of
MTMM confirmatory factor analyses using a sample of thirty-three practicing fire
department officers at Kobe city. The three distinct competencies were clearly discriminatedand, at the same time, three different operational measures of the same competency were
evidenced by high convergence. Among the three measures developed for the current study,
the thirty three item multiple-choice measure, hereafter named the Disaster Response
Competency Profile Indices (DRCPI), was recommended for future application studies.
Limitation on the external validity or the generalizability of the DRCPI was discussed. Thiswas mainly due to the particularity in emergency practices shared among the sampled firefighters who did not necessarily follow exactly the same style of emergency management
structure as the incident management system. It was obvious that more research efforts wereneeded in order to examine the external validity of the DRCPI. A future research direction,
therefore, includes investigating the predictive validity of the instrument. This will beachieved by comparing the results of the simulated disaster response exercises performed by
the most competent team as measured by the DRCPI with those by teams that are composedof randomly assigned subjects. This type of simulation experiments could utilize
performance-based rather than work-position-based criterion to evaluate the external validityof the scale.
References
Nishisato, S. (1980) Dual Scaling and Its Applications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
1) The author deeply thanks Mr. Yasuyuki Urata who used his expertise in ethnographic interview with the
1995 Kobe Earthquake emergency responders and created both rating and free-answer instrument items.

Table 1 Operation Competency Items and Their Dual-Scaled Option Weights

Response Options and Their Weights

1) I not only do what I am told to do, but also initiate my own action if neｃessary.

Usually
It Depends Usually
AlmostNot True /Undecide True
Always0-0.669-0.909-0.171
0.547

2) I report my situation at every critical point when I engage in a mission.

0

0

0.279

-0.9090.607

3) I make my own judgment about what I can do in the current circumstances.

0

0.677

0

-0.971

0.718

4) I know the direction toward which operation teams as a whole are geared.

0-1.655-0.680

0.004

1.006

5) I judge what my team can do according to the entire operation plan.

00-1.343-0.515

0.777

6) I can summarize aloud what is going on at the operation site.

0

0

0.415

-0.811

0.7857) I am prepared to come to work at any time.

00-0.565-0.6170.556-0.233-0.2080.482-0.101

0.192

0

0

-1.097-0.6010.787

0-1.244

0.072

0.176

0.852

Operation Competency Items

AlmostNever8) I hang around and play with my team mates outside of the workplace.
9) I grasp the skill of each team member.
10) I make suggestions to my superior about matters that are beyond my job descrip

Table 2 Management Staff Competency Items and Their Dual-Scaled Option Weights btained from the Second Solution

Response Options and Their Weights
Management Staff Competency Items
1) I use my own imagination to prepare for any possible risks in the situation.

AlmostNever
True

Usually
Not True

It Depends Usually/Undecided True

Almost
Always True0-2.020-0.4170.580-0.54900-0.1080.283-0.558000-0.512000.206-0.756
0.947

0.435
0.548
0.187

-0.983-0.737-0.6670-1.665

0.431

0.170

-0.6770-1.784

0.727

0.180

-0.7890-1.0660.629-0.289-0.6179) I keep my cool so that I can make rational judgements about the situation.

0-2.162

0.494

0.357

-0.78310) I make suggestions to my superior commander when it is nesessary.

0

0

0

0.254

-0.145

2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

I prioritize the management of such time consuming matters as personnel andvehcles before I make other on site decisions.
I communicate the information thinking how its recipients will react.
I sort and summarize varous information provided at the time of crisis.
I pick up the most critical information according to the crisis situation.
I have an expert knoledge and understand professional jargon in emergency
situation.

I can explain the situation effectively to those who have different backgrounds fromme.
I can fully utilize personnel and material resources both within and outside the8)organization that I belong to.
7)

Table 3 Incident Commander Competency Items and Their Dual-Scaled Option Weights

Response Options and Their Weights
Incident Commander Competency Items
1)

I make quick decisions for the entire organization.

AlmostUsually Not It Depends Usually
Never True True
/Undecided True

Almost
AlwaysTrue

0-2.751-1.285-0.2370.988

0-2.751-1.095-0.1780.687

0-2.751-0.715-0.0260.801

3)I can understand where the situation is moving to and grasp a bird's
eye view of the operations.
I can move the entire operation under my command.

4)

I can control the situation and act as a commander in chief.

00-1.164-0.3800.773

5)I can keep my cool when I make decisions in an emergency
situation.

00-0.971-0.0971.035

6)

I can delegate those parts of the operation that are clearly described.

0

0

0.028

-0.3850.537

7)I am tough both physically and mentally.

0-2.751-0.743

0.337

0.938

8)

I have a loud voice.

00-0.518-0.3010.501

9)I am optimistic.

-2.7510-0.893-0.331

1.015

0

0

-0.513-0.623

0.91611) I feel empowered to change the organization that I belong to.

-0.910-0.604-0.062

0.758

1.167

I can negotiate face-to-face with representatives from otherorganizations or departments.

-0.910-1.566-0.142

0.293

1.131

2)

10) I pay sensitive attention to personnel relations.

12)

Table 4 Dual Scaling Results of Rating Questionnaire Responses Using Responders’ Function as a Criterion Variable

Scaled Weights
Items

Appropriate
Not Appropriate
if certain conditions if certain conditions Not Appropriate
are metexsit

Appropriate

Operation
Mr.A is an ambulance team member. He noticed that a medical doctor on the incident site was notconducting proper triage due to lack of knowledge. Mr. B. suggested to his superior commander thatthe doctor should be replaced.

0.490

0.296

-2.280-0.578Mr. B is a firefighter team leader raised his voice to stop a family member dashing into her burning
house and told his team members to take her out of the site. This action caused a delay in fire
extinguishing operation.

0.262-2.349-0.5630

Mr. C is an emergency management center staff supporting the incident commander who is fighting
against a moderate size fire in a residential area. Mr.D noticed that a home of one of the mostinfluencial business leaders is nearby the incident site an-0.3000.967-0.477-0.566

Mr. D was supporting a field commander managing several teams at a flooding incident site. Mr. E
overheard that a veteran firefighter insisting that he was more experienced in this situation andtherefore he should be granted the power to commad the t

0

0.732

0.241

-0.078

Mr. E took an incident commander position in order to manage an onset of serious infectious desease.
The head of the municipality gave some advise to him when he was asked to take the responsibility.
Mr. F thought the advise being quite valid and th-0.230-0.228-0.125

0.792

In order to raise a sense of teamwork, Mr. F, a team leader, tried to pursuade a less sociable member
to spend more time with his team members outside of work.

-0.6260.505-0.240-0.279Management Staff

Incident CommanderTable 5 Factor Analysis Results of Free-Answer Questionnaire Responses (Varimax Rotation)
Factor1
QuestionsCategorized Answers

Operation1

Factor2
Factor3
Factor4
Communality
Management
Incident
Operation2
CommandStaff

You have arrived at the incident site as a four-member teamleader with very limited prior information except location andgeneral information about the nature of the incident. Variousorganizations and personnels are gathering to the site, however,things are chaotic at the moment. As a team leader, you will...
1) Engage in activities as a four member team

0.005

-0.0140.888-0.181

0.821

2) Stand by at a staging area

-0.012-0.115

0.541

0.279

0.384

3) Ask for a direction and covey it to the team

0.859

-0.0740.047-0.102

0.757

4) Engage in an action plan as a part of unified operation units

0.627-0.056

0.157

0.056

0.425

1) Calm down the excited member with a non-threatening manner

0.768-0.1380.327-0.082

0.722

1) Solve the current problem by our own selves2) Examine the seriousness of the situation

0.250
0.030

0.116
0.579

0.654
0.327

-0.131-0.536

0.521
0.730

1) Respond to the request

0.035-0.661-0.024-0.041

0.441

2) Establish the command structure before responding to the request-0.272

0.595

0.017

-0.116

0.442

1) Contact the commander.

0.391

0.568

-0.096-0.041

0.487

2) Assist the commander.

0.162

0.397

-0.345

0.087

0.310

As soon as you started activities, one of your team members
was panicked and attempted to initiate action without yourcommand. As a leader, you will …

While engaging in the mission, your team was separated fromthe incident commander and the other teams. You cannot
communicate to them either. As a leader, you will…

Consider that you are now at the emergency management center
supporting the operation as a management staff. Before theincident commander arrives at the site, you have received therequest for more equipments from an on-site team. You have
not yet grasped the full view of the situation. You will...

Consider that you are at the incident site and assisting theincident commander as his management staff. You noticed thatthe commander participated in a particular operation unit andhis decesions to other teams began being inappropriate. As amanagement staff, you will...

Consider that you are the incident commander for this eventwith five or six teams under your control. A turmoil occurred at
the incident site because the commander of the other emergency
organization gave directions that are different from yours. As acommander, you will...
1) Emphasize that I am in charge.

0.222-0.464-0.361-0.0250.396

2) Unify the commanding structure.

0.065-0.510-0.013-0.212

0.310

1) Open a press conference.
2) Conduct public relation activities through media.
3) firmly pursue the mission as planned.
4) maintain command control.

-0.257-0.548-0.2840.255-0.199-0.250-0.0930.210-0.201-0.081
0.208-0.179-0.698-0.179
0.553
0.680

0.633
0.401
0.439
0.603

Consider that you are the incident commander for this event.
The media broadcasted a news that was very critical to yourdecision leasing a civic protest against your operation. Thisturmoil affected your command control. As an incident
commander, you will...

You are put into a situation where you take a commad with
newly assigned team units, none of those team leaders arefamiliar to you. As a commander, you will…
1) Present an incident action plan

-0.450

0.037

0.273

0.008

0.279

2) Give simple and clear directions.

-0.128-0.287-0.141

0.578

0.453

3) Put the teams under control.

-0.071-0.295

0.041

0.126

0.110

4) Examine skills and expertise of team leaders.

-0.192-0.038-0.325-0.0830.151

Eigenvalues

3.096

2.578

2.194

1.944

Variance Accounted For (%)

14.7%

12.3%

10.4%

9.3%

MTMM Model
DF=25 χ2=29.189 p=.256
GFI=.836 AGFI=.705
RMSEA=.072 AIC=69.189
e1.78

Operation（Rating Scale）
.35
e2

.09

Operation
Competency.76

Operation（Free Answer）

e4

Rating/Free
Answer.73.34

Operation（Multiple Choice）

-.33
e5

Staff (Rating Scale)

-.13

.49
e6

Staff (Free Answer)

.28

-.15

.73

Staff
Competency

e7

-.76

Staff (Multiple Choice)(Solution 2)

-.58

.33

-.08

Multiple
Choicee8.24

IC (Rating Scale)

.20
e9

-.67

.37

IC (Free Answer)

Incident
Commander
Competency

e10

.71

IC (Multiple Choice).50

Figure 1 Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results