At the direction of Congress, the Army will implement higher minimum fitness standards on the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) for soldiers in close combat military occupational specialties. This report documents the available evidence to inform ACFT standards for close combat soldiers, examines the results from an Army Practice Phase piloting standards, and details courses of action for increasing ACFT standards and facilitating implementation.

Setting Higher Close Combat Standards for the Army Combat Fitness Test

Evidence and Recommendations

Sean Robson, Daniel Hicks, Elizabeth Chase, Amy Nabel, Carra S. Sims, Max Steiner

ResearchPublished Dec 20, 2024

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 calls for higher minimum fitness standards for soldiers in close combat military occupational specialties (MOSs). This report details options for increasing Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) standards for such soldiers.

After reviewing the evidence for setting higher fitness standards, the RAND team identified eight options for the Army to pilot in a "Practice Phase" among a sample of soldiers in close combat MOSs. The Army chose to pilot an increase in the total ACFT point standard to 450 points overall, along with a requirement of 150 pounds on the 3 Repetition Maximum Deadlift (MDL). Evidence from the Practice Phase suggests trade-offs across alternative standards and that the Practice Phase standard may be too high to achieve the Army's desired pass rates for various subgroups in the short term, particularly Guard and Reserve soldiers.

Soldiers' performance improves with experience, so the pass rates observed in the Practice Phase may understate the extent to which soldiers will continue to improve toward new standards. Several options for higher fitness standards satisfy important decision criteria and are reasonable courses of action for the Army. Options that raise the overall points requirement may be simplest to implement while promoting fitness among all close combat soldiers.

Key Findings

There is sufficient evidence to inform the Army's decision on raising ACFT standards for close combat MOSs

  • The ACFT with current administration protocols and standards has been evaluated against injury outcomes.
  • Higher ACFT standards for close combat MOSs can be implemented as a strategy to ensure that overall fitness is maintained at the higher levels demonstrated by soldiers in close combat MOSs.
  • For the MDL, there is strong evidence that can inform a specific higher minimum standard for combat MOSs based on combat task performance. For the other five ACFT events, the quality and quantity of evidence varies.

Results from the Practice Phase highlight trade-offs among alternative standards

  • Evidence from the Practice Phase suggests that an overall ACFT score minimum of 450 points and 150 pounds on the MDL may be too high to achieve a 95 percent overall pass rate and 90 percent pass rate for select subgroups. Under all options considered, the reserve component exhibits lower pass rates.
  • Alternative approaches to higher standards affect ACFT pass rates differently. Younger, female soldiers have lower pass rates when the MDL standard increases, while several MOSs have lower pass rates when the standard for total ACFT points is increased to 450.
  • However, prior research shows that soldiers' performance improves with experience, so the pass rates observed in the Practice Phase may understate the extent to which soldiers will continue to improve toward new standards.

Recommendations

  • The Army should weigh the evidence across such key decision criteria as defensibility and relevance to general fitness or combat task performance and select a standard accordingly.
  • Consider compensatory approaches that raise as a new standard the overall points requirement to ease implementation and minimize variation in subgroup outcomes.
  • Supporting policy should be implemented to facilitate the movement to higher standards. This could include glide paths to allow soldiers sufficient time to train, access to training resources, and clear messaging about the goals of the higher ACFT standard.
  • Consider re-norming the scoring system at the same time as adopting higher standards to reflect current age and gender norms throughout the Army and ensure that norms are appropriately set for soldiers in both close combat and non–close combat MOSs.
  • Collect further evidence for minimum ACFT standards through criterion-related validation studies that examine the relationship between each ACFT event and organizational outcomes, such as combat task performance, retention rates, and other relevant metrics.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Robson, Sean, Daniel Hicks, Elizabeth Chase, Amy Nabel, Carra S. Sims, and Max Steiner, Setting Higher Close Combat Standards for the Army Combat Fitness Test: Evidence and Recommendations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3092-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army and conducted by the Personnel, Training, and Health Program within the RAND Arroyo Center.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.