Determination of Main Naval Officer Specialty Groups in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Based on Psychophysiologic Characteristics

Full Text

INTRODUCTION

The modernization of the People’s Army of Vietnam Navy (PAVN) requires improving the training of enlisted naval personnel. This ensures that specialists who can manage, operate, and maintain the advanced technology of modern ships and submarines are recruited. PAVN personnel perform activities that require increasingly advanced technology and specialized professional expertise. Therefore, it is currently practically impossible to improve the effectiveness and reliability of military personnel activities without developing a system to select, distribute, and optimize training in specific areas of professional military activity [1]. The methods and criteria for professional psychological and psychophysiological selection and the balanced distribution of specialties should be based on a functional model. The model should consider the activities of different personnel and the psychophysiological qualities necessary for effective performance.

Currently, several general important professional qualities (IPQs) have been identified as necessary for all groups of military specialties in the Russian Armed Forces. These qualities include response time and attention, emotional stability and self-control, unconventional thinking, effective communication, and responsibility [2]. Specialists from the Military Medical Academy have identified these IPQs as required for PAVN submariners [3].

However, research into the occupational psychology of naval personnel revealed that there are specific IPQs associated with goals, tasks, and technical means [4–8].

The specific and diverse professional functions of PAVN personnel and the various conditions of their professional activities make certain psychological and psychophysiological qualities important. These qualities are especially important, and sometimes even critical, for certain specialists and positions. Therefore, they should be considered and evaluated when recruiting and training candidates for these PAVN specialties [9–13].

This study identified four groups of PAVN specialists based on the conditions and content of their professional activities: command personnel, operators personnel, engineers personnel, and support personnel.

The study aimed to identify a list of special IPQs necessary for professional psychological fitness in each group of naval specialties.

METHODS

The study evaluated the psychological and psychophysiological characteristics of PAVN personnel using techniques adapted for this population. These techniques included scores for intellectual abilities (attention, memory, and thinking), motivational factors (military professional motivation [MPM]), personal qualities (e.g., the Multi-Level Personality Questionnaire: Adaptability [MLPQ-A], the Eysenck Personality Inventory [EPI]), and psychomotor and neurodynamic abilities using the Tapping Test. Performance status was assessed based on cardiac rhythm using variational cardiac rhythmography and autonomic nervous system (ANS) function. The success of the professional military activities of the PAVN personnel was also assessed by experts. Submariners of various specialties were evaluated during their everyday activities while performing training combat tasks at the PAVN base.

IBM SPSS Statistics was used to perform mathematical and statistical analyses of the data obtained, including descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and the Spearman test (r). The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to perform an analysis of variance and comparative analysis. In all cases, the statistical reliability of the calculation results was measured by the significance level, which did not exceed a 0.05 probability (p ≤0.05) of the null hypothesis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The main goal of the study was to compare the psychophysiological and psychological qualities of the selected personnel groups based on the intensity of these qualities and identify unique IPQs for each specialty.

The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the qualities of groups of selected specialties.

Table 1 shows the results of a comparative analysis of different specialty groups based on their motivational qualities, as identified by the MPM questionnaire.

 

Table 1. Comparative analysis of selected motivational characteristics across specialty groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test Таблица 1. Сравнительный анализ выраженности отдельных мотивационных характеристик в группах различных специальностей по критерию Краскела–Уоллиса
Score	р	Specialty groups (Me [Q25; Q75])
		Command personnel	Operators personnel	Engineers personnel	Support personnel
Appropriateness of Beliefs	≤0.89	13.0 [13.0; 15.0]	13.0 [13.0; 14.0]	13.0 [11.0; 14.0]	12.5 [10.5; 13.0]
Diversity of Interests	≤0.15	14.0 [13.0; 15.0]	15.0 [12.0; 16.0]	13.0 [11.0; 15.0]	11.0 [10.0; 14.75]
Desire for Self-Actualization	≤0.63	12.0 [10.0; 13.0]	11.0 [10.0; 12.0]	12.0 [9.0; 13.0]	11.5 [5.0; 13.0]
Desire for Achievement	≤0.72	12.0 [10.0; 14.0]	12.0 [11.0; 14.0]	12.0 [10.0; 14.0]	13.5 [11.5; 14.25]
Emotional Balance	≤0.82	13.0 [11.0; 14.0]	12.0 [9.0; 14.0]	12.0 [10.0; 14.0]	13.0 [9.25; 15.5]
Optimism	≤0.83	13.0 [12.0; 15.0]	13.0 [11.0; 15.0]	13.0 [11.0; 15.0]	11.5 [9.75; 15.0]
Appropriateness of Desires	≤0.77	11.0 [10.0; 14.0]	12.0 [10.0; 13.0]	11.0 [10.0; 13.0]	12.0 [11.75; 12.25]
Control of Desires	≤0.3	11.0 [10.0; 13.0]	12.0 [11.0; 15.0]	12.0 [11.0; 13.0]	9.5 [8.75; 13.25]
Commitment to Career	≤0.32	10.0 [9.0; 12.0]	10.0 [8.0; 12.0]	11.0 [9.0; 12.0]	11.0 [11.0; 12.25]
Desire for Specialization	≤0.00	14.0 [13.0; 15.0]	13.0 [13.0; 14.0]	13.0 [11.0; 15.0]	10.5 [7.75; 12.0]
Total score of MPM	≤0.16	172.0 [162.0; 184.0]	171.0 [163.0; 177.0]	167.0 [160.0; 177.0]	158.5 [148.5; 173.75]

 

A comparative analysis of variance using the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in these qualities between the groups of specialties. Desire for Specialization (MPM), was the exception. This reflects the depth and stability of the desire to master a specific naval specialty. These scores were statistically significantly lower in the support personnel group (H=13.81, p <0.003) (Fig. 1).

 

Fig. 1. Distribution of scores on the striving for specialization scale of the external positive motivation method across professional training groups.

Рис. 1. Распределение по шкале «Стремление к специализации» методики ВПМ в группах подготовки специалистов различного профиля.

 

Command personnel had the highest scores, indicating a greater desire to acquire a specific military specialty.

Table 2 presents a comparative analysis of the intensity of personal qualities on the MLPQ-A and EPI in different specialty groups.

 

Table 2. Comparative analysis of personality characteristics across specialty groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test, Me [Q25; Q75] Таблица 2. Сравнительный анализ выраженности личностных характеристик в группах различных специальностей по критерию Краскела–Уоллиса, Me [Q25; Q75]
Parameters	р	Specialty groups
		Command personnel	Operators personnel	Engineers personnel	Support personnel
Personal Adjustment, MLPQ-A	≤0.65	118.0 [105.7; 118.0]	114.0 [105.7; 119.5]	115.0 [100.5; 120.5]	112.0 [90.5; 120.25]
Behavior Control, MLPQ-A	≤0.75	78.0 [73.0; 81.0]	76.5 [71.25; 80.0]	75.0 [67.5; 81.0]	77.0 [61.5; 78.5]
Communication, MLPQ-A	≤0.7	22.5 [18.75; 24.25]	22.0 [19.0; 23.75]	22.0 [19.0; 24.0]	19.5 [16.75; 23.0]
Normal Moral Commitment, MLPQ-A	≤0.36	17.0 [14.75; 18.25]	16.0 [13.25; 17.75]	16.0 [13.0; 17.5]	16.0 [14.0; 18.25]
Extraversion, EPI	≤0.25	10.5 [8.0; 12.5]	9.0 [8.0; 11.0]	10.5 [9.0; 12.0]	8.5 [7.5; 10.75]
Neuroticism, EPI	≤0.23	12.0 [8.0; 15.25]	13.5 [11.0; 16.0]	11.5 [9.25; 14.75]	14.5 [10.75; 17.5]

 

The comparative analysis revealed no significant differences in MLPQ-A and EPI scores among the specialty groups. The median scores were similar for all specialty groups.

Command personnel had higher Normal Moral Commitment scores, and support personnel had slightly lower Communication scores. Personal Adjustment scores (MLPQ-A) were higher for the command and engineers personnel groups. These groups also reported lower median Neuroticism scores (EPI), indicating higher emotional stability.

Intelligence development and intensity (Figures, S test, Coordinates, Finding Numbers with Switching) and professional psychological fitness were also compared across different groups (Table 3).

 

Table 3. Comparative analysis of intellectual characteristics and professional psychologic profile across specialty groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test, Me [Q25; Q75] Таблица 3. Сравнительный анализ интеллектуальных характеристик и ППП в группах различных специальностей по критерию Краскела–Уоллиса, Me [Q25; Q75]
Score	р	Specialty groups
		Command personnel	Operators personnel	Engineers personnel	Support personnel
Figures, Performance	≤0.76	18.0 [12.0; 23.0]	16.0 [12.25; 22.0]	17.0 [12.0; 20.5]	12.5 [11.25; 20.75]
S Test, Performance	≤0.73	58.5 [45.75; 66.25]	55.0 [40.25; 72.5]	57.0 [41.0; 81.5]	66.0 [52.25; 77.75]
Coordinates, Performance	≤0.86	18.0 [13.0; 38.0]	19.0 [12.25; 34.75]	17.0 [12.0; 41.0]	18.0 [12.25; 25.0]
Finding Numbers with Switching	≤0.25	12.0 [9.0; 14.0]	11.0 [8.25; 12.0]	11.5 [9.0; 14.0]	6.5 [3.75; 25.5]
Total Cognitive Score	≤0.56	25.0 [20.0; 28.0]	22.0 [19.0; 25.75]	23.0 [19.75; 28.0]	17.5 [15.25; 25.5]
Integrated Score for Professional Psychological Fitness	≤0.16	18.0 [17.0; 20.0]	18.0 [15.25; 19.75]	17.0 [14.0; 19.0]	14.5 [12.75; 17.25]

 

A comparative analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the distribution of intellectual qualities among the study groups. Visual short-term memory scores (Figures) were slightly higher in the command and engineers personnel. There were practically no differences in the median Spatial and Visual Thinking scores (S Test and Coordinates) between the groups. However, Attention scores (Finding Numbers with Switching) were slightly lower in the support personnel group. Integrated intelligence scores were slightly higher in the command personnel group.

Table 4 provides a comparative analysis of the psychomotor and neurodynamic characteristics using the Tapping Test in different groups. The lability and endurance of the nervous system were assessed, and two parameters were estimated: the strength and endurance of the nervous system [11].

 

Table 4. Comparative analysis of psychomotor performance indicators across specialty groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test, Me [Q25; Q75] Таблица 4. Сравнительный анализ показателей психомоторики в группах различных специальностей по критерию Краскела–Уоллиса, Me [Q25; Q75]
Parameters	р	Specialties
		Command personnel	Operators personnel	Engineers personnel	Support personnel
Lability of the Nervous System	≤0.250	35.00 [32.75; 38.25]	33.00 [30.0; 36.0]	34.0 [33.0; 37.0]	32.0 [29.0; 33.0]
Total Number of Points	≤0.217	200.0 [184.0; 206.0]	186.0 [169.0; 196.0]	193.5 [184.0; 210.0]	172.0 [153.0; 175.0]
Nervous System Strength	≤0.256	1.026 [0.992; 1.045]	1.02 [0.97; 1.04]	1.02 [0.98; 1.05]	1.04 [0.99; 1.06]
Nervous System Endurance	≤0.365	0.93 [0.92; 0.98]	0.93 [0.90; 0.98]	0.914 [0.88; 0.97]	0.89 [0.89; 0.90]

 

The Rapid Tapping test of the nervous system parameters did not reveal any differences in the predominant nervous system types.

Table 5 provides an analysis of cardiac rhythmography among the PAVN personnel groups.

 

Table 5. Comparative analysis of cardiorhythmography indicators across naval specialty groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test, Me [Q25; Q75] Таблица 5. Сравнительный анализ показателей кардиоритмографии в группах различных военно-морских специальностей по критерию Краскела–Уоллиса, Me [Q25; Q75]
Parameters	р	Specialties
		Command personnel	Operators personnel	Engineers personnel	Support personnel
Performance Status	≤0.68	5.0 [2.5; 5.0]	4.0 [3.0; 4.0]	4.0 [2.0; 4.0]	3.0 [2.0; 3.0]
Performance Status, Score	≤0.74	1.0 [0.0; 1.0]	1.0 [0.0; 1.0]	1.0 [0.0; 1.0]	0.0 [0.0; 0.0]
Mean RR Interval	≤0.005	773.0 [646.0; 804.5]	813.5 [734.5; 903.25]	871.0 [783.0; 946.0]	717.0 [609.0; 717.0]
Heart Rate	≤0.005	3.0 [3.0; 4.0]	2.5 [2.0; 4.0]	2.0 [2.0; 3.0]	4.0 [4.0; 4.0]
Stress Score	≤0.98	289.3 [118.92; 509.45]	210.4 [113.71; 254.24]	164.71 [106.8; 230.3]	793.15 [228.6; 793.2]
Minimal RR Interval	≤0.013	692.0 [641.0; 720.5]	732.5 [659.0; 829.75]	785.0 [716.0; 858.0]	640.0 [573.0; 640.0]
Maximal RR Interval	0.006	826.0 [749.0; 921.0]	898.0 [807.75; 982.0]	943.0 [892.0; 1018.0]	762.0 [644.0; 762.0]

 

Performance status was deemed optimal in the command personnel group. Operators and engineers personnel demonstrated a near-optimal performance level. The engineers group had the lowest median Stress scores, corresponding to the lower limits of moderate regulatory system stress. Support personnel demonstrated overstress of the regulatory systems.

Figures 2–4 below present histograms of the distribution of rhythmocardiogram parameters by group, showing statistically significant differences.

 

Fig. 2. Heart rate distribution across professional groups.

Рис. 2. Распределение уровня ЧСС в группах специалистов различного профиля.

 

Fig. 3. Distribution of mean RR interval duration across professional groups.

Рис. 3. Распределение средней длительности RR-интервалов в группах специалистов различного профиля.

 

Fig. 4. Distribution of maximum RR interval duration across professional groups.

Рис. 4. Распределение максимальной длительности RR-интервалов в группах специалистов различного профиля.

 

In summary, the results of the study on PAVN submarine specialists, using techniques for assessing professional psychological suitability for naval service, indicate that the IPQs in the study groups are similar in intensity and show almost no statistically significant differences.

For MPM, a statistically significant difference in the Desire for Specialization scores was reported between the command and engineers personnel groups and the support personnel group. These differences reflect the depth and stability of the desire to acquire a certain military specialty. These scores were statistically significantly lower in the support personnel group. The command personnel group reported the highest scores. The results suggest that the command, operators, and engineers personnel groups have a greater desire to acquire a military specialty.

There were also statistically significant differences between these groups in the function of the ANS. The most optimal function of the ANS was found in the engineers personnel group.

To determine the specific IPQs for each group (command, operators, and engineers personnel groups), a correlation analysis was conducted using a Spearman test (r_xy) for psychophysiological and psychological qualities with professional activity performance parameters.

Three expert scores were used as external criteria to evaluate professional performance:

Successful professional performance;

The presence and acquisition of professional knowledge, skills, and competencies;

Credibility in group; and

Average expert score.

The expert scores were provided by the commanders of the participating units.

The correlation analysis revealed statistically significant correlations between the study parameters and expert scores for Professional Performance in the command personnel group (Table 6).

 

Table 6. Statistically significant correlations between professional and psychologic characteristics and expert evaluations in the managerial specialty group based on Spearman’s correlation (rxy) Таблица 6. Статистически значимые корреляционные взаимосвязи ПВК с экспертными оценками в группе специалистов организаторского профиля с применением корреляции Спирмена (rxy)
Parameter	Mean Expert Score	Expert Score for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies	Expert Score for Professional Performance	Expert Score for Credibility in the Group
Personal Qualities
Personal Adjustment, MLPQ-A, Score			0.500*
Communication, MLPQ-A, Score			0.432*
Cognitive Qualities
Performance, Figures, Score			0.417*
Performance, Coordinates, Score	0.497*	0.455*	0.705**
Integrated Score for Professional Psychological Fitness			0.399*	0.382*
Cardiac Rhythmography
Mean RR Interval	–0.643**	–0.745**
Note. *р ≤0.05; **р ≤0.01. Примечание. *р ≤0,05; **р ≤0,01.

 

As shown in the table, the mean expert scores and expert scores for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies in the command personnel group had moderate positive correlations with Visual Distance Perception and Spatial Thinking (Coordinates, r_xy=0.497 at p ≤0.05) and a high negative correlation with the mean RR Interval (Cardiac Rhythmography, r_xy=–0.643 at p ≤0.01). Expert scores for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies also had moderate positive correlations with Commitment to Career (MPM, r_xy=0.402 at p ≤0.05).

There were moderate positive correlations of expert scores for Professional Performance with Visual Short-Term Memory scores (Figures, r_xy=0.417 at p ≤0.05) and Integrated Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.399 at p ≤0.05). There were also high correlations of expert scores for Professional Performance with Spatial Perception and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.705 at p ≤0.01). In addition, there were moderate correlations with personal qualities (MLPQ-A) such as Neural and Psychiatric Stability (r_xy=0.500 at p ≤0.05) and Communication (r_xy=0.432 at p ≤0.05).

There were moderate correlations of expert scores for Credibility in Group with Integrated Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.382 at р ≤0.05), Control of Desires scores (MPM, r_xy=0.447 at р ≤0.05), and Neuroticism scores (EPI, r_xy=0.504 at р ≤0.05).

The analysis revealed correlations between psychological and psychophysiological parameters and expert scores for Professional Performance in the operators personnel group (Table 7).

 

Table 7. Statistically significant correlations between professional and psychologic characteristics and expert evaluations in the operator specialty group based on Spearman’s correlation (rxy) Таблица 7. Статистически значимые корреляционные взаимосвязи ПВК с экспертными оценками в группе специалистов операторского профиля с применением корреляции Спирмена (rxy)
Parameters	Mean Expert Score	Expert Score for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies	Expert Score for Professional Performance	Expert Score for Credibility in the Group
Motivation
Control of Desires, MPM, Score	0.436*	0.431*
Intelligence Tests
Performance, Figures, Score				0.435*
S Test, Performance, Score	0.474*	0.448*	0.396*
Performance, Coordinates, Score	0.476*	0.439*	0.450*	0.376*
Performance, Finding Numbers with Switching, Score			0.485	0.453*
Integrated Cognitive, Score	0.462*	0.383*	0.398*	0.375*
Integrated Score for Professional Psychological Fitness			0.399*	0.382*
Psychomotor and Neurodynamic Qualities
Nervous System Strength, Tapping Test		0.531*
Note. *р ≤0.05. Примечание. *р ≤0,05.

 

The correlation analysis showed that in the operators personnel group, there were moderate positive correlations of mean expert scores with Control of Desires scores (MPM, r_xy=0.436 at р ≤0.05), Spatial and Visual Thinking scores (S Test, r_xy=0.474 at р ≤0.05), Spatial Ability scores, Visual Distance Perception scores, Attention Allocation scores, and Attention Span scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.476 at р ≤0.05), and Integrated Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.462 at р ≤0.05).

There were moderate positive correlations of expert scores for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies with Control of Desires scores (MPM, r_xy=0.431 at p ≤0.05), Spatial and Visual Thinking scores (S Test, r_xy=0.448 at p ≤0.05), Spatial Ability scores and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.439 at p ≤0.05), Integrated Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.383 at p ≤0.05), and Nervous System Strength scores (Tapping Test, r_xy=0.531 at p ≤0.05).

There were moderate positive correlations of expert scores for Professional Performance with the total level of MPM (r_xy=0.449 at p ≤0.05), Spatial Visual Thinking scores (S Test, r_xy=0.396 at p ≤0.05), Spatial Ability and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.450 at p ≤0.05), Attention Allocation and Attention Switch scores (Searching for Numbers with Switching, r_xy=0.485 at p ≤0.05), Integrated Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.398 at p ≤0.05), integrated Professional Psychological Fitness scores (r_xy=0.399 at p ≤0.05), as well as moderate negative correlations with Extroversion scores (EPI, r_xy=–0.451 at p ≤0.05).

There were significant positive correlations of expert scores for Credibility in Group with Normal Moral Commitment (MLPQ-A, r_xy=0.632 at р ≤0.05) and moderate positive correlations with Visual Memory scores (Figures, r_xy=0.432 at р ≤0.05), Spatial and Visual Thinking scores (S Test, r_xy=0.376 at р ≤0.05), Spatial Ability scores and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.402 at р ≤0.05), Attention Allocation scores and Attention Switch scores (Finding Numbers with Switching, r_xy=0.453 at р ≤0.05), integrated Professional Psychological Fitness scores (r_xy=0.382 at р ≤0.05), and Integrated Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.375 at р ≤0.05). In addition, there were moderate negative correlations with Neuroticism scores (EPI, r_xy=0.423 at р ≤0.05).

Table 8 presents statistically significant correlations between psychological parameters and expert scores for Professional Performance in the engineers personnel group.

 

Table 8. Statistically significant correlations between professional and psychologic characteristics and expert evaluations in the engineering and technical specialty group based on Spearman’s correlation (rxy) Таблица 8. Статистически значимые корреляционные взаимосвязи ПВК с экспертными оценками в группе специалистов инженерно-технического профиля с применением корреляции Спирмена (rxy)
Parameters	Mean Expert Score	Expert Score for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies	Expert Score for Professional Performance	Expert Score for Credibility in the Group
MPM
Emotional Balance, Score	0.355**	0.356**	0.266*	0.306*
Total Level, Score			0.262*	0.289*
Cognitive Qualities
Performance, Coordinates, Score	0.323*	0.419**	0.403**	0.333*
Integrated Score for Professional Psychological Fitness	0.324*			0.324*
Psychomotor and Neurodynamic Qualities
Nervous System Strength, Tapping Test	0.597**	0.433*	0.508*	0.591**
Cardiac Hythmography
Mean RR Interval			–0.419*	–0.497*
Note. *р ≤0.05; **р ≤0.01. Примечание. *р ≤0,05; **р ≤0,01.

 

In the engineers personnel group, there were moderate positive correlations of mean expert scores with Emotional Balance scores (MPM, r_xy=0.355 at p ≤0.05), with Spatial Perception scores, Visual Distance Perception scores, Attention Allocation scores, and Attention Span scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.323 at p ≤0.05), and with integrated scores for Professional Psychological Fitness (r_xy=0.324 at p ≤0.05). There were also high correlations with Nervous System Strength scores (Tapping Test, r_xy=0.597 at p ≤0.01).

There were also moderate positive correlations of expert scores for Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies with Emotional Balance scores (MPM, r_xy=0.356 at р ≤0.05), Normal Moral Commitment scores (MLPQ-A, r_xy=0.288 at р ≤0.05), Spatial Perception scores and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.419 at р ≤0.05), and Nervous System Strength scores (Tapping Test, r_xy=0.433 at р ≤0.05) in the group.

There were moderate positive correlations of expert scores for Professional Performance with Emotional Balance scores and total scores (MPM, r_xy=0.266 and r_xy=0.262 at р ≤0.05), Spatial Perception scores and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.403 at р ≤0.05), Nervous System Strength scores (Tapping Test, r_xy=0.508 at р ≤0.05), and integrated scores for Professional Psychological Fitness (r_xy=0.419 at р ≤0.05).

There were moderate positive correlations of expert scores for Credibility in Group with Appropriateness of Beliefs scores (r_xy=0.404 at р ≤0.05), Desire for Self-Actualization scores (r_xy=0.311 at р ≤0.05), Emotional Balance scores (r_xy=0.306 at р ≤0.05), Optimism scores (r_xy=0.281 at р ≤0.05), integrated MPM scores (r_xy=0.289 at р ≤0.05), Spatial Perception scores and Visual Distance Perception scores (Coordinates, r_xy=0.333 at р ≤0.05), integrated scores for Professional Psychological Fitness (r_xy=0.324 at р ≤0.05), Total Cognitive Scores (r_xy=0.291 at р ≤0,05), and mean RR intervals (r_xy=0.497 at р ≤0.05). There were also high positive correlations with Nervous System Strength scores (Tapping Test, r_xy=0.591 at р ≤0.01).

Comparative and correlation analyses revealed that emotional balance was the primary IPQ for engineers personnel.

The IPQs evaluated in this study contribute multidirectionally to the professional performance of different naval personnel. Key contributing factors across all groups included motivational parameters, spatial perception, visual distance perception, high attention span, and attention allocation.

The significance of IPQs for different groups was also determined.

The most significant qualities for professional performance assessment in the command personnel group are personal traits such as professional motivation and high personal adjustment. Visual short-term memory, spatial perception, and visual distance perception are important intelligence characteristics that contribute to professional performance.

In the operators personnel group, the majority of correlations with expert scores were found for characteristics of intelligence, such as visual short-term memory, attention switch and allocation, spatial and visual thinking, and spatial perception. Personality traits, such as normal moral commitment (as measured by the MLPQ-A) and emotional stability and neuroticism (as measured by the EPI), influenced credibility within the group only.

In the engineers personnel group, many correlations were found with professional motivation characteristics. Regarding the characteristics of intelligence, the command personnel group only showed positive correlations with integrated scores for professional psychological fitness and spatial perception. This group showed statistically significant positive correlations of all expert scores with nervous system strength, as measured by the Tapping Test and the lowest stress scores, as measured by cardiac rhythmography.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed significant differences in psychological IPQs between the groups. For example, statistically significant differences in the desire for specialization, as measured by the MPM, were reported between the command and engineers personnel groups and the support personnel group. These differences reflect the depth and stability of the desire to acquire a particular military specialty and the function of the ANS. The optimal function of the ANS and the performance status were found in the engineers personnel group.

The predictive value of IPQs for professional performance depends on the professional activity structure and functions. A greater number of significant correlations for professional performance were found with personal traits in the command personnel group and with attention, thinking, perception, and nervous system characteristics in the operators personnel group. The most important qualities in the engineers personnel group were motivational characteristics and nervous system adjustment.

The study revealed the IPQs necessary for higher performance in the selected naval activities, including those of command, operators, and engineers personnel.

Professional performance in the command personnel group is associated with cognitive characteristics such as visual memory, spatial perception, visual distance perception, attention allocation and switching, and personal adjustment and communication.

Professional performance in the operators personnel group is associated with control of desires and extroversion/introversion, integrated cognitive scores, spatial perception, and visual distance perception (coordinates).

Professional performance in the engineers personnel group is associated with appropriateness of beliefs, diversity of interests, desire for self-actualization, emotional balance, optimism, commitment to career, normal moral commitment, spatial perception, visual distance perception, and attention allocation and switching.

Correlation analysis revealed significant correlations between expert scores and most professional selection criteria, and the rational distribution of PAVN submarine personnel in various specialties. To clarify the contribution of the identified IPQs to professional performance in various specialty groups, further research is required to optimize the methodology and develop mathematical equations for the criteria-based personnel distribution between specialties.

ADDITIONAL INFO

Authors contribution. All authors made significant contributions to the conception, conduct of the study and preparation of the article, and read and approved the final version before publication.

Competing interests. E.V. Kryukov, development of the general concept and design of the study; V.V. Yusupov, article preparation, study design, conclusion; E.V. Ivchenko, research methodology, development of the general concept; D.V. Ovchinnikov, development of the general concept, editing; V.A. Korzunin, introduction, materials and methods, conclusion; D.P. Zverev, data analysis and interpretation; E.O. Filippova, literature review, interpretation of results; S.N. Levich, database creation, statistical data processing; L.O. Marchenko, statistical data analysis, literature review; A.N. Andrusenko, study design, data analysis; A.Yu. Shitov, literature review, editing; H.T. Bui, systematization of study materials, article editing; L.T.T. Nguyen, collection of materials; Q.H. Nguyen, collection of materials, data analysis; N.T. Tran, collection of materials, data analisis; H.V. Nguyen, conduction research, creating primary materials; Ch.H. Pham, conduction research, creating primary materials; D.T. Duong, creating conditions for experimentation, conduction research.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no obvious or potential conflict of interest related to the publication of this article.

Funding source. The work was carried out with the financial support of joint scientific of the Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology Center (Vietnam-Russia Tropical Center, Vietnam) and Military Medical Academy.

Acknowledgments. The authors express their sincere gratitude to the command of the Naval Forces of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for organizing productive scientific interaction and assistance in conducting joint scientific research within the framework of the topic under the code “Ekolan M2-2”.

About the authors

Evgeny V. Kryukov

Military Medical Academy

Email: evgeniy.md@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8396-1936
SPIN-code: 3900-3441

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Vladislav V. Yusupov

Military Medical Academy

Author for correspondence.
Email: elizavetayusupova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5236-8419
SPIN-code: 9042-3320

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Evgeny V. Ivchenko

Military Medical Academy

Email: vmeda_37@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5582-1111
SPIN-code: 5228-1527

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Dmitry V. Ovchinnikov

Military Medical Academy

Email: dv.ovchinnikov-vma@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8408-5301
SPIN-code: 5437-3457

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Vladimir A. Korzunin

Military Medical Academy

Email: vakorzunin@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7332-6771
SPIN-code: 3172-2009

Dr. Sci. (Psychological), MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Dmitry P. Zverev

Military Medical Academy

Email: z.d.p@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3333-6769
SPIN-code: 7570-9568

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Elena O. Filippova

Military Medical Academy

Email: lena-philippova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-9529-5173
SPIN-code: 6495-2743
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Svetlana N. Levich

Military Medical Academy

Email: leviswet@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5874-1341
SPIN-code: 1278-3362
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Larisa O. Marchenko

Military Medical Academy

Email: marchenlara@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0425-6463
SPIN-code: 6497-6096
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Andrey N. Andrusenko

Military Medical Academy

Email: an.a.an@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7393-6000
SPIN-code: 6772-4452

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Arseniy Y. Shitov

Military Medical Academy

Email: arseniyshitov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5716-0932
SPIN-code: 7390-1240

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Honored Inventor of the Russian Federation

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Huong Thi Bui

Joint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology CenterJoint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology Center

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-2827-2540

Cand. Sci. (Biology), employee of the Laboratory of Adaptation and Military Medicine

Viet Nam, Hanoi

Linh Thi Thuy Nguyen

Joint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology CenterJoint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology Center

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com

laboratory assistant of the Laboratory of Adaptation and Military Medicine

Viet Nam, Hanoi

Quang Hong Nguyen

Joint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology CenterJoint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology Center

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com

MD, Cand. Sci. (Chemistry), the Head of the Laboratory of Adaptation and Military Medicine

Viet Nam, Hanoi

Nhai Thi Tran

Joint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology CenterJoint Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology Center

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com

deputy chief of the Laboratory of Adaptation and Military Medicine

Viet Nam, Hanoi

Hung Van Nguyen

Navy Forces

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com

ships doctor of the 189 Brigade

Viet Nam, Cam Ranh

Chinh Huu Pham

Navy Forces

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com

ships doctor of the 189 Brigade

Viet Nam, Cam Ranh

Dung Tien Duong

Navy Forces

Email: bhuong83@yahoo.com

representative of the military medical department

Viet Nam, Cam Ranh

References

Supplementary files