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…

– pastenberg@mil.no