Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences ·

Volume 7 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2026.1846239

A novel assessment of self-perceptions of recovery from illness and injury in U.S. Navy service members

  • Lisa M. Hernández1,2
  • Nikita R. Tovey1,2*corresponding author
  • Anu Venkatesh3
  • Kristin J. Heaton4
  • Justin S. Campbell5
  • Jessica M. Hru6
  • Marcus K. Taylor1
  1. 1Warfighter Performance Department, Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA, United States
  2. 2Leidos, Inc., San Diego, CA, United States
  3. 3Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, Cyber Science & Technology, San Diego, CA, United States
  4. 4Military Performance Division, United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, United States
  5. 5Marine Corps Forces Reserve, New Orleans, LA, United States
  6. 6Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

There is no measure that assesses self-perceptions of recovery in service members. This report describes the development and validation of the Military Illness and Injury Recovery Scale-17 (MIIRS-17) in a sample of active duty personnel. Participants (N = 182) were U.S. Navy aircrew who responded to a survey including 19 candidate scale items and measures of theoretically relevant correlates (e.g., pain). Factor structure of the scale was explored with principal components analysis. Convergent validity was established with bivariate associations between selected correlates, total recovery, and subscales. A multiple linear regression model was used to explore the contributions of each predictor (e.g., fatigue) for total recovery. Models were age-adjusted, as applicable. The final 17-item scale was highly consistent with four subscales, which we termed immune recovery, musculoskeletal injury recovery, physical recovery, and rehabilitation response. Total recovery and relevant correlates were related in the expected directions. In the combined model, eight predictors and age explained 39.6% of variance in total recovery. Sleep disruption, resilience, and age, independently contributed to total recovery. Our preliminary results indicate that the MIIRS-17 is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing self-perceptions of recovery in military members.

Keywords

Introduction

In military environments, service members are challenged by multiple stressors including physical demands (1), environmental extremes (2), and psychological trauma (3). These exposures can become catalysts for illness (4) and/or can cause injury (5). Force readiness depends upon how rapidly military personnel can bounce back from stressors (e.g., injury, intense training, deployments). Recovery from illness or injury is influenced by internal and external factors such as physical fitness (6), psychological factors (7), and the availability/accessibility of rehabilitation resources (8). Additionally, self-perceptions about recovery play an important role in determining propensity to recover. This is understudied in service members, so it is crucial to investigate self-perceptions about recovery to improve adaptability and lethality.

The literature about self-perceptions of recovery is limited to a small number of studies in injured, civilian patients (9–12). From these studies, two novel, subjective (self-report) tools have been developed to support clinical practice. One scale measured injury perceptions in a mixed sample of students and physical therapy clinic patients (9). That study found several types of perceptions that should be used to provide individualized rehabilitation care and treatment. The second tool measured self-perceptions in rehabilitation patients who had sustained a traumatic brain injury [TBI (11)]. The authors asserted that this measure could indicate patient readiness to engage in occupational therapy sessions and flag potential impediments for progress. Evidence of preliminary validity and reliability was reported for both measures, demonstrating the potential for quantitative assessments of self-perceptions to be used in a clinical setting. Another group found that self-perceptions predicted time to return to work after rehabilitation and therefore, self-perceptions were indicators of risk for disability (10). Altogether, this body of work reinforces the importance and impact of self-perceptions on recovery.

Due to the nature of military operations and the higher probability of life-threatening events within these environments, research about service member recovery is extensive. However, the literature tends to focus on interventions and objective measurements of recovery. In these studies, subjective measures are often used in conjunction with recovery interventions. For example, self-report measures can indicate risk factors for delayed recovery and positive recovery outcomes following musculoskeletal injury [MSKI (13)]. In an exploratory study of United Kingdom Armed Forces personnel, investigators used a self-report measure to determine if a period of rest and recuperation supported recovery following deployment (14). In addition, subjective measures of psychological traits have supported the important role of self-efficacy in rehabilitation responses for post-concussive injuries (15) and posttraumatic recovery (16), and of resilience (a person's ability to overcome adversity) as a predictor of recovery outcomes (17). While subjective measures can support recovery interventions and the prediction of recovery outcomes, there are currently no measures that assess self-perceptions of recovery in service members.

In this study, we describe the development and initial validation of the Military Illness and Injury Recovery Scale-17 (MIIRS-17), a quantitative measure of recovery self-perceptions. We expected to produce an overall, internally stable scale with moderately correlated subscales that corresponded to, and were differentiated by, recovery from various types of insults (e.g., illness, MSKI, intense exercise) and self-perceptions of responses to rehabilitation. Initial convergent validity was established by exploring the associations between recovery and theoretically relevant correlates. We anticipated that 1) MIIRS-17 recovery scores would be inversely associated with pain, fatigue, occupational stress, mental health symptoms, and sleep disruption, 2) recovery scores would be positively related to resilience and military readiness, and 3) that age would emerge as a covariate in some, or all, of these relationships.

Materials and methods

Design

This was a cross-sectional study with no exclusion criteria, and participants who volunteered to enroll in the study provided their verbal consent. In a single, in-person session, participants completed a survey on a computer tablet using a non-identifiable study identification number (e.g., 001). The survey included questions about the participant's background (e.g., age, military experience), the MIIRS-17, and measures of theoretically relevant correlates (detailed in data collection section).

Participants

The Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study protocol (NHRC.2023.0005). We recruited participants (N = 182) from U.S. Navy aircrew squadrons under Helicopter Sea Combat Wing Pacific (San Diego, CA) and Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Wing (San Diego, CA). All active duty personnel from the aforementioned commands were eligible and invited to a recruitment session during which a brief description of the study was provided. Those who were interested in participation were invited to stay for the informed consent process. Participants were given the options to skip questions that they did not want to answer and to discontinue their study involvement at any time; however, no one withdrew after study enrollment.

MIIRS-17 development

Scale items were developed by a team of three health and human performance scientists, including one expert in scale development and psychometrics who is also a military veteran. For this process, the team used our operational definition of recovery: one's ability to regain stable conditions—typically through intervention (e.g., rest, rehabilitation)—after a significant disruption, alteration, or injury. Based on this definition, we aimed to address the lack of a validated instrument that measures self-perceptions of recovery in military personnel. Following a review of the limited, relevant literature, and in conjunction with our team's collective military research experience, we created scale items to capture different types of recovery (e.g., musculoskeletal, immune). The MIIRS items were then shared with our active duty partners and another established psychometrician for feedback. Participants were asked to respond to each item on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Some items were scored on a reverse scale (0 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree). Example items include, “When I experience an injury such as an ankle sprain, I tend to recover quickly with adequate rest and/or rehabilitation,’’ and ‘‘When I get sick with the flu or a cold, it seems to take a very long time before I am able to get back to work.”

Data collection

Participants were presented with a survey that included the MIIRS-17 and demographic questions as well as measures of pain, fatigue, occupational stress, depression, anxiety, sleep quality, resilience, and readiness. Participants were asked to rate their average pain with a single item on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (as bad as it could be, nothing else matters) using the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (18). They were also asked to rate their fatigue in the past week on a numeric rating scale from 0 (no fatigue) to 10 (severe fatigue). Fatigue numeric rating scales have been shown to be valid and responsive measures in research (19). Occupational stress was assessed using a 4-item scale that was adapted from the Department of Defense Survey of Health-Related Behaviors [total possible range = 4–16 (20)]. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 [total possible range = 0–24 (21)] and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale [total possible range = 0–21 (22)], respectively. Sleep quality and disturbances over the last one-month period were measured with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI; total possible range = 0–21 (23)].

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, 10-item [CD-RISC-10 (24)] assesses overall resilience such as coping with, and recovering from, adversity. Items were rated on a 5-point scale (0–4), with higher scores reflecting greater resilience (total possible range = 0–40). The scale measures the ability to tolerate experiences such as change, personal problems, illness, pressure, and failure. Extensive evidence is available for the validity and reliability of the CD-RISC-10 (25).

The Military Readiness Scale, 15-item [MRS-15 (26)] assesses self-reported readiness across the three domains (general-psychological, technical, and physical readiness), which are combined to yield a total readiness score percentage (total possible range = 0%–100%). The MRS-15 is a novel measure developed by our team and was guided by our operational definition of readiness: the ability of a military service member to safely and effectively perform varied occupational duties to meet the diverse demands of assigned missions. Item responses ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) and 0 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree for reverse scored items. The MRS-15 is a valid measure with high reliability [Cronbach's α = 0.91 (26)].

Data analysis

Participant characteristics were examined using means, standard deviations, and ranges. Factor structure of the recovery scale was explored with principal components analysis and Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. A Promax rotation was also conducted to explore methodological differences between rotations and to ensure that the most conservative rotation method was selected. The range, variance, and floor/ceiling effects of each candidate item were examined (acceptable range ≥ 3 and variance SD ≥ 0.6). Next, candidate items were loaded into an initial principal components factor model. The criteria for initial factor identification included an Eigen value > 1.0 and a substantial contribution (≥ 5.0%) to the total latent construct (i.e., recovery). The initial criteria for item retention were decisive loading on a single factor (> 0.5) with low cross loading (≤ 0.5) onto other factors. Within factors, each item was required to demonstrate a substantial corrected item-total correlation (≥ 0.5) and α ≥10% reduction of Cronbach α, if the item was removed. Each factor was considered internally reliable if Cronbach α ≥0.70. For every instance in which an item was removed, the principal components model was repeated until we derived a final, optimized solution. We observed negligible differences between Varimax and Promax rotations for the final item loadings and the rotation type did not change the subscale loadings. Subscales were named based on item commonality and theoretical precedence. The total recovery score and subscale scores were calculated as percentages (sum of [total or subscale] items divided by the maximum possible sum x 100%).

Convergent validity of the scale was established with bivariate associations between theoretically relevant correlates, total recovery score, and subscales scores. Model adjustments were made if a candidate covariate (e.g., age) related to the correlate and to recovery scores [both ps < 0.05 (27)]. Alpha was set at 0.05. To reduce the chance of a Type I error, Bonferroni adjustments were made for multiple bivariate correlations (α = 0.05/8 tests for each theoretically relevant external correlate = 0.006). For each bivariate comparison, we used nonlinear models (i.e., logarithmic, inverse, quadratic and/or sigmoidal) to explore improved data fit. Lastly, an age-adjusted multiple linear regression model was used to establish the unique and combined contributions of each predictor (e.g., pain) to total recovery. We considered a variance inflation factor (VIF) >5.0 as high, indicating a strong correlation between predictors, and this value was established as a cut-off for multicollinearity (28). In the analyses, we used available, complete observations for the variables in each model and we did not perform any imputations. All statistical models were conducted by the anchor author using SPSS (Version 29; IBM, Armonk, NY) and then independently reproduced, and verified, by one co-author and the first author.

Results

Participant characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Most participants were male, White, enlisted (59.3% E4–E6) aircrew who were 20–29 years old (52.7%). Many had never deployed (33.5%) or been on a combat deployment (62.1%). The remainder of the sample had at least one deployment with some endorsing 4 or more deployments (24.2%) or combat deployments (3.8%).

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Characteristicn (%)M ± SDRange
Sex
Male175 (96.2)
Female7 (3.8)
Race and ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Nativea0 (0.0)
Asian4 (2.2)
Black or African American5 (2.7)
Hispanic or Latino12 (6.6)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander6 (3.3)
Middle Eastern or North Africana0 (0.0)
White126 (69.2)
Multiracial and multiethnic29 (15.9)
Age (years)29.2 ± 6.919–48
Naval enlisted classification code or officer designator code
Aircrew134 (73.6)
Pilot38 (20.9)
Other10 (5.5)
Military experience (years)1828.4 ± 6.2<1–29
Military Illness and Injury Recovery
Total17965.5 ± 14.9%16.2–100.0%
Immune recovery17970.5 ± 18.3%0.0–100.0%
Musculoskeletal injury recovery18059.1 ± 22.4%0.0–100.0%
Physical recovery18065.8 ± 16.6%6.3–100.0%
Rehabilitation response18064.4 ± 18.8%0.0–100.0%
Pain1823.3 ± 2.00–10
Fatigue1824.7 ± 2.10–10
Occupational stress1828.9 ± 2.64–16
Depressive symptoms1816.2 ± 5.50–24
Anxiety symptoms1826.1 ± 5.90–21
Sleep disruption1747.9 ± 4.11–21
Resilience18032.6 ± 5.116–40
Military Readiness
Total18175.0 ± 16.0%23.3–100.0%
General–psychological18176.5 ± 17.8%11.1–100.0%
Technical18174.5 ± 18.8%8.3–100.0%
Physical18171.0 ± 22.9%0.0–100.0%

M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

Seven people identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, and two people identified as Middle Eastern or North African, but all nine also identified with at least one additional race/ethnicity.

All candidate recovery scale items demonstrated sufficient range (≥ 3 out of 4). We observed few floor effects (0.6%–8.3%) and modest ceiling effects (7.2%–29.4%). Removal of two items with complex factor loadings yielded a highly consistent, 17-item scale (Cronbach α = 0.90). A scree-plot revealed 4 factors (Eigen values > 1.0) thus, we derived a total recovery score (17 items) as well as four subscale scores, which we termed immune recovery (6 items, α = .87), musculoskeletal injury recovery, (MSKI; 4 items, α = .87), physical recovery (4 items, α = .72), and rehabilitation response (3 items, α = .67). There were minimal floor (0%–0.6%) and ceiling effects (0.0%–6.7%) at the total or subscale level. In the 17-item rotated factor matrix (Table 2), the four-factor solution accounted for 65.5% of variance in the total recovery construct. Low-moderate correlations between the subscales were observed (r range = .40–.54, all p < .001). The MIIRS-17 and scale scoring guide are included in the Appendix and a fillable form with automatic scoring is available (Supplementary Material).

Table 2. Rotated factor matrix.

Scale item (abbreviated description)Component
1234
1.Sick with flu or cold, takes longer than most to recover0.700.210.29−0.06
2.When I bruise, remains sore for a long time0.640.420.020.12
3.Flu shots always knock me down for several days0.72−0.01−0.060.31
4.Sick with flu or cold, always takes long time to get back to work0.780.200.120.07
5.When I bruise, seems to take forever to heal0.810.240.060.14
6.Other people seem to recover from illness faster than I do0.790.150.28−0.02
7.Muscle or joint sprain becomes nagging, recurring injury0.160.890.160.12
8.Muscle or joint sprain, experience persistent pain afterwards0.170.830.240.14
9.No amount of rest or rehabilitation helps me regain performance0.350.560.020.37
10.Muscle or joint sprain, tend to reinjure frequently0.270.730.230.10
11.Injury such as ankle sprain, tend to recover quickly0.100.380.550.15
12.Exercise intensely, can exercise again the next day0.080.180.780.03
13.After injury, require less rest and medication than most0.44−0.020.560.18
14.After medical procedures, tend to bounce back better than ever0.120.130.710.28
15.Respond to rehabilitation exercises well and recovery quickly−0.030.230.470.58
16.For most injuries, no amount of rehabilitation seems to be enough0.290.390.040.67
17.For most injuries, rest and rehabilitation bring me back to my old self0.090.060.350.76

Bold values indicate factor loadings > 0.5.

Bivariate associations between MIIRS-17 subscales and theoretically relevant correlates are shown in Table 3. Age was related to pain, occupational stress, sleep disruption, resilience, and military readiness. Age was also associated with total recovery (r = −.34, p < .001) and all four subscales (immune recovery, r = −.25, p < .001; MSKI recovery, r = −.27, p < .001; physical recovery, r = −.36, p < .001; rehabilitation response, r = −.19, p = .01). In subsequent models, we adjusted for age accordingly. Total recovery was positively associated with resilience and military readiness and inversely associated with the remaining correlates (all ps < .001). We did not observe improvements in data fit with the application of nonlinear models (e.g., logarithmic, inverse).

Table 3. Relationships between recovery scores and theoretically related correlates.

Recovery ScoreTotalImmuneMSKIPhysicalRehab
Paina−.36***−.22**−.45***−.16*−.28***
Fatigue−.27***−.20*−.32***−.14−.21**
Occupational stressa−.28***−.20*−.30***−.23**−.16*
Depressive symptoms−.34***−.20*−.34***−.23**−.35***
Anxiety symptoms−.34***−.21*−.34***−.23**−.32***
Sleep disruptiona−.41***−.32***−.39***−.25**−.30***
Resiliencea.47***.32***.33***.51***.35***
Military readinessa.47***.29***.39***.43***.41***

Bonferroni corrected α = .006.

Age-adjusted.

*p < .05.

**p < .006.

*p < .001.

In the combined model, we found that the eight predictors and the covariate (age) explained 39.6% of variance in military recovery (F(9,170) = 13.4, p < .001). None of the predictors met criteria for multicollinearity (all VIFs < 5.0). In the overall model, sleep disruption (b = −.22, p < .05), resilience (b = .26, p = .001), and age (b = −.17, p < .05), independently contributed to recovery.

Discussion

In this report, we describe the development and initial validation of the MIIRS, a 17-item self-report measure of recovery. We found the scale to be highly consistent and the principal component models demonstrated theoretical space for a stable, four-factor solution, which resulted in four subscales (immune recovery, MSKI recovery, physical recovery, and rehabilitation response). The high internal consistency across the 17 items indicated that the MIIRS-17 can measure self-perceptions of recovery. This is aligned with the results of other studies that self-perceptions of recovery can be reliably measured (9, 11). The correlations between subscales revealed that each subscale represented a related and unique facet of the same construct (recovery) with sensitivity to the individual contributions of each type of recovery (as represented by the four subscales). Upon further validation, the MIIRS-17 could be used to support recovery interventions and the development of health/MSKI risk trajectory models across the military career (29). Of note, since TBI is a concerning military issue, there is some evidence that the severity of a TBI can mediate self-perceptions (12). Thus, more extensive validation is needed to determine whether this self-report scale functions comparably in patients with different TBI classifications (i.e., mild, moderate, severe).

We observed evidence of convergent validity in the relationships between the MIIRS-17 and theoretically relevant correlates. Per our hypotheses, total recovery was inversely associated with pain, fatigue, mental health symptoms, and sleep disruption, but positively related to resilience and military readiness. The associations between total recovery and these correlates also indicated that recovery is a multivariate, but distinctly unique, construct.

In the multiple linear regression model, eight predictors (e.g., pain, fatigue) combined with age to explain almost 40% of the variance in recovery. Sleep disruption and age were independent, negative predictors of recovery. Sleep quality and quantity are integral not only to physiological and psychological recovery (30), but also to immune health (31). Age is also a well-established negative predictor of recovery. A reduced capacity to recover is linked to diminished biological resources (e.g., stem cells) and repair that is both delayed and inadequate (31). Interestingly, self-perceptions of aging have been reported to predict recovery independent of other anticipated moderators [i.e., age, sex (32)], further illustrating the complex relationship between psychological and physical health. We also recognize that age-related factors that were not measured in our study (e.g., chronic disease) could partially explain the association between age and recovery. In contrast, resilience was an independent, positive predictor of recovery in our study. This is aligned with evidence that the ability to recover is a form of biological resilience (31), which can be measured in processes such as immune function and muscle repair. Together, the independent predictors of recovery that we identified enhance the convergent validity of the MIIRS-17. This highlights the utility of the MIIRS-17 to potentially accelerate applied research and inform the development of new interventions (e.g., a new treatment for MSKI) and rehabilitation strategies.

Limitations

Our results were derived from a research sample, not a clinical population and thus, this work is merely the first step to establish the MIIRS-17 as a clinical tool. While we retained all data from female participants in our analyses, the sample was mostly male so our results may not be generalizable to females. Further, this sample was comprised of only U.S. Navy aircrew and our findings may not apply to other military or non-military populations (e.g., veterans, clinical populations). To mitigate the risk of response bias with methods of self-report, we assigned participants non-traceable study identification numbers to facilitate honest survey responses. We did not explore the effects of item valence (e.g., positive vs. negative) in the MIIRS-17, and this should be tested in future studies. We also found the internal reliability of the rehabilitation response subscale to be slightly below our self-imposed criteria. We attribute this to the small number of items that loaded onto this subscale and to the overall preliminary nature of this study. Lastly, the predictive validity of the MIIRS-17 has not yet been established, but this is a current effort in our lab.

Conclusions

This study preliminarily yields a valid and reliable measure to quickly and cost-effectively assess self-perceptions of recovery in military members. The MIIRS-17 is a promising tool to further understand individual recovery perceptions. Following more extensive validation, the MIIRS-17 could be used to quantitatively assess a patient's recovery propensity in a clinical setting. Thus, the MIIRS-17 may be a useful measure to support recovery interventions, to potentially predict recovery outcomes, and to assist in the development of risk models across years of service for military members and populations.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

AV, KH, JC, JH, and MT are military service members or employees of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17, U.S.C. §101 defines a U.S. Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties. Report No. 26-04 was supported by the Defense Health Agency under work unit no. 62362. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from an approved Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board protocol, number NHRC.2023.0005.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fresc.2026.1846239/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Feng Yang, Georgia State University, United States

Reviewed by: Romulus-Dan Nicoara, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iuliu Hatieganu, Romania

Charity Lane, US Spine & Sport Foundation, United States

Statements

Conflict of interest

Authors LH and NT were employed by company Leidos, Inc., a government contractor. The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Report No. 26-04 was supported by the Defense Health Agency under work unit no. 62362.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available since public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board. Data may be made available upon reasonable request and approval by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board/Privacy Office (usn.point-loma.navhlthrschcensan.list.admin@health.mil).

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Data collection (of de-identified data) was conducted in-person therefore written informed consent from participants to participate in this study was waived. Verbal consent from participants was obtained instead.

Author contributions

LH: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Methodology, Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing. NT: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Validation. AV: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. KH: Writing – review & editing. JC: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. JH: Writing – review & editing. MT: Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Formal analysis, Resources.

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is extended to Ms. Carrie Brown for editorial expertise and to all U.S. Navy Aircrew personnel for their selfless service.

References

  1. 1. Fox BD, Judge LW, Dickin DC, Wang H. Biomechanics of military load carriage and resulting musculoskeletal injury: a review. J Orthop Orthop Surg. (2020) 1: 6 – 11. doi:10.29245/2767-5130/2020/1.1104
  2. 2. Norris JN, Viirre E, Aralis H, Sracic MK, Thomas D, Gertsch JH. High altitude headache and acute mountain sickness at moderate elevations in a military population during battalion-level training exercises. Mil Med. (2012) 177: 917 – 23. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00007
  3. 3. den Hartigh RJR, Huijzer R, Blaauw FJ, De Wit A, De Jonge P. Early identification of dropouts during the Special Forces Selection Program. Sci Rep. (2025) 15: 3242. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-87604-5
  4. 4. Hynes C, Scullion L, Lawler C, Steel R, Boland P. The impact of in-service physical injury or illness on the mental health of military veterans. BMJ Mil Health. (2023) 169: e51 – 4. doi:10.1136/bmjmilitary-2020-001759
  5. 5. Stern CA, Liendo JA, Graham BA, Johnson GM, Kotwal RS, Shackelford S. Nonfatal injuries from falls among U.S. military personnel deployed for combat operations, 2001–2018. Mil Med. (2023) 188: e2405 – 13. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac410
  6. 6. Geldman M, Moore A, Cheek L. The effect of pre-injury physical fitness on the initial severity and recovery from whiplash injury, at six-month follow-up. Clin Rehabil. (2008) 22: 364 – 76. doi:10.1177/0269215507081966
  7. 7. Cvejic E, Li H, Hickie IB, Wakefield D, Lloyd AR, Vollmer-Conna U. Contribution of individual psychological and psychosocial factors to symptom severity and time-to-recovery after naturally-occurring acute infective illness: the Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study (DIOS). Brain Behav Immun. (2019) 82: 76 – 83. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2019.07.034
  8. 8. Duarte A, Bojke C, Cayton W, Salawu A, Case B, Bojke L. Impact of specialist rehabilitation services on hospital length of stay and associated costs. Eur J Health Econ. (2018) 19: 1027 – 34. doi:10.1007/s10198-017-0952-0
  9. 9. Heruti I, Levy S, Avitsur R, Deutscher D, Gutvirtz M, Berkovitz T. Development of the injury perceptions questionnaire (InjPQ). Psychol Health. (2018) 33: 614 – 33. doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1381957
  10. 10. Iakova M, Ballabeni P, Erhart P, Seichert N, Luthi F, Dériaz O. Self perceptions as predictors for return to work 2 years after rehabilitation in orthopedic trauma inpatients. J Occup Rehabil. (2012) 22: 532 – 40. doi:10.1007/s10926-012-9369-x
  11. 11. Ownsworth T, Stewart E, Fleming J, Griffin J, Collier AM, Schmidt J. Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the Self-Perceptions in Rehabilitation Questionnaire (SPIRQ) for brain injury rehabilitation. Am J Occup Ther. (2013) 67: 336 – 44. doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.007625
  12. 12. Uomoto JM, Fann JR. Explanatory style and perception of recovery in symptomatic mild traumatic brain injury. Rehabil Psychol. (2004) 49: 334 – 7. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.49.4.334
  13. 13. Mowery HC, Campello M, Ziemke G, Oh C, Hope T, Jansen B. Psychological risk factors for delayed recovery among active duty service members seeking treatment for musculoskeletal complaints at a navy shore-based military medical treatment facility. Mil Med. (2024) 189: 12 – 7. doi:10.1093/milmed/usae019
  14. 14. Parsloe L, Jones N, Fertout M, Luzon O, Greenberg N. Rest and recuperation in the UK armed forces. Occup Med. (2014) 64: 616 – 21. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqu119
  15. 15. Belanger HG, Vanderploeg RD, Curtiss G, Armistead-Jehle P, Kennedy JE, Tate DF. Self-efficacy predicts response to cognitive rehabilitation in military service members with post-concussive symptoms. Neuropsychol Rehabil. (2020) 30: 1190 – 203. doi:10.1080/09602011.2019.1575245
  16. 16. Benight CC, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the role of perceived self-efficacy. Behav Res Ther. (2004) 42: 1129 – 48. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008
  17. 17. Drayer NJ, Wallace CS, Yu HH, Mansfield TD, Cummings DL, Hood DK. High resiliency linked to short-term patient reported outcomes and return to duty following arthroscopic knee surgery. Mil Med. (2020) 185: 112 – 6. doi:10.1093/milmed/usz180
  18. 18. Polomano RC, Galloway KT, Kent ML, Brandon-Edwards H, Kwon KN, Morales C. Psychometric testing of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS): a new pain scale for military population. Pain Med. (2016) 17: 1505 – 19. doi:10.1093/pm/pnw105
  19. 19. Gladman D, Nash P, Goto H, Birt JA, Lin C-Y, Orbai A-M. Fatigue numeric rating scale validity, discrimination and responder definition in patients with psoriatic arthritis. RMD Open. (2020) 6: e000928. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000928
  20. 20. Bray RM, Pemberton MR, Hourani LL, Witt M, Olmsted KL, Brown JM. Department of Defense survey of health related behaviors among active duty military personnel. Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institution (2009). Report No. RTI10940FR).
  21. 21. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. (2009) 114: 163 – 73. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026
  22. 22. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. (2006) 166: 1092 – 7. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
  23. 23. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF III, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. (1989) 28: 193 – 213. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4
  24. 24. Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. (2003) 18: 76 – 82. doi:10.1002/da.10113
  25. 25. Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. (2007) 20: 1019 – 28. doi:10.1002/jts.20271
  26. 26. Taylor MK, Venkatesh A, Campbell JS, Heaton KJ, Kershaw RT, Gibbs SH. Development and validation of the Military Readiness Scale in U. S. Naval Aircrew. Mil Med. (2025) 190: e2420 – 6. doi:10.1093/milmed/usaf193
  27. 27. MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev Sci. (2000) 1: 173 – 81. doi:10.1023/a:1026595011371
  28. 28. O’Brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant. (2007) 41: 673 – 90. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
  29. 29. Rosellini AJ, Stein MB, Benedek DM, Bliese PD, Chiu WT, Hwang I. Using self-report surveys at the beginning of service to develop multi-outcome risk models for new soldiers in the U. S. Army. Psychol Med. (2017) 47: 2275 – 87. doi:10.1017/S003329171700071X
  30. 30. Bird SP. Sleep, recovery, and athletic performance: a brief review and recommendations. Strength Cond J. (2013) 35: 43 – 7. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182a62e2f
  31. 31. Ukraintseva S, Arbeev K, Duan M, Akushevich I, Kulminski A, Stallard E. Decline in biological resilience as key manifestation of aging: potential mechanisms and role in health and longevity. Mech Ageing Dev. (2021) 194: 111418. doi:10.1016/j.mad.2020.111418
  32. 32. Hill MW, Kal E, Lord SR, Wright H, Broom D, Ellmers TJ. Self-perceptions of aging predict recovery after a fall: prospective analysis from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging. J Am Geriatr Soc. (2025) 73: 2097 – 105. doi:10.1111/jgs.19486

Citation

Hernández, L. M., et al. (2026). A novel assessment of self-perceptions of recovery from illness and injury in U.S. Navy service members. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, Volume 7. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
7 - 2026

Copyright

At least a portion of this work is authored by Lisa M. Hernández, Nikita R. Tovey, Anu Venkatesh, Kristin J. Heaton, Justin S. Campbell and Marcus K. Taylor on behalf of the U.S. Government and as regards, Dr. Hernández, Dr. Tovey, Dr. Venkatesh, Dr. Heaton, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Taylor and the U.S. Government, is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign and other copyrights may apply.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Nikita R. Tovey

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchPhysical therapist management of patients with suspected or confirmed osteoporosis – German translation and contextual adaptation of a clinical practice guideline from the Academy of Geriatric Physical Therapy (USA)Tobias Braun, Maxime Hermanns, Vanessa Haug, Jessica Nau, Bettina Scheffler, Gudrun Diermayr, Gregory W. Hartley, Keith G. Avin, Susanne SaalCase ReportCase Report: An MDT-guided multimodal protocol for large-area stroke plateau — integrating neuromodulation with multimodal assessmentXiao-li Wu, Xiao-qian Xia, Chang-qing Ye, Yun-lei Wang, Xing-zhu Li, Li-xu Liu, Fu-biao Hang, Jing-song Liu, Yi-chuan Song, Yue Zhang, Xiao-xia DuPerspectiveBridging institutional expertise and democratic decentralization: a proposed hub-and-spoke framework for rehabilitation, built on Kerala’s model of community-based disability careBinoy Mathew K V, Maryelizabeth Tidiya Walarine