Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development (FIRE)

Abstract

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development (German: Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung; FIRE) is a standardized, psychometrically validated multidimensional evaluation inventory designed specifically to measure the instructional and curricular quality of vocational and leadership training programs within emergency rescue services, fire services, and allied disaster response organizations. Grounded in a conceptual synthesis of Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model and Rindermann’s multidimensional model of instructional success, the instrument captures both educational processes and proximal educational outcomes. The core questionnaire consists of 21 standardized items organized into six distinct subscales: four subscales situated at the level of learning processes (Lecturer Behavior / Dozentenverhalten [4 items], Requirement Level / Anforderungsniveau [3 items], Structure / Struktur [3 items], and Group / Gruppe [3 items]), and two subscales operating at the level of learning outcomes (Competence Acquisition / Kompetenzerwerb [5 items] and Transfer / Transfer [3 items]). In addition, four supplementary items capture global course grades, subjective global learning yield, recommendation willingness, and qualitative feedback.

Responses to the core items are recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (stimme gar nicht zu / strongly disagree) to 7 (stimme vollkommen zu / strongly agree), complemented by an explicit non-substantive alternative category (nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar / cannot be meaningfully answered) to preserve data integrity. Developed through an extensive multi-phase empirical program at the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen; IdF NRW) in collaboration with the Department of Organizational and Business Psychology at the University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster), the instrument demonstrated robust psychometric properties across exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic evaluations. The six scales exhibit acceptable to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ≥ .73; McDonald’s hierarchical ω_h ≥ .76). Confirmatory factor analysis validates the hypothesized multi-factor architecture, and extensive evidence substantiates construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. The FIRE represents a methodologically rigorous psychometric framework for quality assurance and organizational development in high-risk vocational education contexts.

Keywords

Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development, FIRE, fire service training evaluation, emergency services education, training quality, Kirkpatrick model, instructional evaluation, competence acquisition, training transfer, psychometrics, scale validation, public safety personnel

Authors

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development (FIRE) was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated through a formal research and institutional collaboration between the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen; IdF NRW) in Münster, Germany, and the Department of Organizational and Business Psychology (Institut für Psychologie, Arbeitsbereich Organisations- und Wirtschaftspsychologie) at the University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster).

• Meinald T. Thielsch, PhD — Associate Professor of Industrial, Organizational, and Business Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. Email: [email protected]. His research focuses on human-computer interaction, organizational evaluation, emergency service psychology, personnel selection, and instructional psychometrics.
• Carina Schulte, MSc — Organizational Psychologist and Researcher, Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. Specializing in high-reliability training evaluation, emergency management learning outcomes, and scale development.
• Collaborating Institutional Partners: Department of Quality Management and Training Methodology, Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen (IdF NRW), Wolbecker Str. 237, 48155 Münster, Germany. As the largest state fire service academy in Germany, the IdF NRW qualifies more than 1,500 full-time career officers and voluntary fire service leaders annually across squad leader (Gruppenführer) and platoon leader (Zugführer) echelons.

Purpose

The vocational education and operational training of emergency responders—particularly tactical commanding officers such as squad leaders (Gruppenführer) and platoon leaders (Zugführer)—takes place within operational environments characterized by acute volatility, operational ambiguity, extreme temporal pressure, severe physical risk, and high cognitive loads. Operational leaders in emergency service agencies must evaluate dynamic emergency scenes, execute structured hazard assessments, establish tactical operational priorities, maintain crew resource management, and command tactical units ranging from eight to more than twenty-two emergency service personnel. Because substandard field decisions carry existential risks for civilian populations and emergency crews, the pedagogy employed to prepare emergency commanders must satisfy exceptional quality standards.

Historically, formal evaluation instruments utilized within vocational education and academic institutions have suffered from a critical ecological mismatch when applied to emergency service academies. University-based instructional rating instruments (such as the FEVOR or MFE inventories) focus heavily on academic lecture environments, theoretical debate, and classroom-bound seminar formats. Conversely, leadership development in the emergency services relies heavily on dual-track, blended instructional designs combining formal didactic instruction with high-fidelity tactical field simulations, engine-company command exercises, and immediate operational debriefings. Prior to the development of the FIRE, training institutions within the fire and rescue services relied on non-validated, ad-hoc institutional questionnaires lacking psychometric standardization, construct validity, or normative benchmarks.

The primary purpose of the FIRE inventory is to provide a psychometrically validated, methodologically standardized, and domain-appropriate evaluation instrument designed to systematically measure training quality across both instructional delivery (processes) and professional capability development (outcomes). The instrument was engineered to serve several complementary organizational and psychometric functions:

• Formative Instructional Quality Improvement: Providing instructors and educational program directors with granular, multi-perspective feedback regarding instructional clarity, pacing, motivational engagement, and classroom group climate. This enables targeted didactic adjustments before instructional deficits compromise cohort readiness.
• Summative Quality Assurance and Accreditation: Establishing institutional benchmark metrics across longitudinal training cohorts to evaluate systemic curriculum updates, compare instructional paradigms (e.g., traditional classroom formats versus problem-based simulation methods), and substantiate regulatory compliance with federal and state emergency service training regulations (such as the German Fire Service Regulations / Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschriften FwDV 2 and FwDV 3).
• Competence Acquisition and Skill Transfer Tracking: Moving beyond simple participant satisfaction (reaction-level evaluation) by quantifying self-perceived operational mastery, analytical situational risk detection, stress tolerance calibration, command voice clarity, and tactical transfer readiness directly applicable to domestic fire stations and incident grounds.
• Cross-Organizational Adaptability: Although developed and initially normed within fire brigade command academies, the core items were intentionally formulated without fire-specific jargon, enabling seamless deployment across allied high-reliability public safety organizations, including emergency medical services (EMS), paramedic academies, technical relief organizations (e.g., THW), police command schools, and military tactical units.

Psychological Construct

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development operationalizes training quality as an integrated, multi-level psychometric construct spanning educational processes and immediate learning outcomes. In accordance with modern industrial-organizational psychology and instructional design theory, successful adult vocational education is driven by dynamic interactions between instructor didactic competence, contextual cognitive demands, interpersonal peer dynamics, perceived competence development, and self-efficacy regarding real-world task transfer.

The core construct comprises six distinct psychological dimensions:

1. Lecturer Behavior (Dozentenverhalten)

This 4-item process dimension assesses the pedagogical, interpersonal, and motivational competencies of the instructional staff. Specifically, it captures the instructor’s ability to synthesize highly complex, multifaceted tactical subject matter into clear, concise, and structured summaries; their provision of actionable, task-oriented feedback during practical tactical debriefs; their skill in stimulating active cognitive and verbal engagement among course participants; and their perceived investment in the genuine educational success of their trainees. In emergency command contexts, instructor feedback during post-exercise tactical debriefings represents a critical vehicle for correcting hazardous command biases.

2. Requirement Level (Anforderungsniveau)

This 3-item process dimension measures the perceived cognitive load, subjective pacing, and academic difficulty of the curriculum. Items evaluate whether the volume of technical subject matter overwhelmed the trainee, whether the velocity of instructional delivery was excessively rapid, and whether the inherent complexity of the training content surpassed the participant’s cognitive processing capacity. Unlike the other subscales, higher scores on this dimension reflect excessive cognitive overload and subjective strain, signaling negative course evaluations unless inverted for holistic composite reporting.

3. Structure (Struktur)

This 3-item process dimension evaluates the overarching didactic architecture, logical sequencing, and transparency of the instructional delivery. The dimension captures whether the pedagogical progression of the course was transparent and readily comprehensible throughout its duration, whether the thematic organization of technical units was consistent, and whether the course succeeded in imparting a well-organized, comprehensive conceptual overview of the tactical subject domain.

4. Group (Gruppe)

This 3-item process dimension operationalizes the social climate, cooperative cohesion, and collective learning dynamic within the training cohort. Emergency services operate under strict crew resource management and collective team interdependence; thus, learning effectiveness depends heavily on cohort interactions. The scale quantifies the degree to which peer participants engaged actively in shared learning exercises, provided mutual psychological and functional assistance during difficult curriculum units, and maintained high group cohesion and camaraderie.

5. Competence Acquisition (Kompetenzerwerb)

This 5-item outcome dimension measures subjective cognitive and operational learning yield across core tactical competencies essential for incident ground management. Rather than assessing rote knowledge memorization, items probe the perceived enhancement of critical emergency management faculties: early situational risk identification (Gefahrenlagen frühzeitig erkennen), critical operational decision-making under uncertainty, self-calibration of personal psychological and physical boundaries, stress tolerance and emotional composure in volatile scenarios, and the delivery of unambiguous, linguistically precise tactical orders to subordinate crews.

6. Transfer (Transfer)

This 3-item outcome dimension measures the trainee’s perceived readiness and self-efficacy regarding the practical translation of acquired theoretical frameworks and simulation-based techniques to real-world emergency incidents. Items measure the commanding officer’s subjective readiness to assume operational command at their next real-world deployment, the psychological security and self-assurance derived from practical field simulations, and the institutional transferability of the lessons learned to their home fire departments or parent organizations.

Supplementary Evaluation Modules (Globalurteil & Feedback)

To support organizational reporting and executive communication, the instrument incorporates four non-latent global metrics: an overall learning yield rating (Item 22), a single-item academic course grade based on the traditional 6-point German grading framework (Item 23), a dichotomous course recommendation indicator (Item 24), and an open-ended qualitative narrative field for instructor commendations, critiques, and curricular suggestions (Item 25).

Theoretical Framework

The structural and conceptual foundation of the FIRE instrument is built upon a theoretical integration of two prominent paradigms in industrial-organizational psychology and educational measurement: Donald Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model (Kirkpatrick, 1979, 1998) and Heinz Rindermann’s Multidimensional Model of University Teaching Success (Multidimensionales Bedingungsmodell des Lehrerfolgs; Rindermann, 2001), augmented by principles of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997).

Kirkpatrick’s taxonomy delineates four sequential tiers of instructional evaluation: Level 1 (Reaction), Level 2 (Learning), Level 3 (Behavior), and Level 4 (Results). In vocational training environments, positive participant reactions are essential preconditions for cognitive engagement and motivation (Bandura, 1977; Blanchard & Thacker, 2010). However, evaluating adult vocational education solely at the reaction level introduces severe blind spots regarding actual capability acquisition. Kirkpatrick emphasizes that an intervention must systematically evaluate learning and behavior to demonstrate educational efficacy. The FIRE integrates Kirkpatrick’s taxonomy by simultaneously capturing Level 1 affective and structural reactions (instructor behavior, pedagogical structure, pacing, peer cohesion), Level 2 cognitive and skill-based learning gains (competence acquisition), and proximal indicators of Level 3 behavior (perceived transfer capacity to real-world command assignments).

To bridge Kirkpatrick’s broad organizational levels with specific pedagogical processes, the authors adapted Rindermann’s (2001) Multidimensional Model of Teaching Success. Rindermann conceptualizes educational quality not as a monolithic construct, but as a systemic interplay between instructor-side determinants (clarity, instructional organization, interactive pacing, social interaction), student-side determinants (prior operational knowledge, intellectual abilities, cognitive effort, academic fatigue), and contextual institutional boundary conditions. Within the FIRE model, these determinants are mapped directly onto the operational training environment of emergency responders:

• Process vs. Outcome Dichotomy: Consistent with modern instructional system design (Blanchard & Thacker, 2010), educational evaluation must disentangle the mechanics of instructional delivery (learning processes) from the resulting capability transformation (learning outcomes). By segregating process factors (Lecturer Behavior, Requirement Level, Structure, Group) from outcome factors (Competence Acquisition, Transfer), the FIRE enables structural equation modeling to identify exactly which instructional processes drive specific command capabilities.
• Social Cognitive Theory and Mastery Modeling: Grounded in Bandura’s (1977, 1997) construct of perceived self-efficacy, leadership readiness in high-hazard domains develops through guided mastery experiences, cognitive vicarious modeling, and physiological stress management. The pedagogical architecture of the IdF NRW combines classroom lecture units with intense outdoor incident simulations where trainees command real apparatus and fire suppression crews. The FIRE scales directly reflect Bandura’s self-efficacy mechanisms: the Competence Acquisition scale operationalizes self-efficacy appraisals regarding hazard detection and calm decision-making under stress, while the Transfer scale quantifies the trainee’s subjective conviction that their simulation mastery will successfully govern real-world incident operations.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the FIRE was established through an extensive, multi-phase validation methodology conducted at the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (IdF NRW), providing comprehensive evidence across content, construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related domains.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established in Studies I and II using a combined qualitative-quantitative sequential design. In Study I, semi-structured interviews were conducted with instructional staff (n = 5) and course participants (n = 3) alongside standard survey administrations to an initial cohort of active trainees (N = 56). The resulting narrative database was analyzed using Mayring’s (2000) inductive qualitative content analysis, yielding five core dimensions of instructional success: Lecturer, Contextual Conditions, Group, Participant, and Instructional Success. Independent double-coding achieved exceptional inter-rater agreement, with chance-corrected Cohen’s kappa coefficients ranging between .85 ≤ κ ≤ .96, indicating near-perfect inter-rater reliability. From this framework, an initial comprehensive item pool of 116 candidate statements was derived.

In Study II, the 116 items were submitted to formal content validity reviews by an expert panel of instructors (n = 7) and trainees (n = 26). Items were quantitatively evaluated for operational relevance, linguistic clarity, and emergency service contextual fidelity. This process eliminated 51 items tied exclusively to idiosyncratic local teaching modules and retained 65 universally applicable items (44 process items, 21 outcome items), which were subsequently refined via exploratory factor analyses in Study III to produce the final 21-item core inventory.

Construct and Structural Validity

The internal structural validity of the 6-factor model was confirmed via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) administered to independent validation cohorts of emergency service leadership trainees at the IdF NRW. The empirical data corroborated the six-factor multi-trait architecture, establishing that learning processes (Lecturer Behavior, Requirement Level, Structure, Group) and learning outcomes (Competence Acquisition, Transfer) constitute distinct, non-redundant psychometric entities. Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated strong structural alignment with the theoretical model, satisfying conventional psychometric benchmarks (CFI > .90; TLI > .90; RMSEA ≤ .06; SRMR ≤ .08).

Convergent, Discriminant, and Criterion Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated through substantial positive correlations between the process scales (particularly Structure and Lecturer Behavior) and subjective learning outcomes (Competence Acquisition and Transfer). The Transfer scale showed strong positive associations with the global learning yield item (Item 22; Ich habe im Lehrgang sehr viel gelernt) and overall course grades (Item 23), confirming that participants who reported robust transfer confidence experienced the course as highly effective.

Discriminant validity was confirmed by the distinct behavior of the Requirement Level (Anforderungsniveau) subscale. While Lecturer Behavior, Structure, and Competence Acquisition intercorrelated moderately to strongly in positive directions, Requirement Level demonstrated negligible to negative associations with these dimensions. High cognitive overload correlated inversely with structural clarity and positive group dynamics, demonstrating that the Requirement Level subscale successfully measures an independent source of cognitive-pedagogical variance rather than general positive course sentiment or halo effects.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development has been comprehensively evaluated across multiple independent cohorts of emergency response commanders at the IdF NRW. Reliability coefficients demonstrate that despite the brevity of the individual subscales (comprising between 3 and 5 items each), the instrument achieves acceptable to good internal consistency across all latent dimensions.

Empirical reliability metrics established during psychometric validation include:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): Across all six core subscales, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently meet or exceed the standard psychometric threshold of α ≥ .73. The outcome dimensions exhibit particularly high internal consistency, with the Competence Acquisition subscale reaching α values of .84 to .88, reflecting tight item intercorrelations centered on operational command readiness. The process subscales range from α = .73 (for brief 3-item scales such as Group) to α = .85 (for Lecturer Behavior).
• McDonald’s Omega Hierarchical (ω_h): In recognition of the well-documented limitations of Cronbach’s alpha when evaluating multidimensional constructs or scales with slight tau-equivalence violations, McDonald’s omega was calculated. All latent factors demonstrated hierarchical omega values exceeding ω_h ≥ .76, confirming robust true-score variance saturation.
• Item Discrimination and Homogeneity: Corrected item-total correlations (part-whole correlation / Trennschärfe) for all retained core items exceeded r_it ≥ .58, demonstrating substantial item-scale homogeneity without unacceptable semantic redundancy.
• Aggregation Stability and Sample Size Thresholds: Because course evaluations are aggregated at the classroom or instructional unit level, organizational reliability depends on cohort size. Simulation and empirical standard error analyses indicate that FIRE scale averages attain acceptable aggregate stability when derived from cohorts of at least N ≥ 8 completed questionnaires (or an institutional response rate of ≥ 50% for specialized seminars with fewer than 15 participants).

Factor Analysis

The empirical derivation and structural validation of the FIRE scales followed a rigorous two-stage exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic sequence in Study III.

Item Pruning and Pre-Analysis Screening

Prior to exploratory factor extraction, the retained candidate items from Study II (39 process items and 17 outcome items) underwent rigorous distributional screening. Exclusion criteria were pre-specified as follows:

• Items with response omission rates exceeding 5% (none met this criterion; all items had > 95% completion).
• Items exhibiting severe distributional skewness (|Skewness| > 2.0) or severe kurtosis (|Excess| > 7.0) (none met this criterion).
• Extreme item collinearity indicated by bivariate intercorrelations of r > .75 (5 process items were eliminated due to conceptual and statistical redundancy).
• Ceiling and floor effects defined by an item mean M ≥ 6.0 coupled with a restricted standard deviation SD ≤ 1.0 on the 7-point scale (3 items were eliminated).
• Deficits in domain relevance or adverse empirical response variance (1 item eliminated).

Following item screening, the psychometric candidate battery comprised 39 process items and 17 outcome items.

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

Because educational processes and educational outcomes represent conceptually distinct hierarchical domains, separate exploratory factor analyses (principal axis factoring with oblique rotation, accounting for theoretical correlations among instructional facets) were conducted for process and outcome candidate pools.

• Process Dimension EFA: Cattell’s scree test indicated either a two- or four-factor solution, while Horn’s Parallel Analysis unambiguously supported the extraction of four latent factors. The four-factor extraction accounted for the majority of common variance. Items with factor loadings < .50, substantial cross-loadings, or whose deletion increased scale internal consistency were iteratively pruned (26 items eliminated). The four cleanly resolved factors were interpreted as: Dozentenverhalten (Lecturer Behavior), Anforderungsniveau (Requirement Level), Struktur (Structure), and Gruppe (Group).
• Outcome Dimension EFA: Both the scree test and Horn’s Parallel Analysis converged on the extraction of two distinct factors. Five candidate items were removed due to complex cross-loadings across factors, and four items were removed due to low primary loadings (< .45) or theoretical overlap. The remaining 8 items loaded robustly onto two non-overlapping factors: Kompetenzerwerb (Competence Acquisition; 5 items) and Transfer (Transfer; 3 items), each showing primary loadings exceeding .60 and minimal secondary cross-loadings (≤ .20).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To cross-validate the structural model identified in the EFA, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was estimated using structural equation modeling on independent validation samples. The hypothesized 6-factor model (comprising the four process and two outcome factors) demonstrated superior fit compared to competing unidimensional and hierarchical models. Factor loadings for all 21 individual items onto their respective latent factors were statistically significant (p < .001) and substantial in magnitude (standardized λ ranging from .62 to .89), confirming that the six scales represent structurally sound, empirically distinct facets of rescue force educational quality.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional vocational training evaluation inventory / psychological rating scale.
• Target Population: Emergency rescue forces, career and volunteer fire department officers, squad leaders (Gruppenführer), platoon leaders (Zugführer), incident commanders, and emergency service personnel in allied high-reliability organizations (police, military, disaster response).
• Administration Format: Standardized self-report questionnaire; administered either via traditional paper-pencil forms or digitally via web-based survey systems and institutional learning management systems (LMS).
• Item Inventory: 25 total items:
  • 21 core psychometric items mapped across 6 distinct subscales.
  • 4 supplementary global evaluation items (Item 22: overall learning yield; Item 23: academic grade; Item 24: recommendation willingness; Item 25: open-ended qualitative feedback).
• Subscale Architecture:
  • Dozentenverhalten (Lecturer Behavior): Items 1, 2, 3, 4 (4 items)
  • Anforderungsniveau (Requirement Level): Items 5, 6, 7 (3 items)
  • Struktur (Structure): Items 8, 9, 10 (3 items)
  • Gruppe (Group): Items 11, 12, 13 (3 items)
  • Kompetenzerwerb (Competence Acquisition): Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (5 items)
  • Transfer (Transfer): Items 19, 20, 21 (3 items)
  • Globalurteil & Feedback (Supplementary Items): Items 22, 23, 24, 25 (4 items)
• Mandatory Authentic Response Scale (Items 1 to 22):

  Siebenstufiges Antwortformat mit den Optionen 1 = stimme gar nicht zu, 2 = stimme nicht zu, 3 = stimme eher nicht zu, 4 = neutral, 5 = stimme eher zu, 6 = stimme zu, 7 = stimme vollkommen zu. Ein zusätzliches Feld bietet die Möglichkeit anzugeben, dass das jeweilige Item nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar ist.

• Supplementary Item Response Formats:
  • Item 23 (School Grade): 6-point German academic grading scale (1 = sehr gut / very good, 2 = gut / good, 3 = befriedigend / satisfactory, 4 = ausreichend / sufficient, 5 = mangelhaft / poor, 6 = ungenügend / insufficient).
  • Item 24 (Course Recommendation): Dichotomous format (Ja / Nein).
  • Item 25 (Open Feedback): Unconstrained qualitative narrative text field for commendations, critiques, and didactic recommendations.
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Step 1 (Item Scoring): Points are assigned to core items from 1 (stimme gar nicht zu) to 7 (stimme vollkommen zu). Responses marked as nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar are treated as missing data and excluded from numerical calculations.
  • Step 2 (Item Averaging): Compute the arithmetic mean for each item across all respondents who provided a valid substantive rating. In paper administrations, protocols missing ≥ 3 core items should be excluded from final organizational analysis.
  • Step 3 (Subscale Averaging): Calculate the scale mean score by summing the item means belonging to that subscale and dividing by the number of items on that subscale. For Anforderungsniveau (Requirement Level), high scores indicate excessive cognitive overload and negative course evaluation. For organizational feedback dashboards, this subscale can be inverted (Recoded Item Score = 8 − Raw Score) so that higher numerical values uniformly reflect positive course evaluations across all subscales.
  • Step 4 (Supplementary Item Reporting): Global items (22–24) should never be aggregated into a composite score with core latent factors. For Item 23 (school grade), reporting the median or relative frequency distribution is recommended due to ordinal properties.
• Administration Guidelines: Evaluation should occur immediately following the conclusion of training modules, but strictly prior to any final certifying or licensing examinations to prevent post-examination performance bias. Total administration time is approximately 5 to 8 minutes. Minimum cohort threshold for reporting is N ≥ 8 respondents (or ≥ 50% participation in small cohorts).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development (FIRE) was developed and standardized between 2016 and 2019, with formal scientific publication of the validated inventory in 2019 (Schulte & Thielsch, 2019). The instrument is an open-access psychometric measurement tool developed under the auspices of public academic and state governmental collaboration.

• Licensing and Research Use: The scale items and scoring guidelines are free to use for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical evaluation, and institutional quality assurance within public fire departments, emergency medical services, disaster relief agencies, and academic academies. Commercial repackaging or resale of the instrument within proprietary commercial software suites requires express authorization from the originating authors.
• Specialized Lineage Modules: Following the standardization of the FIRE core questionnaire, related specialized evaluation inventories were developed by the same research group: the FIRE-P (Thielsch, Busjan, & Frerichs, 2018) designed specifically for the evaluation of written certifying examinations in public safety, and the FIRE-B (Thielsch, Kläpker, & Streppel, 2019) engineered for entry-level recruit firefighter training without command responsibilities.
• Permissions Contact: Academic and operational inquiries regarding normative benchmark data or permission for cross-cultural adaptation may be directed to Prof. Dr. Meinald T. Thielsch, Department of Psychology, University of Münster ([email protected]).

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Blanchard, P. N., & Thacker, J. W. (2010). Effective training: Systems, strategies, and practices (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Braun, E., & Gusy, B. (2006). Das Berliner Evaluationsinstrument für selbsteingeschätzte studentische Kompetenzen (BEvaKomp). Diagnostica, 52(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.52.1.34
• Gediga, G., Hamborg, K.-C., & Willumeit, H. (2000). KIEL: Kieler Evaluationsinventar für Lehrveranstaltungen. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
• Greve, W., & Wentura, D. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung: Eine Einführung. Psychologie Verlags Union.
• Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78–92.
• Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
• Rindermann, H. (2001). Lehrevaluation: Einführung und Überblick zu Forschung und Praxis. Empirische Pädagogik.
• Schulte, C., & Thielsch, M. T. (2019). Evaluation der Führungskräfteausbildung bei der Feuerwehr: Das Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung (FIRE). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 63(4), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000305
• Staufenbiel, T. (2000). Fragebogen zur Evaluation von universitären Lehrveranstaltungen durch Studierende und Lehrende (FEVOR). Diagnostica, 46(4), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.46.4.169
• Thielsch, M. T., Busjan, J., & Frerichs, R. (2018). Prüfungen an der Landesfeuerwehrschule: Evaluation schriftlicher Leistungsnachweise mittels FIRE-P. BRANDschutz / Deutsche Feuerwehr-Zeitung, 72(11), 844–847.
• Thielsch, M. T., & Hirschfeld, G. (2012a). Facetten der universitären Lehrevaluation: Das Münsteraner Fragebogen-Set zur Evaluation (MFE). Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 34(4), 58–81.
• Thielsch, M. T., Kläpker, L., & Streppel, D. (2019). Evaluation von Basis-Ausbildungen im Rettungswesen: Der Fragebogen FIRE-B. Notfall + Rettungsmedizin, 22(7), 604–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-019-0589-9
• Wolf, B., Spiel, C., & Pellert, A. (2001). Lehrevaluation an Universitäten: Erfahrungen aus einem kooperativen Reformprojekt. Empirische Pädagogik, 15(4), 483–504.
• Zumbach, J., Spinath, B., Schahn, J., Friedrich, A., & Kögel, S. (2007). Eine Kurzskala zur Evaluation von Lehrveranstaltungen. Empirische Pädagogik, 21(2), 164–181.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)