The Army's increasing reliance on simulation to train Warfighters can be challenged given current budgetary constraints. Under these circumstances, focus has turned to ensuring that there is sufficient return on investment for new and novel training methodologies. It is imperative to meaningfully determine the effectiveness of new training technologies with an effective "control" or comparison metric to measure the perceived effectiveness of a training methodology and the efficacy as compared to alternative means.

Two recently developed training systems, Trauma Connect (TraumaConâ„¢) and the Virtual Medical Simulation Training Center (VMSTC), are intended to augment the Combat Lifesaver training currently provided to U.S. Army Soldiers in a classroom setting. Before fielding these systems and incorporating them into standard training syllabi, it is crucial to conduct an assessment of their true effectiveness in achieving the goal of producing trained personnel. Further, an understanding of the efficacy of the underlying technologies and methodologies is critical in determining the direction of follow-on research and development initiatives. A Training Effectiveness Evaluation (TEE) using Kirkpatrick's model was conducted at Fort Drum with the participation of over 150 Soldiers to compare each of these two new training systems to traditional classroom instruction. The purpose of the evaluation was to quantify the real, tangible benefits associated with the use of these technologies in the program of instruction. The experiment showed that VMSTC has a measurable effect on knowledge scores, TraumaCon did not have a significant effect on knowledge scores under the conditions tested, and Soldier reactions to the two training methods were positive.