JDR Vol.3 No.6 pp. 429-441
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2008.p0429


The Development and Validation of Disaster Response Competency Profile Indices

Shigeo Tatsuki

Department of Sociology, Doshisha University, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto 602-8580, Japan

September 30, 2008
November 14, 2008
December 1, 2008
Disaster response competency, construct validity, MTMM experiment, predictive validity, simulation gaming
This study aimed to identify observable and measurable traits that were shared among highly competent disaster responders, to construct screening instruments that assess disaster responder competencies, and to examine the construct as well as predictive validity of the instruments. Focus group interviews of competent disaster responders were conducted in order to capture statements that typified their characteristics. Conceptual clustering of the statements produced three distinct categories, and they were found being associated with three major disaster response functions: 1) incident commander, 2) management staff (intelligence, planning, and logistics), and 3) operations personnel. The following cross-validation interviews formed the basis from which to construct a preliminary multiple-choice instrument as well as two other types. Three different instruments measuring three different competencies were then administered to fifty disaster responders, and thirty-three questionnaires were returned. This provided multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data and the structural equation modeling (SEM) validated the construct validity of the scales, which were named the Disaster Response Competency Profile Indices (DRCPI). The second study compared simulated disaster responses performed by the most competent teams of incident commander, management staff, and operations personnel, as determined by means of the instrument, with those performed by the least competent. The team results were successfully predicted by the DRCPI.
Cite this article as:
S. Tatsuki, “The Development and Validation of Disaster Response Competency Profile Indices,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.3 No.6, pp. 429-441, 2008.
Data files:
  1. [1] Department of Homeland Security, “National Incident Management System,”,
  2. [2] B.G. Glaser and A. Strauss, “The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research,” Aldine de Gruyter, 1967.
  3. [3] H. Hayashi, “Constructing crisis management system that is suitable for Japanese society,” Fire and Disaster Reduction, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 2-11, 2007.
  4. [4] H. Hayashi, “Preface” In H. Hayashi (Ed.) National Wildfire Coordinating Group Incident Command System National Training Curriculum Module1 – Module17, Technical Report, Research Center for Disaster Reduction Systems, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, pp. 1-8, 2003.
  5. [5] K. Imai, Hayashi, Tanaka, Takagi, and T. Kitano, “ICS conformity degree investigation of duties for disaster response in telecommunications company,” Journal of Social Safety Science, 8, pp. 207-224, 2006.
  6. [6] H. Kagiya, “Jichitai no bousai/kiki-kanri no shikumi (How disaster/crisis management system works in municipalities),” Gakuyou Shobou, 2003.
  7. [7] T, Kaneta, “Shakai desain no simulation & gaming (Social design simulation and gaming),” Kyoritsu Shuppan, 2005.
  8. [8] T. Kikkawa, “Jikkenteki-shuho to simulation gaming (Experimental methods and simulation gaming),” In M. Tao (Ed.) Organizational Research Guidebook, Yuhikaku, 2001.
  9. [9] D. C. McClelland, “Testing for competence rather than intelligence,” American Psychologist, 28, 1, pp. 1-14, 1973.
  10. [10] National Wildfire Coordinating Group, “Incident Command System national training curriculum module 1 – module 17,”,
  11. [11] S. Nishisato, “Dual scaling and its applications,” University of Toronto Press, 1980.
  12. [12] T. Sashida, H. Hayashi, and M. Naganoh, “Development of process of making a curriculum cultivating professionals of disaster preparedness based on competency analysis,” Journal of Social Safety Science, 8, pp. 377-386, 2006.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 23, 2024