Accuracy and Cost Effectiveness of Army Body Fat % Calculations

Alan MayrerTom NorrisAl Renner

Edward Taylor

History

• Army definition of an effective leader.

• Army disqualifying factors.

Questions

• Core Question– Is the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG)

disqualifying good leaders because soldiers exceed the OHARNG’s body fat percentage standard?

• Secondary Questions– Is the OHARNG method of measuring body fat

percentage accurate?– If the OHARNG’s current method is inaccurate,

what more accurate methods exist

Questions continued

• Secondary Questions– What are the costs associated with discharging

soldiers as a result of not adhering to the body fat standards?

– Are there any cost savings associated with using a different body fat measurement tool/process?

Research Purpose and Rationale

• Why is this important?

• How will information be obtained?

• What do we want to have happen?

• Who do we need to influence to get it done?

Research Setting and Context

• Ohio Army National Guard• Vision – “When called we respond with ready

units”• Focused on process for calculating % BF• Setting – Joint Force HQs, Columbus, OH• Two possible outcomes for organization:– Change method of calculating % body fat– Keep existing method of calculating % body fat

Data Collection

• Secondary data is sufficient– Two main sources: Deputy Chief of Staff for

Personnel and the OHARNG Operations and Training department (G-3)

• Analyze personnel data to select a target group

• The key stakeholders• Evidence that will influence stakeholders

Data Analysis

• Techniques– Record and sort common data from secondary

research sources– Note any discrepancies in research• Secondary research may have opposing results

– Cross-tabulation method• Finds relationship between two variables• Introduce elaboration analysis

Data Analysis (cont.)

Organization1) Members Discharged by Gender and Reason • Indicates how many soldiers discharge for BF%

2) Members Discharged by Gender and by Body Fat %• Number of soldiers in BF% range per Gender

3) Cost of Member Discharged by Gender & Body Fat %• Cost of soldier in the BF% range

Data Analysis (cont.)

4) Margin of Error and Cost of Measurement by Gender • Compares margin of error per gender for each method• Shows cost of method per gender

5) Margin of Error with Discharged Soldiers by Body Fat %• How many soldiers in each BF% and MOE%

Data Analysis (cont.)

6) Comparing Costs by Margin of Error with Discharged Soldiers by Body Fat % Cost of Discharged by Body Fat Percentage Over Minimum

Gender Method Margin of

Error %

0.01-

0.99%

1.0%-

1.99%

2.00%-

2.99%

3.00%-

3.99%

4.00%-

4.99%

5.00%-

5.99%

6.00%-

6.99%

Totals

Male OHARNG

Standard

$$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Male Alt. 2 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Male Alt. 3 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Female OHARNG

Standard

$$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Female Alt. 2 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Female Alt. 3 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Totals: $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Data Analysis (cont.)

7) Comparing Costs by Method Gender Method Discharge Totals Cost of Method

Per Soldier

Cost of Method *

Number of

Soldiers

Total Cost

Male OHARNG Standard $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Male Alt. 2 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Male Alt. 3 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Female OHARNG Standard $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Female Alt. 2 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

Female Alt. 3 $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$ $$.$$

• Skinfold (hand calipers) vs. Bioelectrical impedance Conclusion: “Anthropometric method significantly

underestimated and bioimpedance overestimated body fat compared to the D2O method”

• Ultrasound portable (UT) device vs. Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) machine Result: UT as accurate as DEXA; however, it costs

less and is portable

Review of Relevant Literature

Review of Relevant Literature• CBE (Circumference Based Equations )+ Simple and low cost to administer– Limited ability to validly estimate body fat

percentage• SBE (Skinfold Based Equations)+ Valid and reliable results, more costly than CBE – Impractical for military personnel to administer

• HW (Hydrostatic Weighing)+ Thoroughly validated lab method– Relies on specialized & costly equipment

Data Presentation

• Deputy & other audience members will receive official report before briefing

• Beginning of Briefing:– Review purpose of the research– Organizational problem hypothesis– Sub Questions– Benefits of Data

• Know discharge costs associated with Body Fat %• May discover cheaper measuring method• May find more accurate methods, thus reducing costs of

training and replacement (discharge costs)

Data Presentation

• Review the data collected– Where– Who authorized– Types of data collected

• Give totals in two formats:– Grand Totals– Totals by Gender

• Types– Bar graph most appropriate

Cost by Method (grand total view)

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 OHARNG Standard$0.00

$50,000.00

$100,000.00

$150,000.00

$200,000.00

$250,000.00

$124,900.00

$210,700.00

$236,500.00

Sum of Discharge TotalsSum of Cost of Method * Number of SoldiersSum of Total Cost

Cost

in U

.S. d

olla

rs

Cost of Method per Gender

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 OHARNG Standard

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 OHARNG Standard

Female Male

$0.00

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

$140,000.00

$57,400.00

$93,700.00

$107,500.00

$67,500.00

$117,000.00

$129,000.00

Sum of Discharge TotalsSum of Cost of Method * Number of SoldiersSum of Total Cost

Cost

in U

.S. d

olla

rs

Data Presentation (cont)

• Graphs will be in sequential order– Explain the process at required level of detail– Final Slides will have conclusions

Timeline

• Data Collection (costs and methods)– 3 months

• Army paperwork requests– 6 months

• Army paperwork time frame– 15 years• Half before war started• Half after war began

Timeline continued……

• Implementation– 1 year of final recommendation– 5 year nationwide (if recommended)

• Revisiting issue– Every year

Timeline Title

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5

Line 6

Line 7

Line 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

On time!

To edit the timeline, select the timeline object, and then click Ungroup on the Draw menu.

Resources

• People– Statistician– Research Analyst– G1 & G3

• Hardware– Computers & communications

• Software– MS Office– XL Stat

Resources

• People– Statistician• ensure the quality of data/organization

– Research analyst • with military briefing experience• Publish final report

– Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (G1 & G3) • Personnel Data• Training costs Data

Resources (continued)

• Equipment– Computers– Communications (Internet)

• Software– Research & Analysis• MS Office• XL Stat• Encryption Software if required by G1

Permissions

• The Adjutant General for OH National Guard– Responsible for military readiness of AG Dept– Senior Cdr of Ast. Adjutant General Army

• Ast. Adjutant General Army (ATAG)– Commander Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG)

• OHARNG is source of secondary research data• Need TAG & ATAG as champions to US Army

Potential Ethical Issues

• Two potential ethical issues– Pride effects decision making process

• Alternative is more cost effective method but not selected

– Unscrupulous Army personnel may record false BF% • Personal bias towards certain soldiers

• Actions to address issues– Charts: to objectively show costs associated with

both methods

Changes expected

• Army will change BF measurement method– More cost efficient– More accurate• Update Army 600-9 Regulation• No grandfathering

• Army will train all soldiers on new methods• Fewer soldiers being discharged– Talent pool for officers and non-commissioned

officers increases

Things done differently

• Change order of process– Move section 7 to before 5– Brief section 1-3 before moving forward• Receive feedback and approval before moving to

section 4 – 6• Saves time and errors in sections 4-6