Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development – Emergency Training (FIRE-E)

Abstract

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development – Emergency Training (German: Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung – Einsatzübung, abbreviated as FIRE-E) is a specialized, psychometrically validated evaluation instrument designed to assess the instructional quality and training efficacy of high-fidelity practical emergency simulations (Einsatzübungen) within emergency responder education. Developed through a long-standing academic-applied research collaboration between the Department of Organizational and Business Psychology at the University of Münster and the Institute of the Fire Brigade of North Rhine-Westphalia (Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen; IdF NRW), the FIRE-E operates as an autonomous modular component of the broader FIRE evaluation framework (Schulte & Thielsch, 2019; Schulte, Babiel, Messinger, & Thielsch, 2019). While the core FIRE questionnaire targets overarching course dimensions such as instructor behavior, structure, group dynamics, and general competence acquisition, the FIRE-E isolates the specific experiential and instructional determinants of simulated practical field drills.

The instrument comprises four unidimensional items capturing self-perceived learning gains, instructor feedback utility, immediate practical knowledge transfer, and the perceived appropriateness of drill difficulty. Responses are collected via a standard seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = “completely disagree” to 7 = “completely agree”), supplemented by an explicit “not evaluable” (nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar) option to prevent forced non-attitudes. Psychometric evaluations across multiple empirical samples comprising command-level rescue force personnel (e.g., N = 375 operational leaders) demonstrated strong structural and psychometric robustness. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a strictly unidimensional measurement model exhibiting excellent global fit indices (χ²(2) = 3.40, p = .183; CFI = .998; TLI = .994; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .01) and uniformly high standardized factor loadings (λ > .70). Reliability analysis based on a congeneric model yielded high internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = .87; Cronbach’s α = .86). Extensive criterion-related and construct validity investigations confirmed substantial convergent correlations with core pedagogical process and outcome variables, as well as distinct divergence from affective bias variables, establishing the FIRE-E as an indispensable, scientifically validated diagnostic tool for emergency response training academies.

Keywords

FIRE-E, emergency training evaluation, rescue forces, firefighter education, high-fidelity simulation, leadership training, instructional quality, psychometrics, practical drills, debriefing feedback

Authors

The FIRE-E questionnaire module was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by researchers at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (University of Münster) in institutional partnership with training leaders and instructional designers at the Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen (IdF NRW):

• Meinald T. Thielsch, Ph.D. — Professor and Senior Researcher at the Institute of Psychology, Department of Organizational and Business Psychology (Organisations- und Wirtschaftspsychologie), University of Münster, Germany. Dr. Thielsch specializes in personnel psychology, teaching evaluation, occupational health and safety in extreme environments, and human-computer interaction.
• Florian Schulte, M.Sc. — Researcher and Organizational Psychologist, Department of Organizational and Business Psychology, University of Münster, Germany. Lead investigator on the overarching FIRE project addressing leadership training evaluation across emergency services.
• Collaborative Research Consortium at IdF NRW: Developed in institutional cooperation with administrative and instructional personnel at the Institute of the Fire Brigade of North Rhine-Westphalia (Münster, Germany), the highest fire service educational institute in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia responsible for the command training of fire officers, battalion chiefs, and disaster management crisis staffs.

Purpose

The operational environment encountered by emergency service personnel—including structural and wildland firefighters, incident commanders, emergency medical service (EMS) technicians, search and rescue teams, and disaster response forces—is characterized by acute physical danger, volatile uncertainty, severe temporal constraints, informational ambiguity, and high-consequence decision stakes. In extreme situations, the analytical competence, situational awareness, and command execution of operational leaders (e.g., group leaders, platoon commanders, and incident commanders) directly determine life safety, incident mitigation, and operational success. Under standard operating service regulations (such as the German Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschrift 100; FwDV 100), the command loop requires rapid cyclic movement through continuous assessment of the situation, prospective operational planning, and the issuance of precise tactical directives.

While theoretical knowledge regarding fire dynamics, structural collapse, chemical hazard categorization, and command protocols can be delivered effectively through traditional classroom lectures and tabletop exercises (Planübungen), experiential competence in commanding live units under environmental stress cannot be acquired through passive didactic methods alone. Real-world incident experience is unpredictable, hazardous, and cannot be systematically scheduled or titrated for educational purposes. Consequently, emergency training academies rely heavily on high-fidelity practical field drills (Einsatzübungen). In these drills, complex disaster environments are realistically simulated using smoke generators, industrial wreckage, simulated victims (standardized mock patients or crisis actors), burning infrastructure, and live apparatus deployment.

Despite the central role and heavy financial, logistical, and personnel resource investments required for practical simulation exercises, their pedagogical quality was historically assumed rather than empirically evaluated. Prior to the development of the FIRE-E, emergency training organizations lacked a psychometrically validated, standardized instrument to assess whether simulated field exercises actually achieved their didactic goals. The primary purpose of the FIRE-E is to provide a reliable, objective, and scientifically sound instrument capable of:

• Diagnosing Instructional Quality in Applied Simulations: Assessing whether simulated drills are perceived by course participants as meaningful experiential learning environments rather than unstructured mechanical drills.
• Optimizing Feedback and Debriefing Dynamics: Monitoring the perceived utility, precision, and pedagogical value of post-exercise feedback provided by evaluating instructors, which is foundational to reflective professional practice.
• Calibrating Simulation Difficulty: Determining whether the instructional difficulty and operational complexity of scenarios are appropriately balanced to prevent cognitive overload or under-stimulation.
• Assessing Immediate Knowledge Application: Verifying that newly acquired command principles, tactical doctrines, and procedural skills can be immediately transferred and applied in simulated operational realities.
• Facilitating Quality Management and Longitudinal Benchmarking: Providing training directors and state academies with standardized comparative data to evaluate instructional revisions, scenario design modifications, and instructor development programs over time.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the FIRE-E is defined as the perceived pedagogical and instructional quality of practical emergency simulations within rescue force command education. In psychometric terms, the instrument captures a concise, unidimensional evaluation construct reflecting four tightly interrelated core facets of effective experiential adult learning in high-stress simulation contexts:

1. Perceived Substantive Learning Gains (Subjektiver Lerngewinn)

Learning in adult education is fundamentally mediated by the participant’s subjective perception of personal capability enhancement and cognitive expansion. Item 1 (“Ich habe bei den Einsatzübungen viel gelernt” – “I learned a lot during the emergency training drills”) captures the global perceived utility and cognitive advancement derived from the simulation. Drawing upon classical training evaluation frameworks (such as Kirkpatrick’s level 2 learning criteria operationalized via self-assessment), this dimension assesses whether the tactical drill succeeded in advancing the participant’s practical command competence beyond their baseline entry knowledge.

2. Debriefing and Instructor Feedback Efficacy (Nützliches Dozentenfeedback)

In high-fidelity simulation, the physical drill constitutes only one component of the instructional cycle; the critical cognitive consolidation occurs during the post-drill debriefing (Nachbesprechung). Item 2 (“Die Dozenten gaben mir nützliches Feedback zu meinen Leistungen in den Einsatzübungen” – “The instructors provided me with useful feedback regarding my performance during the emergency training drills”) assesses the diagnostic, constructive, and actionable quality of instructor feedback. Effective feedback clarifies the causal links between command decisions and tactical outcomes, illuminates procedural errors, and suggests viable operational alternatives without inducing defensiveness.

3. Knowledge Transfer and Application (Wissenstransfer und -anwendung)

Theoretical knowledge remains inert unless learners can actively retrieve, synthesize, and execute it within dynamic environmental settings. Item 3 (“In den Einsatzübungen konnte ich das neuerworbene Wissen anwenden” – “In the emergency training drills, I was able to apply the newly acquired knowledge”) measures immediate procedural transfer. This reflects the degree to which theoretical instructional blocks (e.g., hazard identification schemes, command communication hierarchies, hazardous materials protocols) are functionally integrated into hands-on tactical leadership during the simulation.

4. Instructional Challenge and Calibrated Difficulty (Angemessener Schwierigkeitsgrad)

The didactic efficacy of an emergency simulation depends heavily on the alignment between task complexity and trainee competency. Item 4 (“Der Schwierigkeitsgrad der Einsatzübungen war angemessen” – “The difficulty level of the emergency training drills was appropriate”) evaluates whether the simulation avoided both frustrating cognitive overwhelm (which leads to paralysis or chaotic coping) and trivial simplicity (which induces boredom and fails to test decision-making heuristics). An appropriate level of challenge sustains high engagement, triggers adaptive cognitive effort, and fosters meaningful learning within the participant’s proximal developmental zone.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the FIRE-E are deeply rooted in contemporary cognitive psychology, occupational learning theory, and naturalistic decision-making paradigms. The instrument operationalizes principles established across four major theoretical bodies:

1. Experiential Learning Theory and the Reflective Practitioner

According to David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory, robust learning follows a recurring four-stage cycle: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. In rescue force development, simulated field exercises provide the mandatory Concrete Experience. However, as Donald Schön highlighted in his conceptualization of the “reflective practitioner,” unguided experience does not automatically generate expertise. Experience must be coupled with structured “reflection-on-action.” Instructor debriefings during practical exercises create this reflective space, allowing command trainees to examine their cognitive schema, decompose operational breakdowns, and form generalized action models for future operations.

2. Cognitive Load Theory (CLT)

Originating from educational psychology (Sweller, 1988; Paas et al., 2003), Cognitive Load Theory posits that human working memory has finite processing capacity. In emergency simulations, cognitive load is partitioned into:

• Intrinsic Load: The inherent complexity of the emergency scenario itself (e.g., multiple entrapped casualties, toxic vapor clouds, collapsing structures).
• Extraneous Load: Ineffective instructional design, confusing briefing instructions, or ambiguous simulation artifacts that consume mental bandwidth without aiding learning.
• Germane Load: Cognitive resources devoted to schema acquisition, situational assessment, and command decision-making.

The FIRE-E’s explicit focus on “appropriate difficulty” (Item 4) directly captures the successful management of cognitive load. When scenarios are titrated to match learner developmental stages, extraneous load is minimized and germane load is optimized, facilitating deeper encoding of tactical schemata.

3. Naturalistic Decision-Making (NDM) and Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) Models

Traditional normative decision theories assume rational, exhaustive multi-attribute utility evaluations. However, research into incident commanders operating in high-stakes, time-compressed settings (Klein, 1993, 1997) revealed that experts rely on Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) strategies. Incident commanders rapidly recognize prototypical environmental cues, match them to internal mental libraries of historical patterns, and run mental simulations to select viable courses of action. Because novice leaders lack extensive field experience, emergency simulations must serve as an artificial surrogate for experiential pattern accumulation. The FIRE-E measures whether drills provide authentic opportunities to exercise RPD mechanisms and validate newly acquired procedural rules under realistic operational friction.

4. The Command and Control Loop (FwDV 100)

From an applied operational perspective, the FIRE-E is framed around the standardized command-and-control doctrine formalized across continental European emergency agencies (e.g., German Fire Service Regulation 100 / Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschrift 100). This framework operationalizes leadership as an unbroken cyclical process composed of:

1. Situation Assessment (Lagefeststellung): Active reconnaissance, damage identification, personal/material resource assessment, and environmental monitoring.
2. Planning (Planung): Danger appraisal, tactical prioritization, multi-criteria alternative evaluation, and operational resolution (Entschluss).
3. Command Execution (Befehlsgebung): Translating operational intent into unambiguous orders directed to subordinate unit leaders (e.g., platoon, group, squad, and breathing-apparatus teams).

Field drills evaluated by the FIRE-E explicitly immerse trainees in this cyclical loop, requiring instructors to observe operational decisions and provide structured, targeted debriefings.

Validity

The validation protocol for the FIRE-E followed rigorous psychometric standards, systematically evaluating content validity, structural validity, convergent construct validity, and discriminant validity across multiple sequential cohorts at the IdF NRW.

1. Content Validity and Expert Review (Study I)

Content validity was established through systematic qualitative and quantitative review panels. Seven veteran fire service command instructors (mean age M = 38.9 years, SD = 6.0; 86% male) and 26 command course participants (group leader trainees; mean age M = 30.5 years, SD = 6.9; 96% male) independently rated candidate items. Reviewers evaluated item comprehensibility, operational relevance, and pedagogical authenticity. Across the panel, every proposed emergency training item was rated as “important” or “very important” by >90% of respondents. Crucially, fewer than 3% identified any comprehensibility deficits or linguistic ambiguity, confirming exceptional content validity across both educators and trainees.

2. Convergent Construct Validity

Construct validity was examined by correlating the FIRE-E score with validated subscales from the comprehensive FIRE core instrument (Schulte & Thielsch, 2019) across N = 375 command trainees (Study III). Hypotheses predicted that perceived drill quality would correlate strongly and positively with pedagogical process dimensions and global course outcome indicators:

• Correlation with Competence Acquisition (Kompetenzerwerb): Demonstrating high convergent validity, the FIRE-E correlated strongly with the core questionnaire’s overarching competence acquisition dimension (r ≈ .65 to .75, p < .001), indicating that trainees who rate drill design favorably report markedly greater professional mastery.
• Correlation with Instructor Behavior (Dozentenverhalten): Significant moderate-to-high correlations emerged with general instructor behavior ratings (r > .60, p < .001), reflecting the pivotal role of pedagogical coaching and debriefing during simulation exercises.
• Correlation with Transfer Preparation (Vorbereitung & Transfer): Moderate-to-high associations (r > .55, p < .001) confirmed that effective simulation drills directly enhance perceived preparedness for subsequent real-world fireground operations.
• Correlation with Tabletop Exercises (Planübungen): The FIRE-E exhibited strong positive correlations with the modular scale evaluating tabletop simulations (r > .60), demonstrating coherent nomological networking across active didactic methodologies.

3. Discriminant and Divergent Validity

A frequent challenge in student evaluations of teaching (SET) is contamination by extraneous affective biases—nuisance variables that influence evaluation scores but reflect personal mood or contextual artifacts rather than instructional quality (Spiel, 2001). To evaluate discriminant validity, the validation protocol measured several potential bias variables:

• Participant Affective Mood: Assessed via a validated five-point smiley rating scale (Jäger, 2004) immediately prior to evaluation. The FIRE-E showed trivial-to-negligible associations with acute participant mood state, indicating that ratings reflect stable instructional attributes rather than transient situational affect.
• Irrelevant Demographic and Organizational Artifacts: Divergent analyses revealed no meaningful contamination by participant volunteer status (volunteer vs. career firefighters), administrative affiliation, or basic demographic variables, demonstrating high discriminant robustness.

Reliability

The reliability of the FIRE-E was examined across multiple independent firefighter cohorts at the IdF NRW using classical and modern internal consistency estimators.

1. Congeneric Model Fit and Reliability Estimators

In psychometric measurement, traditional Cronbach’s α relies on the strict, often violated assumption of essential tau-equivalence (where all items measure the latent construct with identical true score variance and equivalent factor loadings). To verify this assumption, a chi-square difference test (Δχ²) was computed between a tau-equivalent model and a congeneric model (where loadings are freely estimated):

• Study II (N = 155): Δχ²(3) = 10.67, p = .014.
• Study III (N = 375): Δχ²(3) = 13.02, p = .005.

Because the chi-square difference tests were statistically significant in both cohorts, the assumption of essential tau-equivalence was rejected, demonstrating that the FIRE-E represents a congeneric measurement model. Consequently, McDonald’s omega (ω) serves as the mathematically appropriate, unbiased reliability coefficient.

2. Empirical Reliability Coefficients

Despite consisting of only four items, the FIRE-E demonstrated excellent internal consistency across independent samples:

• Cohort Study II (N = 155): McDonald’s ω_H = .87; Cronbach’s α = .87.
• Cohort Study III (N = 375): McDonald’s ω_H = .87; Cronbach’s α = .86.

Item-total corrected correlations (discrimination indices / Trennschärfen) in the final validation sample (N = 375) were high across all four items: Item 1 (r_it = .73), Item 2 (r_it = .68), Item 3 (r_it = .77), and Item 4 (r_it = .69). These coefficients confirm that each item shares substantial true score variance with the overarching latent construct.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the FIRE-E items was examined through sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic workflows using RStudio (Version 1.2.5001) and the structural equation modeling package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012).

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) & Item Screening (Study II)

During initial exploratory work, candidate items representing multiple instructional modalities (self-directed learning [EVA], group work [G], tabletop exercises [PL], and emergency field drills [E]) were analyzed together in a sample of N = 155 command trainees. Items displaying insufficient item discrimination (r_it < .30) or restricted variance (SD < .85) were screened. Because psychometric design guidelines (e.g., Bühner, 2006) recommend maintaining a minimum of three manifesting indicators per latent factor in unrestricted exploratory extractions, the emergency training items were systematically modeled as a dedicated unidimensional scale constructed in structural parallel to the highly robust tabletop exercise scale (PL; factor loadings .70–.88).

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Study III)

To verify the hypothesized single-factor structure of the four emergency drill items, a rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis was executed on the large validation sample of N = 375 emergency command personnel using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR) to account for slight multivariate non-normality. Model fit was evaluated against the recognized cutoff criteria established by Hu and Bentler (1999):

• Chi-Square Statistic: χ²(2) = 3.40, p = .183 (indicating that the model covariance matrix does not differ significantly from the empirical data covariance matrix).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .998 (exceeding the ≥ .95 standard for superior fit).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .994 (exceeding the ≥ .95 standard).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .041 [90% Confidence Interval: .000, .118].
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .013 (well below the ≤ .08 threshold).

3. Factor Loadings and Item Descriptives

All standardized factor loadings (λ) in the CFA model were positive, statistically significant at p < .001, and substantially exceeded the standard .70 threshold. Table 1 outlines the item properties, distributional parameters, corrected discrimination coefficients, and factor loadings from the validation sample (N = 375):

The empirical results substantiate that all four items serve as coherent, high-performing indicators of the underlying emergency simulation instructional quality construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development – Emergency Training (FIRE-E; Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung – Einsatzübung).
• Overarching Diagnostic Suite: Modular teaching evaluation inventory appended to the FIRE core questionnaire (Schulte & Thielsch, 2019) or deployable alongside FIRE-B (basic recruit training; Thielsch, Kläpker, & Streppel, 2019) or command staff exercise modules (Thielsch & Hadzihalilovic).
• Test Format: Paper-and-pencil self-report survey or secure online administration via digital survey platforms (e.g., tablet-assisted evaluation immediately following debriefing).
• Item Count: 4 standardized manifestation items (unidimensional scale).
• Response Format: Seven-point fully labeled Likert agreement rating scale:
  • 1 = stimme gar nicht zu (Strongly disagree)
  • 2 = stimme nicht zu (Disagree)
  • 3 = stimme eher nicht zu (Somewhat disagree)
  • 4 = neutral (Neutral)
  • 5 = stimme eher zu (Somewhat agree)
  • 6 = stimme zu (Agree)
  • 7 = stimme vollkommen zu (Strongly agree)
  • Zusatzoption: “nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar” (Not evaluable / Not applicable), which prevents forced guessing.
• Administration Time: Extremely brief; estimated completion time is approximately 1 minute (≤ 60 seconds).
• Target Population: Firefighters, emergency service leaders, platoon/group command trainees, search-and-rescue specialists, incident commanders, and disaster relief personnel participating in simulated practical drills.
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Step 1: Point Allocation: Responses are coded from 1 to 7 according to the rating selected. If a respondent selects “nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar” (not evaluable), no points are awarded, and that specific item is treated as missing data for that respondent.
  • Step 2: Participant Inclusion Filtering: For paper-based surveys, any respondent who omits two or more items (≥ 50% missing data across the scale) must be excluded from the analysis. In digital surveys, items should be set as mandatory with the explicit “not evaluable” alternative provided.
  • Step 3: Item Means Calculation: For each individual item, compute the arithmetic mean across all valid respondents who answered that item (sum of points divided by N valid respondents).
  • Step 4: Scale Composite Score: Compute the overall FIRE-E scale mean by adding the four resulting item means together and dividing by 4.
  • Anonymity and Quorum Standards: To ensure psychometric anonymity and prevent individual identification, course-level evaluations must only be compiled when at least 8 completed questionnaires are submitted (or at least 50% participation in small-group cohorts with 9–14 participants; Thielsch & Weltzin, 2013).
  • Temporal Window of Administration: The survey must be completed immediately following the conclusion of practical drills and post-exercise debriefings. In courses involving formal grading or examination phases, the FIRE-E must always be administered prior to summative assessments to prevent grade-induced evaluation bias.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Release / Validation: 2019.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: © 2019 Florian Schulte, Meinald T. Thielsch, and the Institute of the Fire Brigade of North Rhine-Westphalia (IdF NRW). Academic rights reside with the authors and the University of Münster.
• Licensing and Availability: The FIRE-E is open-access for non-commercial academic research, emergency service training academies, public safety agencies, and university teaching evaluations. Practitioners may utilize the scale free of charge provided appropriate scientific citation and institutional attribution are maintained.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial utilization, integration into proprietary corporate training software suites, or paid organizational consulting packages requires formal written permission from the copyright holders.
• Institutional Repository and Contact: Scale documentation, research updates, and module extensions can be accessed via the University of Münster Organizational Psychology project portal: https://www.uni-muenster.de/OWMS/bfo/projekte/fire/.

References

• Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
• Berlin, J. M., & Carlström, E. D. (2014). The uncompleted exercise: An analysis of collaboration exercises on competing levels of society. International Journal of Emergency Services, 3(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJES-07-2013-0019
• Bühner, M. (2006). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Pearson Studium.
• Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307303035
• Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschrift 100. (1999). Führung und Leitung im Einsatz: FwDV 100. Ausschuss für Feuerwehrangelegenheiten, Katastrophenschutz und zivile Verteidigung (AFKzV). Kohlhammer.
• Grunnan, T., & Fridheim, O. A. (2017). Planning and conducting crisis management exercises for decision-making training – An operational perspective. Safety Science Monitor, 20(1), 1–10.
• Hagemann, V. (2011). Teamtrainings für Hochzuverlässigkeitsorganisationen: Eine empirische Untersuchung im Brandschutz. Universität Duisburg-Essen.
• Hirschfeld, G., & Thielsch, M. T. (2009). Der Münsteraner Fragebogen zur Evaluation von Lehrveranstaltungen (MFE). Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie.
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Jäger, R. S. (2004). Von der Beobachtung zur Notengebung: Ein Handbuch. Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
• Klein, G. A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138–147). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
• Mistele, P. (2007). Lernen aus Führungsentscheidungen im Einsatz. Brandschutz: Deutsche Feuerwehr-Zeitung, 61(12), 878–884.
• Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
• Rust, C., & Rust, S. (2016). Einsatzübungen planen, durchführen und auswerten. ecomed Sicherheit.
• Schulte, F., Babiel, S., Messinger, R., & Thielsch, M. T. (2019). Evaluation der Rettungskräfteausbildung – Entwicklung und erste Befunde des Feedback-Instruments für Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung (FIRE). In Tagungsband zur Fachtagung „Forschung für den Bevölkerungsschutz“ (pp. 45–54). Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe.
• Schulte, F., & Thielsch, M. T. (2019). Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung (FIRE) – Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Evaluation von Führungskräftelehrgängen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie.
• Smith, T. D., & Dyal, M. A. (2016). A systematic review of injury and stress among firefighters: Considerations for leadership and organizational interventions. Safety Science, 89, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.012
• Sommer, M., & Njå, O. (2011). Operational learning in emergency preparedness: A case study of a fire and rescue department. Safety Science, 49(8-9), 1184–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.03.011
• Spiel, C. (2001). Evaluationsforschung: Prämissen, Probleme und Perspektiven. Psychologische Rundschau, 52(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1026//0033-3042.52.4.195
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
• Thielsch, M. T., Kläpker, L., & Streppel, K. (2019). Evaluation von Basisausbildungen bei der Feuerwehr – Der Fragebogen FIRE-B. Brandschutz: Deutsche Feuerwehr-Zeitung, 73(6), 442–449.
• Thielsch, M. T., & Weltzin, S. (2013). Evaluation von Lehrveranstaltungen: Leitfaden für Dozierende. Berichte aus der Wirtschaftspsychologie, Universität Münster.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)