Who decides the MATTs tests - any one know?

#1
I can't get access to the wider army forum from the work computer and I was just wondering if any one knows who decided to set the test as sit ups? - someone somewhere must have said 'Yep, that'll be what we want them to do' and I want to know who and what dept he comes from.

Any answers as I want to have a gripe to him?
 
#2
Strikesure said:
I can't get access to the wider army forum from the work computer and I was just wondering if any one knows who decided to set the test as sit ups? - someone somewhere must have said 'Yep, that'll be what we want them to do' and I want to know who and what dept he comes from.

Any answers as I want to have a gripe to him?
Download pdf file "fitness" on this link and I imagine it will contain an appointment/ address.

http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/matt_wip_.htm

Don't build your hopes up though because I don't think the MATTs authors consulted any SMEs on any of the Subjects :roll:

Edited for schoolboy error :oops:
 
#3
Surestrike wrote:
I can't get access to the wider army forum from the work computer and I was just wondering if any one knows who decided to set the test as sit ups? - someone somewhere must have said 'Yep, that'll be what we want them to do' and I want to know who and what dept he comes from.
Priam wrote:
Don't build your hopes up though because I don't think the MATTs authors consulted any SMEs on any of the Subjects
1. The MATTs tests are basically the same as the ITDs. Only now they are are pass or fail as opposed to Red/Amber/Green. There are also set at 3 differing levels dependent on readiness/deployability.

2. All SMEs for each MATT/WIP subject were thoroughly consulted and had direct influence on the content.

So stop whinging and get on with it! :D
 
#4
badger-sporran said:
Surestrike wrote:
I can't get access to the wider army forum from the work computer and I was just wondering if any one knows who decided to set the test as sit ups? - someone somewhere must have said 'Yep, that'll be what we want them to do' and I want to know who and what dept he comes from.
Priam wrote:
Don't build your hopes up though because I don't think the MATTs authors consulted any SMEs on any of the Subjects
1. The MATTs tests are basically the same as the ITDs. Only now they are are pass or fail as opposed to Red/Amber/Green. There are also set at 3 differing levels dependent on readiness/deployability.

2. All SMEs for each MATT/WIP subject were thoroughly consulted and had direct influence on the content.

So stop whinging and get on with it! :D
I have reason to believe otherwise.

I take it you have something to do with MATTs :D

PM me at will
 
#5
badger-sporran said:
Surestrike wrote:
I can't get access to the wider army forum from the work computer and I was just wondering if any one knows who decided to set the test as sit ups? - someone somewhere must have said 'Yep, that'll be what we want them to do' and I want to know who and what dept he comes from.
Priam wrote:
Don't build your hopes up though because I don't think the MATTs authors consulted any SMEs on any of the Subjects
1. The MATTs tests are basically the same as the ITDs. Only now they are are pass or fail as opposed to Red/Amber/Green. There are also set at 3 differing levels dependent on readiness/deployability.

2. All SMEs for each MATT/WIP subject were thoroughly consulted and had direct influence on the content.

So stop whinging and get on with it! :D
Well said B-S


MATTs are set at recruit level - as you cannot test someone on a subject, unless they have been taught it! So 'grandfather rights' apply to the old and bold.

Local commanders have the right to increase the MATT level
e.g the CFT, if you command an Inf Coy - youd rather the troops aim for an ICFT
If a unit is about to deploy - then heavier emphasis can be laid on topics such as health and hygiene, LOAC etc

and they all end in a test!

enjoyment is compulsory - get over it and enjoy.
 
#6
Priam,
thanks for the straight and correct answer - rare these days.

Now, I have no problems with MATTs and ITDs as a concept, no, I even like them, and how could we make valuable quality assessments on ourselves without them. And, I've ne'er failed the one and heap unforgiving scorn on those who do.

However, the content of the tests are the problem and should be changed as they are damaging the soldiers and leading to blokes being MD for no gain whatsoever. We could do with looking at the content again and getting those who set these tests to think a bit about them and change them if it is justified (note this bit - if the research shows that what we're doing is knackering them, and it does, and we continue as we are then we're mad and may/will suffer in the courts later).

The old supertanker metaphor/simile springs to mind but if we can nudge it now then who knows how many of us will benefit in the future.
 
#7
Strikesure, have a search through the forums on here. I believe the sit ups question was covered in some detail a long time ago.

As for the rest of MATTs I agree the test contents (structure and wording need work). Basically a good idea rushed in and probably due for major amendments hopefully before the next Trg Year.

BS I have sent you a PM ref SMEs being consulted (your faith in the ARMY system is commendable)

B20 not sure what you are on about with grandfather rights!
I do believe without reading the thing again that its aimed at the Trained Soldier level though.

I have based my input on a Regular Unit (not Infantry).
 
#8
Strikesure said:
Priam,
thanks for the straight and correct answer - rare these days.

Now, I have no problems with MATTs and ITDs as a concept, no, I even like them, and how could we make valuable quality assessments on ourselves without them. And, I've ne'er failed the one and heap unforgiving scorn on those who do.

However, the content of the tests are the problem and should be changed as they are damaging the soldiers and leading to blokes being MD for no gain whatsoever. We could do with looking at the content again and getting those who set these tests to think a bit about them and change them if it is justified (note this bit - if the research shows that what we're doing is knackering them, and it does, and we continue as we are then we're mad and may/will suffer in the courts later).

The old supertanker metaphor/simile springs to mind but if we can nudge it now then who knows how many of us will benefit in the future.
WHAT Fcukin planet are you on???

How qualified are you??? - obviously very as you can pass your MATT/ITDs!

How are the soldiers being damaged?? didnt think the videos were that scarey

Im sure if you were to articulate your worries and fears correctly, through the chain of command - the SNCOs from the MATT development team would gladly come and chat to you about the days they spent sat at their desks deciding 'what pretty pictures' they should put in the next folder.

Are you saying that the Army cannot elevate itself from the level of CMS(R)??

as has been previously highlighted SMEs have been consulted at all levels, such as T&D team at AMD, and ASPT.

Im sure the PT Corps would be very interested in your 'constructive critisism'

and before you talk to them, comb the sh1t out of your hair when you pull your head out of your arr$e!
 
#9
''MATTs are set at recruit level - as you cannot test someone on a subject, unless they have been taught it! So 'grandfather rights' apply to the old and bold''.


Priam,

Grandfather rights - you cannot teach an old dog new tricks!

or, as the systems change - you cannot expect every man jack to about turn and retake CMS(R). Due to the changes (backed by extensive research, T&D) from ITD (A) to MATT - you cannot expect to retrain 95% of the army on subjects that have just been introduced within the past 12 months
 
#11
Priam said:
B20 not sure what you are on about with grandfather rights!
I do believe without reading the thing again that its aimed at the Trained Soldier level though.
I have based my input on a Regular Unit (not Infantry).
I too base my evidence on a Reg Unit,

I attended the briefing, met the team (they are all pictured throughout the folders!)

If you took the time to read the folders (and not just look at the pretty pictures) you would read that it is set at CMS(R) level. Local commanders have the power to increase the level of training if they wish

You cannot assess what you have not taught - that is, you must assess what they have been taught at Ph 1 and 2.

As a reg - get yourself on the intranet - LAND website and ask the team - I DARE YA!
 
#12
Bedpan2zero said:
Priam said:
B20 not sure what you are on about with grandfather rights!
I do believe without reading the thing again that its aimed at the Trained Soldier level though.
I have based my input on a Regular Unit (not Infantry).
I too base my evidence on a Reg Unit,

I attended the briefing, met the team (they are all pictured throughout the folders!) Done that

If you took the time to read the folders and that (and not just look at the pretty pictures) you would read that it is set at CMS(R) level minimum testing standards for Regular Army and TA Officers and Soldiers. Local commanders have the power to increase the level of training if they wish not seen / not bothered /not applicable

You cannot assess what you have not taught - that is, you must assess what they have been taught at Ph 1 and 2. Lessons are included to teach/revise the subject in enough depth for trained soldiers to pass.

As a reg - get yourself on the intranet - LAND website and ask the team - I DARE YA!
Never managed to get through on the phone, granted I have not tried recently.

The website was inaccessible last time I checked. However I have fired my constructive criticism through the CoC.

Your comments such as
(and not just look at the pretty pictures)
and
I DARE YA!
are probably mildly amusing for readers of the thread. :roll:
 
#13
are probably mildly amusing for readers of the thread.

Not really - Im simply trying to see if yourself Strikesure have the balls to put pen to paper, or pick up the phone and do something constructive - as opposed to anonamously coming on here acting all big and clever.

Yours

BP2O (Trg Offr Reg Unit (not Inf))
 
#14
Bedpan2zero said:
are probably mildly amusing for readers of the thread.

Not really - Im simply trying to see if yourself Strikesure have the balls to put pen to paper, or pick up the phone and do something constructive - as opposed to anonamously coming on here acting all big and clever.

Yours

BP2O (Trg Offr Reg Unit (not Inf))
I am not the anonymous Internet warrior type and did the constructive "thing" a couple of months ago!!

Like a dyslexic dwarf I'm not big or clever either!! :wink:
 
#15
B20, you span off on one a bit fast there - I'm not sure I deserved that - well for loads of other things, yes, but for this reasoned thread no.

The reason I asked about the authors of the tests was so that I could do as you said and write to them (I was not planning on sending them a chrisy card). If you want I'll drop you a copy of the letter too.

I believe in the MATTs package and my gripe only lies with the Military Annual Trg Test 2 - which is why this is in the Health and Fitness' forum rather than the 'Trg Wing', though I suspect there are other parts of MATTs that Priam can sugest need tightening in there.

I don't know how curent the PT corps are in their research and my experience of them would suggest they are not - but I would add that I would be really, really pleased if they can disprove the current research on low back pain and damage caused by the very tests they are setting the soldiers.
 
#16
maybe I did fling a track,

and yes this is the Rumour service!

But im sick of internet warrior (the new barrack room lawyers) bumping their gums when the only contact they have had with the subject is when they read the poster on the wall!!

All contact details will be in the folder - if not the MATT Trg Team at LAND will have a list of SME that they contacted.

Lower back pain - you would have to isolate cases to prove that it was MATT 2 that caused the injury, but as we know - most of todays army carry an injury or two
 
#17
Lower back pain? what part of the tests is causing this? and where is the research that shows it is damaging our soldiers?

I see nothing in the current tests that would damage a reasonably fit individual.
 
#18
Strikesure said:
I don't know how curent the PT corps are in their research and my experience of them would suggest they are not - but I would add that I would be really, really pleased if they can disprove the current research on low back pain and damage caused by the very tests they are setting the soldiers.
The tests are a run, pushups, and situps... oh and the CFT, which is a walk.

Now unless someone doesnt hold correct form, the pushups cannot cause the lower back pain, if they let their ass drop out of line with the back, then they need to get a stronger core as they cannot complete the test.

The situps work the core and abs, and upon reaching the top of a sit up, pressure is put onto hip flexors rather than the abs (thus the argument for only doing a "crunch" as it puts more pressure on the abs for longer apparently.), these shouldnt hurt the lower back either unless incorrect form is used or the person is doing situps on a big metal spike...

The run, if someone hasnt practised running on a hard surface, doing this can cause initial pain but is overcome by continued progressive training.

I dont know what test could hurt the lower back :? I'd like to read an article on what it could be though, if you have a link to it or a place I can find it.

My authority on the subject is the course I am currently studying as a Sports Injury Therapist, Im not yet qualified so could be completely wrong, but I havent talked out of my arrse, I promise.
 
#19
Strikesure said:
I don't know how curent the PT corps are in their research and my experience of them would suggest they are not - but I would add that I would be really, really pleased if they can disprove the current research on low back pain and damage caused by the very tests they are setting the soldiers.
Do you honestly think that their is not R&D put into this - or did the PT Corps just put a few crusty old club swingers around a NAAFI table and get them to pick ideas out of thin air?

Now that youre aired your opinion - could we ask that you enlighten us with your reasoning
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top