The Role of Anxiety On Novices Rifle Marksmanship Performance

Educational Assessment
ISSN: 1062-7197 (Print) 1532-6977 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heda20
The Role of Anxiety on Novices' Rifle

Marksmanship Performance
Gregory K. W. K. Chung, Harold F. O'Neil, Girlie C. Delacruz & William L.

Bewley
To cite this article: Gregory K. W. K. Chung, Harold F. O'Neil, Girlie C. Delacruz & William L.
Bewley (2005) The Role of Anxiety on Novices' Rifle Marksmanship Performance, Educational
Assessment, 10:3, 257-275, DOI: 10.1207/s15326977ea1003_6
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1003_6
Published online: 08 Jun 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 128
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heda20
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT, 10(3), 257–275
Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Role of Anxiety on Novices’ Rifle

Marksmanship Performance
Gregory K. W. K. Chung
University of California at Los Angeles/National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)
Harold F. O’Neil
University of Southern California/National Center for Research on
Girlie C. Delacruz and William L. Bewley

University of California at Los Angeles/National Center for Research on
In this study we examined the role of anxiety on novices’ performance on the

psychomotor task of rifle marksmanship. The stages-of-skill-development model
suggests that aptitude influences performance while learning a skill; however, the
model does not address the role of affect. Assessments for state anxiety and state
worry were administered to 42 novice shooters. Aptitude and state worry predicted
shooting performance (r = .67) comparable to more direct psychomotor measures
used in prior research. Incremental validity analyses showed that aptitude ac-
counted for 11% of the variance, and state worry explained an additional 34%
above and beyond aptitude. The use of noncognitive assessments can broaden the
understanding of skilled performance. Although aptitude influences learning a
skill, it appears that novice shooters’ performance is also influenced by affective
states such as anxiety.
Predicting performance on a psychomotor task is usually done using cognitive and

psychomotor assessments that range from behavioral observations of performance
to performance in simulators. Noncognitive indicators such as personality mea-
Correspondence should be addressed to Gregory K. W. K. Chung, UCLA CSE/CRESST, 10945 Le

Conte, 1400C, Box 957150, Los Angeles, California 90095. E-mail: greg@ucla.edu
258 CHUNG, O’NEIL, DELACRUZ, BEWLEY
sures (Hogan & Hogan, 1989) and anxiety are less common (Jones, Smith, &
Holmes, 2004). Affective variables such as anxiety (cognitive and somatic) have
been recognized as having influence on performance (Jones, Smith, & Holmes,
2004; Krohne & Hindel, 2000; Woodman & Hardy, 2003).
In this study, we examined the role of anxiety on rifle marksmanship perfor-
mance. Our primary goal was to use assessments to measure the contribution of
anxiety to novice shooters’ performance. A secondary goal was to determine how
much the measurement of anxiety contributed to the prediction of performance,
above and beyond aptitude. The skill development models of Ackerman (1987,
1992) and Fitts and Posner (1967) suggest that aptitude is an important predictor
while learning a skill but these models say little about the role of affect during this
phase.
As indicated by Baker (2003) there are multiple purposes for testing. Common
purposes in the civilian sector are selection (e.g., the Scholastic Aptitude Test
[SAT]), diagnostic (common in classrooms), and credentialing (e.g., high school
exit exams). In the military sector, common purposes are also selection (e.g., all
enlisted members take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery), diagnos-
tic (e.g., common in military classrooms), and credentialing (e.g., most Marines
have to qualify annually using the M-16 rifle). All these purposes can be further
classified as either high stakes (consequences to the student, e.g., low scores on the
SAT limit college choices) or low stakes (few or no consequences to the student,
e.g., most state accountability systems).
The context of our research is the annual qualification of Marines in rifle marks-
manship, a high-stakes performance test. Not achieving this credential limits dra-
matically one’s promotion possibilities in the Marines. The rifle qualification
scores are combined with physical fitness scores to form a composite score. This
composite score carries the same weight as duty proficiency and duty conduct rat-
ings, and can account for 20% to 30% of a Marine’s promotion score (U.S. Marine
Corps [USMC], 2000).
It would be expected that such high-stakes tests would be perceived as stress-
ful and thus would result in anxiety (O’Neil & Abedi, 1992). Further, in
high-stakes evaluative situations, anxiety can be viewed as either a trait or a
state. Trait anxiety is a predisposition to manifest states of anxiety (Spielberger,
1975). It would be expected that a trait would be stable over time and thus useful
for selection purposes. State anxiety can be viewed as a transitory state of anxi-
ety that varies in intensity and changes over time (O’Neil & Abedi, 1992;
O’Neil, Baker, & Matsuura, 1992). It would be expected that state anxiety would
be useful for diagnostic purposes.
In the research on anxiety resulting from testing, a situational specific form of
anxiety is test anxiety. The test anxiety literature (e.g., Blair, O’Neil, & Price,
1999; Hembree 1988) makes a further distinction of worry and emotionality.
ANXIETY AND RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP 259
Worry is cognitive concern about performance (e.g., “I wished I studied harder for
this test”). Emotionality (or somatic anxiety) is a reaction to one’s physiological
responding (e.g., “I feel my heart beating faster”). In general, worry predicts per-
formance better than emotionality (Hembree, 1988; O’Neil & Abedi, 1992) and
states provide better prediction than traits (Awang-Hashim, O’Neil, & Hocevar,
2002; Hong & Karstensson, 2002; O’Neil & Abedi, 1992;).
A common measure of trait worry and emotionality is the Test Anxiety Inven-
tory (Spielberger, et al., 1980). Common measures of state worry are modifications
of the worry scale by Morris, Davis, and Hutchings (1981; e.g., O’Neil & Abedi,
1992). Stake anxiety has been measured using variations of the state anxiety scale
of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1983). It has been suggested that
in testing situations, the state anxiety scale is more a measure of emotionality than
worry (O’Neil et al., 1992).
RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP AS A COMPLEX SKILL
One of the most remarkable achievements of modern marksmanship training is its

success in developing a shooter’s skill so that a person with little or no prior shoot-
ing experience can routinely hit a 19-in circular area at 500 yards in the prone posi-
tion. Consistently hitting the same target area at this distance is even more remark-
able given that virtually any deviation of the rifle muzzle from the center line will
result in a miss. For example, under ideal conditions, a muzzle deflection of 1/16
inch (about the thickness of a quarter) from the center line will result in the bullet
strike being off by more than 2 ft at 500 yards.
Adding to this complexity are uncontrollable factors such as wind velocity,
gravity, and ammunition ballistics. A 10-mph breeze (enough to raise dust and
loose paper) displaces a round about 2 ft over 500 yards, although gravity alone re-
sults in the round dropping 20 inches over 300 yards. Further, the variation in the
propellant quality of the typical bullet results in 10-in shot groups at 300 yards for
expert shooters (U.S. Army, 1989).
These examples do not take into account factors associated with the shooter—
possibly the most variable component. Normal breathing in the standing position
can displace the rifle muzzle ½ in from inhale to exhale, and changes due to the
heart pulse can also displace the muzzle a fraction of an inch. If a shooter’s sight
alignment is off by a fraction of an inch, the shooter is likely to miss the target. Fa-
tigue increases muscle trembling, wobble, and other postural instabilities; flinch-
ing or bucking due to recoil or reaction to the report causes the shooter to jerk the
rifle, as does yanking the trigger. Finally, the emotional state of the shooter—anxi-
ety and other factors—can increase the heart and breathing rates and thus cause
minute deviations of the rifle (Torre, Maxey, & Piper, 1987).
Predicting Rifle Marksmanship Performance

Much of the research on predicting shooting performance has focused on the predic-
tive validity of psychomotor measures (e.g., measures of steadiness: Humphreys,
Buxton, & Taylor, 1936; McGuigan & MacCaslin, 1955; Spaeth & Dunham, 1921;
performance on rifle simulators: Evans, Dyer, & Hagman, 2000; Hagman, 1998;
Schendel, Heller, Finley, & Hawley, 1985; Smith & Hagman, 2000, 2003). The pre-
dictive validity of these measures has generally been in the .3 to .7 range.
Although focusing on psychomotor measures makes intuitive sense, the re-
search in general has been largely atheoretical. For example, much of the prior re-
search has used rifle marksmanship performance as a measure of different training
programs or has examined the relationship between scores on a rifle simulator and
live-fire scores.
To better understand rifle marksmanship performance, we have adopted the
phases-of-processing framework of skilled learning (Ackerman, 1987, 1992; Fitts
& Posner, 1967; Wrisberg, 2003). The general notion is that skilled performance
evolves over three phases of development: an early cognitive phase, an intermedi-
ate associative phase, and a final autonomous phase (Fitts & Posner, 1967). During
the cognitive phase, trainees are in the process of learning what the task entails—
the procedures, relevant perceptual cues, different shooting positions, coordinat-
ing breathing and squeezing the trigger, and using results (i.e., where the round hit)
as feedback. Thus, there is high cognitive demand for performers to attend to mul-
tiple stimuli and procedures. During the cognitive phase, trainees typically learn
about the task through individual or whole-group instruction or other training vehi-
cles (e.g., CD-ROM instruction, rifle simulators). Training involves weapon han-
dling and the fundamentals of marksmanship—what aiming, breath control, trig-
ger control, and the different positions are, and how they affect shot placement.
During live-fire practice, trainees commit much of their cognitive resources to
learning and understanding the task with respect to performance.
In a series of studies, Ackerman (1987, 1992; see also Ackerman & Cianciolo,
2000, 2002) clarified the relationship between performance and ability during the
cognitive phase. Ackerman’s theory on individual differences suggests that during
the cognitive phase, general ability and content-relevant abilities are the best pre-
dictors of performance. Cognitive processing is resource intensive as the trainee is
learning the task demands; thus, the more cognitive resources (i.e., abilities) avail-
able for processing, the faster and better the individual learns the task. Over the
course of practice, learning occurs and the individual transitions from the cognitive
phase to the intermediate and automatic phases.
Performance during the cognitive phase is low, error-prone, inconsistent, and
requires conscious thought (Fitts & Posner, 1967). The high cognitive processing
demands imposed by the task also make performance sensitive to distractions and
other ongoing activities. Novice shooters would be expected to have a poor grasp
of the fundamentals, score low, exhibit poor coordination and integration of the
different elements of the fundamentals, and not be able to recognize correct from
incorrect positions. Novice shooters would also be expected to be more sensitive to
changes in the environment (e.g., weather, equipment malfunction, anxiety) than
more advanced shooters.
The intermediate stage is characterized by performers knowing what is ex-
pected of the task. During this stage, the attentional demands of the task are re-
duced and, thus, trainees can focus on refining the motor responses to the task and
develop and test techniques to improve performance. Practice on the task becomes
more refined and consistent and the gross errors of the cognitive phase diminish.
Speed and accuracy on the task improve over the practice period as the coordina-
tion between cognitive and motor responses are improved (Fitts & Posner, 1967).
During this stage and the more advanced automaticity stage, knowledge becomes
increasingly compiled and broad ability measures and content-specific abilities
become less influential on performance for closed-ended skills such as marksman-
ship (Ackerman, 1987, 1992; Ackerman & Cianciolo, 2000, 2002).
In the final stage, the performer executes the skill automatically. Performance is
consistent and seemingly effortless. The cognitive load on performers with respect
to executing the task is lowered (compared with other stages), thus freeing up re-
sources (Fitts & Posner, 1967). Shooters who have reached the autonomous phase
could be expected to be true experts—snipers or members of the rifle team, for ex-
ample. Performance is consistent and robust against distractions. There may be in-
creases in performance but the rate of improvement slows over time. Very few indi-
viduals are expected to reach this stage without deliberate, effortful, and consistent
practice. (Ericsson, 2002; Hodges, Kerr, Starkes, Weir, & Nananidou, 2004).
THE ROLE OF ANXIETY IN RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP
The stages-of-processing model of skill development provides a framework to un-

derstand how overall rifle marksmanship performance evolves over time and how
aptitude and content-specific abilities influence performance as shooters acquire
the skill. However, the role of affect on performance during the cognitive phase has
not been examined. In a domain such as marksmanship, affect can have a large im-
pact on performance, presumably due to the way negative affect manifests itself ei-
ther cognitively, for example, with interfering thoughts, or physiologically, for in-
stance, with nervousness increasing heart and breathing rates, which results in
minute changes in the stability of the rifle. Such minute movements often get trans-
ferred to the rifle—a situation that can result in increasingly large deviations pro-
portional to the distance to the target. For example, computing the deviation of 1/16
in in the rifle muzzle at the time of firing will result in change of over 2 ft at 500
yards, nearly a 400-fold increase.
The amount and type of mental thoughts preceding the moment of firing is be-
lieved to have an influence on shot quality. For example, Electroencephalogram
frequencies preceding low scoring shots in an expert shooter were interpreted as
resulting from distracting thoughts and increased mental activity (Bird, 1987;
Konttinen & Lyytinen, 1992). This interpretation is consistent with an early exami-
nation of expert and novice shooters (Gates, 1918), where novice shooters’ perfor-
mance were affected severely by dwelling on steadiness factors (e.g., “I can’t seem
to control myself” or “There, I moved again”; p. 3). Tierney, Cartner, and Thomp-
son (1979) found low, negative relationships between self-reported nervousness
about firing and record-fire scores for females but not males (r = –.19, p < .05).
Sade, Bar-Eli, Bresler, & Tenenbaum (1990) found that highly skilled shooters re-
ported significantly lower (state) anxiety measured by the State-Trait Anxiety In-
ventory (Spielberger, 1983) than moderately skilled shooters when measured 10
min prior to competition (seven occasions). Further, shooting performance was
negatively related to state anxiety in six of seven competitions.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to extend the research on the effect of anxiety on
shooting performance within the stages-of-processing framework. Similar to how
Ackerman (1987, 1992) clarified the relationship between performance and ability
during the cognitive phase, our intention was to gather information on the role of
anxiety during the cognitive phase.
Our research questions focused on gathering evidence of the extent to which
anxiety measures could predict performance on a psychomotor task (rifle marks-
manship). In particular, to what extent do measures of state anxiety, state worry,
and trait worry predict shooting performance? Prior research has shown a relation-
ship between such anxiety variables and record-fire scores (Gates, 1918; Sade,
Bar-Eli, Bresler, & Tenenbaum, 1990; Tierney et al., 1979). Anecdotal evidence
(e.g., our discussions with Marine marksmanship coaches) also suggests that men-
tal processes related to anxiety would affect physiological processes (e.g., heart
rate, breathing) and such physiological responses would have a big effect on main-
taining a steady rifle, and consequently shooting score.
What is the relative contribution of state anxiety, state worry, and trait worry in
predicting shooting performance, above and beyond aptitude measures? Prior re-
search suggests that aptitude (i.e., capacity to learn) is an important predictor of
performance when people are learning a new psychomotor skill (Ackerman,
1992). The role of the degree to which anxiety contributes to the prediction of per-
formance is less clear.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics of Background Variables
Variable n M SD
Age 42 23.81 1.86

Years in service 39 0.64 1.06
Frequency of shooting as part of duties 42 1.17 0.49
Frequency of shooting outside of duties 42 1.67 0.75
Years of shooting experience before joining the Marines 41 0.83 1.48
METHOD
Participants and Setting

Fifty-three entry-level 2nd Lieutenant (LT) Marines participated in the study at a
USMC base. Of the 53 participants, 11 were dropped because they reported a high
number of years of shooting experience before joining the USMC (greater than 5
years) or they reported shooting often or very often either outside or as part of their
duties. The resulting sample comprised 36 males and 6 females, of which 37 re-
ported completing a 4-year college or university. Twenty-seven participants re-
ported no experience with shooting prior to joining the USMC. Descriptive statis-
tics of various background variables are shown in Table 1. In general, the sample
was college educated and new to the USMC. Importantly, the sample appeared in-
experienced with shooting, suggesting that these participants would all be in the
cognitive phase with respect to rifle shooting.
As part of the normal training process, participants receive about 2 days of
classroom instruction on the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship. The next day is
spent “zeroing” the rifle (calibrating the rifle sights for a particular distance). The
following 5 days are spent on the firing range. The first 4 of these days are for
live-fire practice. The last day is reserved for qualification trials. During practice,
participants could get help from range coaches (the ratio of coaches to students
was 1 to 3 or 4 students). During qualification, participants receive no help. If par-
ticipants failed their first qualification attempt, they were provided with additional
coaching and given the opportunity to attempt to qualify again in subsequent days.
Marines who failed the second qualification attempt were at risk of being dropped
from the USMC. All Marines in this study qualified.
Measures
The following information was gathered about participants.
Record-fire scores. Official rifle qualification scores were provided to us

by the USMC. The range of possible scores was 0 to 65 (points obtained from each
shot ranged from 0 [outside circle or missing the target entirely], to 1 [hitting out-
side black but inside circle], to 2 [hitting the black]). Participants were classified as
expert if their score ranged from 40 to 65, inclusive; sharpshooter if their score
ranged from 35 to 39, inclusive; marksman if their scores ranged from 25 to 34, in-
clusive; and unqualified if their score was below 25.
General Classification Test (GCT). Official GCT scores (USMC, 1993)

were provided to us by the USMC. This test is administered only to commissioned
and warrant officers. The GCT is used by the USMC as a measure of aptitude.
Perceived level of rifle marksmanship knowledge. This measure was in-

tended to gather information on participants’ assessment of their own level of un-
derstanding of marksmanship. The items in this scale were:
How much do you know about …
1. the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship?

2. trigger control?
3. breath control?
4. the aiming process?
5. how trigger control, breath control, and the aiming process all affect each
other?
Participants were instructed to indicate for each item, on a 4-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not much at all), 2 (some), 3 (moderate amount), and 4 (very
much), how much they knew about various rifle marksmanship concepts.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale was .93 (n = 42).
State anxiety. We adapted a measure from O’Neil et al. (1992) to measure

participants’ state anxiety on day 1 and day 3 of live-fire practice, and on qualifica-
tion day. The items in this scale were:
1. I felt calm while shooting.

2. I felt tense while shooting.
3. I felt at ease while shooting.
4. I felt jittery while shooting.
5. I felt relaxed while shooting.
ranging from 1 (not at all), 2 (somewhat), 3 (moderately so), and 4 (very much so),
how they felt while shooting. Cronbach’s alphas for this scale were .86 (n = 41),
.91 (n = 41), and .92 (n = 39) for live-fire practice day 1, day 3, and qualification
day, respectively.
Trait worry. We adapted a measure from Spielberger, et al. (1980) to measure

participants’ trait worry about qualification. The items in this scale were:
1. Thinking about my score interferes with my shooting during qualification.

2. I freeze up during qualification.
3. During qualification I find myself thinking about whether I’ll ever get
through it.
4. The more I think during qualification, the more confused I get.
5. I seem to defeat myself during qualification.
6. During qualification I find myself thinking about the consequences of fail-
ing.
7. Thoughts of doing poorly interfere with my concentration during qualifica-
tion.
8. During qualification I get so nervous that I forget skills and information I
really know.
ranging from 1 (almost never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (almost always),
how they felt about aspects of their performance during qualification. Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was .87 (n = 41).
State worry. We adapted a measure from O’Neil et al. (1992), to measure

participants’ state worry on day 1 and day 3 of live-fire practice, and on qualifica-
tion day. The items in this scale were:
1. I did not feel confident about my performance while shooting.

2. I thought my score would be so bad that everybody, including myself,
would be disappointed.
3. I was afraid that I should have prepared more for shooting.
4. I was not happy with my performance while shooting.
5. I felt regretful about my performance while shooting.
6. I was concerned about what would happen if I did poorly while shooting.
Participants were instructed to indicate, for each item, on a 4-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all), 2 (somewhat), 3 (moderately so), and 4 (very much so),
how they felt about aspects of their performance while shooting. Cronbach’s
alphas for this scale were .71 (n = 42), .84 (n = 41), and .83 (n = 39) for live-fire
practice day 1, day 3, and qualification day, respectively.
Firing line experience. This measure was intended to gather information on

participants’ overall shooting experience on the firing line on day 1 and day 3 of
live-fire practice, and on qualification day. The items in this scale were:
In general, when you were on the firing line, how often …
1. did you hit the “zone” (smooth and calm performance, unaware of time
pressure, effortless shooting)?
2. were you confident about your shooting performance?
3. did you know how the shot went (good or bad) as soon as you fired the ri-
fle?
4. did you know how to adjust your position based on your prior shot(s)?
5. did you know how to adjust your rifle sights based on your prior shot(s)?
6. did you get distracted mentally (have negative thoughts—“I can’t seem to
control myself” or “There, I moved again,” and so on)? [reversed]
ranging from 1 (almost never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (almost always),
how often they encountered various shooting experiences. Cronbach’s alphas for
this scale were .76 (n = 42), .90 (n = 42), and .84 (n = 40) for live-fire practice day
1, day 3, and qualification day, respectively.
Background survey. We administered a background survey to gather infor-

mation on participants’ shooting experience, age, occupation, and other demo-
graphic information (see Table 1).
Procedure
The background survey was administered prior to live-fire practice and took about
10 min to complete. During live-fire practice, participants practiced on the range
for 4 days; on the 5th day all participants attempted to qualify. The anxiety and fir-
ing line experience measures were administered on live-fire practice day 1 and day
3, and on qualification day. The measures were administered at the end of the day
(participants completed their live-fire practice sometime during the day, in addi-
tion to other training duties). The trait worry measure was administered 4 days af-
ter qualification day. It was expected that because traits were not expected to
change due to situational influences, the same measurement although not desirable
was acceptable. Overall, each survey took less than 5 min to complete.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the record-fire, firing line experience, and
cognitive and affective variables used in the analyses. The mean record-fire score
for the entry-level participants is similar in magnitude with prior research with
USMC samples (e.g., Bewley et al., 2003). In general, as indicated by the firing
line experience surveys, participants reported increasingly positive firing experi-
ence as the week went on, with the most positive firing experience reported on
qualification day. A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
indicated an effect of occasion, F(2, 78) = 23.07, p < .001. Subsequent pair-wise t
tests showed that the firing line experience on the qualification day and on day 3
were significantly higher than the firing line experience on the 1st day.
In general, participants reported a moderate amount of knowledge of the funda-
mentals of marksmanship and consistently low levels of state worry and state anxi-
ety throughout live-fire practice and qualification. These results are consistent
with participants’ self-reported positive firing line experience. Separate one-way
repeated-measures ANOVAs for both measures showed no significant differences
across live-fire practice or qualification days for either measure.
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics of Main Variables
Measures n M SD
Record-fire score 42 37.48 8.47

Firing line experience
Live-fire practice day 1 42 2.48 0.51
Qualification day 40 3.10 0.61
Cognitive variables
GCT 42 123.29 10.22
Perceived level of marksmanship knowledge 42 2.60 0.77
Affective variables
Trait worry, postqualification 41 1.40 0.46
State worry
State anxiety
Note. GCT = General Classification Test.

To what extent do measures of state anxiety, state worry, and trait worry
predict shooting performance? The correlations shown in Table 3 among fir-
ing line experience, state anxiety, and state worry were consistent with expecta-
tions. Among the measures administered on the same day, the direction and large
magnitudes of the relationships suggest that the measures were working as in-
tended. Firing line experience was negatively associated with state anxiety and
state worry. Participants who reported more positive shooting experience also re-
ported lower anxiety and worry. Participants who reported more anxiety also re-
ported more worry. Trait worry was correlated significantly and moderately with
firing line experience (negatively), state worry (positively), and state anxiety (posi-
tively), a result that also is consistent with expectations.
With respect to predicting record-fire scores, aptitude and perceived level of
marksmanship knowledge, both correlated significantly and positively with re-
cord-fire score. This result is consistent with Ackerman’s (1987, 1992) findings
that aptitude influences performance during the cognitive phase. Affective mea-
sures administered on qualification day and the trait worry measure all correlated
negatively, significantly, and moderately with record-fire score. This result is con-
sistent with expectations of a debilitative effect of anxiety and worry on shooting
performance. Interestingly, the affective measures, particularly worry, were much
better predictors of record-fire score than the aptitude measures (e.g., the GCT). In
the next set of analyses we examine the incremental validity of the affective mea-
sures above and beyond aptitude measures.
High versus low performers. A second set of analyses examined group dif-
ferences between participants who qualified as expert and participants who quali-
fied as something else (i.e., sharpshooter or marksman). Not unexpectedly, a sig-
nificant difference on record-fire score was found between experts and nonexperts,
with a mean difference of 14 points as this variable was used to define the groups.
Table 4 shows descriptive statistics and results of t tests on the measures. Partici-
pants who qualified as expert also scored higher on aptitude measures and per-
ceived level of knowledge. These results are consistent with Ackerman’s (1987,
1992) findings that during the cognitive phase, aptitude (or capacity to learn) influ-
ences performance. In addition, high performers reported less anxiety and state
worry while also reporting more positive firing line experience.
What is the relative contribution of state anxiety, state worry, and trait
worry to predict shooting performance, above and beyond aptitude?
Overall, these results are consistent with the idea that the affective and firing line ex-
perience assessments were measuring the intended constructs. In the following anal-
yses we conducted two sets of multiple regression analyses using SPSS. The first set
examined the incremental validity of the anxiety measures. These measures corre-
lated highly with each other (between .6 and .8); thus, it was important to determine
TABLE 3
Intercorrelations Among Perceptual-Motor, Cognitive, and Affective Variables
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Record-fire score —
2. Firing line experience, live-fire practice day 1 .27 —
3. Firing line experience, live-fire practice day 3 .29 .34* —
4. Firing line experience, qualification day .69** .34* .37* —
5. GCT .34* –.06 .10 .01 —
6. Perceived level of marksmanship knowledge .39* .01 –.01 .27 .12 —
7. Trait worry, postqualification –.44* –.47* –.41* –.51** –.15 –.14 —
8. State worry, live-fire practice day 1 –.26 –.52** –.41* –.26 –.25 –.15 .54** —
9. State worry, live-fire practice day 3 –.48* –.35* –.71** –.37* –.30 –.20 .66** .52** —
10. State worry, qualification day –.59** –.37* –.26 –.72** .00 –.20 .59** .31 .32 —
11. State anxiety, live-fire practice day 1 –.12 –.69** –.19 –.20 –.05 –.07 .50** .57** .34* .37* —
12. State anxiety, live-fire practice day 3 –.40* –.24 –.74** –.33* –.40* –.03 .45* .35* .78** .30 .26 —
13. State anxiety, qualification day –.51** –.45* –.36* –.71** –.04 –.08 .57** .28 .38* .81** .41* .45*

* p < .05. ** p < .01.
269
TABLE 4
t Tests Comparing Experts and Nonexperts
(Marksman or Sharpshooter) on Main Variables
Classification Level
Sharpshooter and
Marksman Experts
Measure n M SD n M SD p value
Record-fire score 24 31.42 4.70 18 45.56 1.12 .000

Firing line experience
Live-fire practice day 1 24 2.40 0.49 18 2.57 0.12 .284
Qualification day 23 2.79 0.56 17 3.51 0.10 .000
Cognitive variables
GCT 24 120.00 7.41 18 127.67 2.81 .024
Perceived level of 24 2.37 0.71 18 2.92 0.17 .018
marksmanship knowledge
Affective variables
Trait worry, 23 1.55 0.53 18 1.20 0.05 .008
postqualification
State worry
State anxiety
the relative contribution of each variable to the prediction of record-fire score. Table
5 shows the incremental validities of each measure with respect to the other mea-
sures and shows that state worry accounts for much of the variance in the prediction
of record-fire score. The addition of state anxiety adds little to the predictive utility.
Thus, state anxiety was dropped from subsequent analyses.
The next incremental validity analysis examined the contribution of state worry
to the prediction of record-fire score, above and beyond aptitude. As suggested by
the findings of Ackerman (1987, 1992) that aptitude is an important predictor of
performance, we conducted an incremental validity analysis comparing the rela-
tive contributions of aptitude and worry to the prediction of record-fire scores. Ta-
ble 6 shows that state worry contributes a considerable amount to the prediction of
record-fire scores, above and beyond aptitude alone. Further, the measures are es-
sentially independent, and thus the contribution of each measure is unique (r = .0
between measures).
TABLE 5
Incremental Validity Analyses of State Worry and State Anxiety
Variables in Order of
Regression Equation R R2 Adj. R2 SE ∆R2 p value
Model 1
State worry .587 .345 .327 6.763 .345 .000
State anxiety .588 .346 .309 6.854 .000 .882
Model 2
State anxiety .489 .240 .219 7.287 .240 .002
State worry .588 .346 .309 6.854 .106 .021
Note. N = 39. Order of variables reflects order of entry in the regression analyses. Adjusted R2
provides an estimate of R2 on a second sample and can be viewed as a measure of how sample-sensitive
the regression equation is.
TABLE 6
Incremental Validity Analyses of Aptitude and Affective Measures
Variables in Order of
Regression Equation R R2 Adj. R2 SE ∆R2 p value
Model 1
GCT .328 .108 .084 7.893 .108 .041
State worry .672 .452 .421 6.273 .344 .000
Model 2
State worry .587 .345 .327 6.763 .345 .000
GCT .672 .452 .421 6.273 .107 .012
Note. N = 39. GCT = General Classification Test. Order of variables reflects order of entry in the
regression analyses. Adjusted R2 provides an estimate of R2 on a second sample and can be viewed as a
measure of how sample-sensitive the regression equation is.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the role of anxiety in predicting rifle marksmanship perfor-
mance during the cognitive phase of skill development. We found evidence that ap-
titude is an important predictor of shooting performance for novice shooters. We
also found evidence that affective states, particularly worry, contribute substan-
tially to the prediction of record-fire scores above and beyond aptitude alone. Apti-
tude and state worry measures alone jointly predicted record-fire score with a mul-
tiple R of .67. Aptitude explained about 11% of the variance and state worry
explained about 34% of the variance.
The magnitude of R of .67 is similar to correlations obtained between re-
cord-fire scores and presumably more direct measures (e.g., prior record-fire
scores, r = .3 – .4 [Bewley et al., 2003; Schendel, Morey, Granier, & Hall, 1983;
Smith, 2000, Experiment 2]; prior record-fire scores—repeated qualification

course three times to measure test–retest, r = .84 – .88 [McGuigan & MacCaslin,
1955]; device-fire scores with different rifle simulator systems, r in the .4 – .7
range [Hagman, 1998; Schendel, Heller, Finley, & Hawley, 1985, Experiment 1;
Smith & Hagman, 2000, 2003]; prior shooting experience and aptitude, R = .67 –
.72, [MacCaslin & McGuigan, 1956]; rifle steadiness, r = .72 [Humphreys, Bux-
ton, & Taylor, 1936]).
The magnitude of the contribution of worry is very high. This finding suggests a
very strong affective dimension to shooting performance in novices. These results
are consistent with the notion that shooting is a complex task with cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective dimensions. The cognitive dimension involves a
shooter learning how to shoot—the various procedures, the relationships among
body parts, and their effect on rifle stability and shot placement. The psychomotor
dimension involves a shooter putting what was learned into practice—the simulta-
neous and appropriate coordination of gross motor control of body positioning;
fine motor control of the trigger finger and breathing rhythms; minute movements
of the hands, elbows, legs, feet, and cheek; and the appropriate interpretation of
perceptual cues related to the target, front and rear sights, rifle movement, and
body movement.
The affective dimension may have its largest effect on fine motor control. The
stability of the rifle is sensitive to minute physiological responses. For the partici-
pants in our study—entry-level 2nd LT—rifle qualification is a presumably stress-
ful event: Failing qualification has important consequences—anyone who fails
qualification is dropped from the USMC. Thus, worry on the firing line may mani-
fest itself physiologically (i.e., somatic anxiety), resulting in minute movement of
the rifle, and cognitively (i.e., cognitive anxiety), resulting in negative self-talk and
negative feelings (and the more worry, the higher the heart rate and breathing rates,
resulting in poorer performance and still more worry).
Implications for Noncognitive Assessments

The addition of noncognitive measures to the assessment of human performance
may provide additional information to develop a more complete picture of skilled
performance. As found in this study, the combination of state worry and aptitude
predicted shooting performance as well as psychomotor measures or prior shoot-
ing scores. The addition of noncognitive assessments could be an important contri-
bution to the stages-of-skill-development framework, as suggested in this study.
Implications for Training

The finding that worry has a substantial impact on rifle marksmanship perfor-
mance in novices has practical implications for training. First, although learning a
skill may be influenced strongly by cognitive resources, it may be that for rifle
marksmanship, success may lie with individuals who can successfully regulate the
“match pressure.” That is, those who are able to remain calm and avoid getting
flustered by poor performance may be less likely to engage in a debilitative mental
spiral: high stakes and unfamiliar task leads to worry, worry leads to unstable rifle,
unstable rifle leads to poor performance, poor performance leads to more worry.
Thus, incorporating training in self-control or worry reduction strategies may well
be an efficient approach to improving overall rifle marksmanship performance in
novice Marine shooters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported herein was supported under the Office of Naval Research
Award Number N00014-02–1-0179, as administered by the Office of Naval Re-
search. The findings and opinions expressed in this report do not reflect the posi-
tions or policies of the Office of Naval Research. We would like to thank Major
Thomas, CWO Pipenhagen, Major Bourne, Captain Hasseltine, and SSGT Jones
of the USMC Weapons Training Battalion, Quantico, and all the Marines who par-
ticipated in this study. We also wish to thank Ms. Joanne Michiuye of
UCLA/CRESST for her help with the preparation for this manuscript and with
data collection, and Ms. Adriana de Souza, Ms. Cecile Phan, and Mr. Gary Dionne
for their help with the data collection.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and in-
formation processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27.
Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition: Dynamics of
ability determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 598–614.
Ackerman, P. L., & Cianciolo, A. T. (2000). Cognitive, perceptual-speed, and psychomotor determi-
nants of individual differences during skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Ap-
plied, 6, 259–290.
Ackerman, P. L., & Cianciolo, A. T. (2002). Ability and task constraint determinants of complex task
performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 194–208.
Awang-Hashim, R., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Hocevar, D. (2002). Ethnicity, effort, self-efficacy, worry, and
statistics achievement in Malaysia: A construct validation of the state-trait motivation model. Educa-
tional Assessment, 8, 341–364.
Baker, E. L. (2003, November). Transforming performance: Technology, testing, accountability and
improvement. Presentation at the Syfr Corporation seminar: Technology: A Tool for Educational In-
novation, San Antonio, TX.
Bewley, W. L., Chung, G. K. W. K., Delacruz, G. C., Munro, A., Walker, J., Zachary, W., et al. (2003).
Interim report: Research on USMC Marksmanship training, Assessment tools, instructional simula-
tions, and qualitative field-based research (Deliverable to Office of Naval Research). Los Angeles:
University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing (CRESST).
Bird, E. I. (1987). Psychophysiological processes during rifle shooting. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 18, 9–18.
Blair, D. V., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Price, D. J. (1999). Effects of expertise on state self-efficacy and state
worry during a computer-based certification test. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 511–530.
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of ex-
pert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Hillsdale ,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Evans, K. L., Dyer, J. L., & Hagman, J. D. (2000). Shooting straight: 20 years of rifle marksmanship re-
search (ARI Special Report 44). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gates, A. I. (1918). The abilities of an expert marksman tested in the psychological laboratory. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 2, 1–14.
Hagman, J. D. (1998). Using the Engagement Skills Trainer to predict rifle marksmanship perfor-
mance. Military Psychology, 10, 215–224.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational
Research, 58, 47–77.
Hodges, N. J., Kerr, T., Starkes, J. L, Weir, P. L., & Nananidou, A. (2004). Predicting performance times
from deliberate practice hours for triathletes and swimmers: What, when, and where is practice im-
portant? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 219–237
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). Noncognitive predictors of performance during explosive ordinance
disposal training. Military Psychology, 1, 117–133.
Hong, E., & Karstensson, L. (2002). Antecedents of state test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology, 27, 348–367.
Humphreys, L. G., Buxton, C. E., & Taylor, H. R. (1936). Steadiness and rifle marksmanship. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 20, 680–688.
Jones, K. A., Smith, N. C., & Holmes, P. S. (2004). Anxiety symptom interpretation and performance
predictions in high-anxious, low-anxious and repressor sport performers. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 17, 187–199.
Konttinen, N., & Lyytinen, H. (1992). Physiology of preparation: Brain slow waves, heart rate, and res-
piration preceding triggering in rifle shooting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23,
110–127.
Krohne, H. W., & Hindel, C. (2000). Anxiety, cognitive interference, and sports performance: The cog-
nitive interference test—table tennis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13, 27–52.
MacCaslin, E. F., & McGuigan, F. J. (1956). The prediction of rifle marksmanship. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 40, 341–342.
McGuigan, F. J., & MacCaslin, E. F. (1955). The relationship between rifle steadiness and rifle marks-
manship and the effect of rifle training on rifle steadiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39,
156–159.
Morris, L., Davis, D., & Hutchings, C. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Lit-
erature review and revised worry–emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,
541–555.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Abedi, J. (1992). Japanese children’s trait and state worry and emotionality in a
high-stakes testing environment. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5, 253–267.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Baker, E. L., & Matsuura, S. (1992). Reliability and validity of Japanese trait and state
worry and emotionality scales. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5, 225–239.
Sade, S., Bar-Eli, M., Bresler, S., & Tenenbaum, G. (1990). Anxiety, self-control and shooting perfor-
mance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 3–6.
Schendel, J. D., Heller, F. H., Finley, D. L., & Hawley, J. K. (1985). Use of Weaponeer marksmanship
trainer in predicting M16A1 rifle qualification performance. Human Factors, 27, 313–325.
Schendel, J. D., Morey, J. C., Granier, M. J., & Hall, S. (1983). Use of self assessments in estimating lev-
els of skill retention (Research Report 1341). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Smith, M. (2000). Sustaining rifle marksmanship proficiency in the U.S. Army (ARI Contractor Report
2000-04). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (2000). Predicting rifle and pistol marksmanship performance with the
Laser Marksmanship Training System (Technical Report 1106). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Re-
search Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (2003). Using the Laser Marksmanship Training System to predict rifle
marksmanship qualification (Technical Report 1804). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Insti-
tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Spaeth, R. A., & Dunham, G. C. (1921). The correlation between motor control and rifle shooting.
American Journal of Physiology, 56, 249–256.
Spielberger, C. D. (1975). Anxiety: State-trait process. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.),
Stress and anxiety (Vol. 1, pp. 115–143). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI From Y). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., Taylor, C. I., Anton, E. D., Algaze, B., Ross, G. R., et al. (1980).
Manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory (“Test Attitude Inventory”). Redwood City, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Tierney, T. J., Cartner, J. A., & Thompson, T. J. (1979). Basic rifle marksmanship test: trainee pretest
and posttest attitudes (Tech. Paper 354). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Be-
havioral and Social Sciences.
Torre, J. P., Maxey, J. L., & Piper, A. S. (1987). Live fire and simulator marksmanship performance with
the M16A1 rifle. Study 1. A validation of the artificial intelligence direct fire weapons research test
bed. Volume 1. Main report (Tech. Memorandum 7–87). Orlando, FL: U.S. Army Project Manager
for Training Devices.
U.S. Army (1989). M1GA1 and M1GA2 rifle markmenship (FM23-9). Fort Benning, GA: Author.
U.S. Marine Corps. (USMC). (1993). Marine Corps Order 1230.5A (Classification Testing). Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
U.S. Marine Corps. (USMC). (2000). Marine Corps Order P1400.32C (Marine Corps Promotion
Manual, Vol. 2, Enlisted Promotions). Washington, DC: Author.
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). Stress and anxiety. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Jan-
elle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 290–318). New York: Wiley.
Wrisberg, C. A. (2003). Levels of performance skill: from beginners to experts. In R. N. Singer, H. A.
Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). New York:
Wiley.

The Role of Anxiety On Novices Rifle Marksmanship Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Anxiety On Novices Rifle Marksmanship Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Anxiety On Novices Rifle Marksmanship Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Assessment

ISSN: 1062-7197 (Print) 1532-6977 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heda20

The Role of Anxiety on Novices' Rifle

Gregory K. W. K. Chung, Harold F. O'Neil, Girlie C. Delacruz & William L.

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1003_6

Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 128

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The Role of Anxiety on Novices’ Rifle

Girlie C. Delacruz and William L. Bewley

In this study we examined the role of anxiety on novices’ performance on the

Predicting performance on a psychomotor task is usually done using cognitive and

Correspondence should be addressed to Gregory K. W. K. Chung, UCLA CSE/CRESST, 10945 Le

RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP AS A COMPLEX SKILL

One of the most remarkable achievements of modern marksmanship training is its

Predicting Rifle Marksmanship Performance

THE ROLE OF ANXIETY IN RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP

The stages-of-processing model of skill development provides a framework to un-

Age 42 23.81 1.86

Participants and Setting

Record-fire scores. Official rifle qualification scores were provided to us

General Classification Test (GCT). Official GCT scores (USMC, 1993)

Perceived level of rifle marksmanship knowledge. This measure was in-

1. the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship?

State anxiety. We adapted a measure from O’Neil et al. (1992) to measure

1. I felt calm while shooting.

Trait worry. We adapted a measure from Spielberger, et al. (1980) to measure

1. Thinking about my score interferes with my shooting during qualification.

State worry. We adapted a measure from O’Neil et al. (1992), to measure

1. I did not feel confident about my performance while shooting.

Firing line experience. This measure was intended to gather information on

In general, when you were on the firing line, how often …

Background survey. We administered a background survey to gather infor-

Record-fire score 42 37.48 8.47

Note. GCT = General Classification Test.

Note. GCT = General Classification Test.

Record-fire score 24 31.42 4.70 18 45.56 1.12 .000

Note. GCT = General Classification Test.

Smith, 2000, Experiment 2]; prior record-fire scores—repeated qualification

Implications for Noncognitive Assessments

Implications for Training

You might also like