Data and Code for: Higher STCW-Aligned BRM Knowledge Is Associated with Flatter Authority Gradient Attitudes in Pre-Certification Naval Cadets
Authors/Creators
- 1. Department of Seamanship and Navigation, Education Division, Royal Thai Naval Academy
Description
De-identified dataset, research instruments, content-validity evidence, and analysis code for a census survey of 70 third-year naval cadets, none yet certified, testing whether STCW-aligned Bridge Resource Management knowledge goes with greater willingness to challenge unsafe decisions.
Knowledge and stated willingness to challenge were positively correlated (Spearman rs = 0.546, 95% CI [0.36, 0.69], p < .0001). In an exploratory comparison, the association was stronger on the ten core authority-gradient items (rs = 0.630) than on the other twelve (rs = 0.299). The association held under four checks for alternative explanations. The result is consistent with the first link of the certification assumption; the design is cross-sectional and measures attitudes, and cadets simply agreeing with what they were taught cannot be excluded.
The analysis script reproduces every statistic in the associated manuscript from the dataset; a second script reproduces both figures. Because participants were told their data would be used only in aggregate, files are restricted and are available on reasonable request to the author, for verification or reanalysis only.
Notes
v1.2 accompanies the revised manuscript. The analysis script now reproduces every value in the revised Results, including the robustness summary table, the keying-stratified subscale comparison, the reliability of each keying set, and the subscale comparison with hierarchy-related knowledge items removed. The disattenuated correlation reported with the first submission is no longer reported. The subscale intercorrelation is now Spearman (0.510) rather than Pearson (0.508). Supplementary Material 2 corrects the attribution of its content-validity thresholds and repairs table cells whose text had spilled across columns; Supplementary Material 1 adds an abbreviations list, the pilot study and a reference list. Both figures are regenerated with revised labels and precision, and a figure script is added. Because participants were told their data would be used only in aggregate, the record will stay restricted after publication rather than open on acceptance as first planned. The dataset itself is unchanged.
Files
Restricted
The record is publicly accessible, but files are restricted. Log in to check if you have access.
Additional details
Dates
- Collected
-
2026-07-08/2026-07-09
Software
- Programming language
- Python
References
- Rovinelli, R.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49-60.
- Lynn, M.R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385.
- Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497.
- Helmreich, R.L. (1984). Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors, 26(5), 583-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088402600510
- Gregorich, S.E., Helmreich, R.L., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1990). The structure of cockpit management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 682-690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.682