Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005

Quality of Life Among Army Spouses:Parenting and Family Stress duringDeployment to Operation Iraqi FreedomRonald Blaine Everson

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES

QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG ARMY SPOUSES: PARENTING AND FAMILY STRESS DURING DEPLOYMENT TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

By

RONALD BLAINE EVERSON

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Family and Child Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester 2005

ii

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Ronald Blaine Everson defended on

the 17th day of March, 2005.

___________________________________

Carol A. Darling Professor Directing Dissertation

___________________________________ Charles R. Figley Outside Committee Member

___________________________________ Bonnie B. Greenwood Committee Member

Approved: ___________________________________________________________ Kay Pasley, Chair, Department of Family and Child Sciences ___________________________________________________________ Penny Ralston, Dean, College of Human Sciences

The office of Gradate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing such a voluminous work as this requires a great deal of time, effort, and patience on part of a numerous friends, family, and loved ones. Some have played a major part in this development and implementation of this project, while others have provided encouragement and inspiration along the way. All have been important to me during this process in one way or another. I would like to thank the following people for making this endeavor possible.

First, I would like to thank my major professor Carol Darling, Ph.D., for her interest in this project from its beginnings in the days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. She understood the new role that the military would play in the ongoing war on terror and saw the need for further research with military families. She has been my all-seeing guide, my staunchest supporter, and my harshest critic throughout this process. She has been simply wonderful. My thanks to Bonnie Greenwood, Ph.D., for always seeming to ask the right questions at the right time during our committee meetings as I shaped my ideas and decided the course of this research project. Many thanks are due also to Charles Figley, Ph.D., for his many years of research on stress and trauma with those who have experienced the horrors of war and terror. He has served as a source of inspiration for my forays into the study of stress and trauma during the past few years. There are others at Florida State University who provided their money and time so generously. I would like to thank the May Watson Connor Scholarship Fund for selecting my project for funding in the spring of 2003. It was a very nice start in terms of providing funding for this project. Those who gave of their time include Jean Marc Wise from the FSU Assessment Services and Betty Brown from ACNS. Thank you, Jean Marc for helping to design a survey that could be scanned easily and for helping with the creation of workable data files. My heartfelt thanks go to Betty Brown from ACNS for taking the data files and making them into something that we could use in SPSS for the final data analysis. I would also like to thank her for helping me whenever I e-mailed questions about syntax in SPSS or LISREL. I could not have completed this project without the two of them. Although both of them joked that my fees and tuition more than paid for their services, I remain greatly indebted to both of them. I appreciate Marcia Williams and Lynne LaCombe, both of whom constantly reminded me of the beginnings and endings of semesters, along with deadlines for submitting various items required for me to stay on-track after I moved so far away. Thank you both very much. I would also like to thank those people in the coastal area of Georgia who helped and assisted with this project along the way. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Johnny Cusimano at Army Community Services on Ft. Stewart for taking me around and introducing to the people who would eventually help shape this project. My friends and colleagues at The Fraser Center deserve my thanks, with a special thanks to Alan Baroody, who got excited about working with military families and supported this project almost from the day I arrived at The Fraser Center in the October 2001. I would also like to thank my friend Jody �Quint� Herzog who talked me into working with the center and foundation in the beginning. There are few words that can describe the debt of gratitude I owe to the board members of The Mary Lou Fraser Foundation for Families who agreed to fund this research project in early 2002 at a time when others didn�t seem interested in

iv

research with military families. You are too numerous to mention by name, but a special thank you to Clint Fraser and Sherry Summerville for carrying on the work of their beloved mother, Mary Lou, and their benevolent father, Dr. Whit Fraser. I would be remiss if I did not properly thank the participants in this study. They remain unknown to me, which is the way it should be in any research project of this nature. These women took the time to share aspects of their lives for the betterment of all of those Army spouses who will come after them, in order that we as clinicians and researchers may have a more thorough understanding of modern military families. Although they may never read a research journal, they have (in their own way) added their voices to an ever growing chorus that comprises the literature on military family stress. Many thanks, ladies! Last but not least, I would finally like to thank my wife, Denise, who has always wanted the stationery with �Dr. and Mrs. Everson� printed on it. She may never realize what an inspiration she has been to me through this entire process. That, I�m afraid, is the result of not telling her often enough. At times I think she saw more clearly the person I could become than I ever could. She has been my devoted wife, loving partner, and the mother of our child. No other person has ever done all of that for me. She has my unending gratitude and my undying love. Now she can buy her stationery.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF TABLES ix ABSTRACT x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Theoretical Perspectives 4 Family Stress Theory 4

Family Systems Theory 6 Family Development Theory 7 Application of Theory 9 Statement of Problem 10 Hypotheses and Research Questions 11 Definitions 12 Assumptions 12 Limitations 12 Delimitations 13 Abbreviations 13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14 Overview of the Study 14 Military Families 14 Stress and Military Families 17 Army Spouses and their Children 19 Family and Parenting Stress 21

Family Stress 21 Parenting Stress 23

Personal and Family Coping 24 Personal Coping and Psychological Hardiness 24 Family Coping 26 Definition of Events and Sense of Coherence 27 Sense of Coherence 29 Quality of Life 30 Marital Influences on Quality of Life 31

Children/Parenting 32 Quality of Life in the Military 32 Conclusions 33

vi

III. METHODOLOGY 35 Sample 35 Sampling 35

Sample Size 35 Instrumentation 37 Demographic Questionnaire 37

Parental Stress Scale (PSS) 38 Family Stressors Index (FSI) 38 Family Strains Index (FSI) 39

Family Inventory of Life Events (FILE-C) 39 Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale (F-COPES) 40 Coping Scale for Adults (CSA) 40 Occupational Stress Inventory (OSI) 41 Psychological Strains 41 Physical Strains 41 Orientation to Life Scale (OLS) 41 Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) 42 Data Collection 43 Survey 43 Data Analysis 43 Descriptive and Inferential 44 Path Analysis 45 IV. RESULTS 48 Sample 48 Characteristics of Final Sample 48 Research Hypothesis and Questions 52 Description of the Variables 52

Research Hypothesis 53 Causal Modeling 57

Research Question One 58 Research Question Two 59 Research Question Three 60 Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects 61

Related Findings 63 Deployment To Operation Iraqi Freedom 64 Rank Ordering of Subscales 66 Open Ended Items 68

Summary of Findings 70

V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 73 Purpose of the Study 73

vii

V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS (continued) 73 Summary of the Study 73 Discussion of the Findings 75

Discussion of Methodology 75 Discussion of the Hypothesis and Research Questions 77

Comparison and Post Hoc Procedures 77 Research Questions 78 Predictive Analysis for Non-Deployed Group 79

Predictive Analysis for Deployed < 6 Month Group 79 Predictive Analysis for Deployed > 6 Month Group 80

Related Findings 81 Comparison and Post Hoc Procedures for Deployment Specifics 81 Discussion of Open-Ended Responses 82 Theoretical Implications and Suggestions for Future Research 83 Implications for Theory 83

Implications for Research 84 Implications for Practice 85 Summary and Conclusions 86 APPENDICES

Appendix A � Survey 89 Appendix B � IRB and Human Subjects 102 Appendix C � Informed Consent and Cover Letter 105 Appendix D � Letters of Permission 108 Appendix E � Variable Names and Scale Reliabilities 113

REFERENCES 116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 128

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Path Diagram of Hypothetical Model of Factors Predicting Quality of Life 10 2. Path Diagram of Study Model in General Notation 46 3. Mathematical Representation of the Study Path Model 47 4. Path Model for Non-Deployed Group of Army Spouses 59 5. Path Model for Deployed 1-6 month Group of Army Spouses 60 6. Path Model for Deployed 7+ months Group of Army Spouses 61

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Final Sample Characteristics 44 2. Demographics of the Sample 49 3. Tests of Differences Between Major Variables Based on Deployment 54 4. Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations 58 5. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Non-Deployed Group 62 6. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Deployed <6 months Group 63 7. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Deployed >6 months Group 63 8. Tests of Differences Among Groups Based on Wartime Deployment 63 9. Rank Ordering of Subscale Variables 67 10. Summary of Analyses for Hypothesis and Research Questions 70

x

ABSTRACT

Since the World Trade Center bombings in September of 2001, the United States and its allies have been engaged in a worldwide war on terror. This type of war has created a new set of demands within the armed services, often requiring service members to be prepared to engage in hostile action with an elusive enemy anywhere in the world on very short notice. As a result of the recent involvement of U.S. military personnel in combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the spouses and families of service members experienced more frequent and lengthy separations due to deployments. This study examined the interaction between several factors related to family stress and the quality of life among Army spouses during lengthy military deployments. Using the ABC-X model from family stress and resiliency theory, the interactive effect of parenting and family stressors, family coping resources, and the perception of both coping and stressors on overall quality of life in military families was examined.

A sample of Army spouses of deployed and non-deployed soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom was used to determine the differing influences of parenting stress and daily family stressors and strains on the perceived quality of life for the spouses who remained behind during deployment. A hypothesis was tested stating that there would be differences observed for levels of stressors, levels of coping, perception of stressors and coping (wellbeing and sense of coherence), and quality of life between spouses of non-deployed personnel, spouses of service members deployed for less than six months, and spouses deployed for more than six months. Three research questions about the predictive value of the variables within this model for each of the three groups of spouses were also utilized. The respondents were asked to complete a survey consisting of demographic questions and questions pertaining to the measurement of each variable. The Parental Stress Scale, the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes, the Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales, the Physical and Psychological Strains Scales from the Occupational Stress Inventory, the Orientation to Life Scale, and the Generalized Contentment Scale were used to assess stress, coping, appraisal of stress and coping (wellbeing and sense of coherence), and quality of life for the spouses of non-deployed and deployed service members.

Spouses of military personnel were randomly selected for this study (n=205) from a population of spouses residing in military housing at a major U.S. Army installation. Three groups of spouses were created consisting of those spouses who were married to non-deployed service members, those spouses of service members deployed less than six months, and a final group of spouses married to service members deployed greater than six months. Tests of comparisons (ANOVA) found significant differences (p<.001) between the group of spouses of non-deployed service members and the two groups of spouses of deployed service members for all of the variables tested. There were also significant differences (p<.001) between the two groups of spouses of deployed service members in their family stress and quality of life, with greater levels of family stress and lower quality of life experienced by the group of spouses of service members deployed for less than six months. Path analyses were conducted for the three groups of spouses using LISREL. For the group of spouses of non-deployed members, the greatest total effects on their quality of life resulted from well being and family coping. This model explained 70% of the variance in their quality of life. The path model for the group of

xi

spouses of service members deployed for less than six months yielded a 74% explained variance with the greatest total effects on quality of life evolving from family coping and family stress. The path model for the group of spouses whose service members were deployed for longer than six months resulted in explaining 88% of the total variance in quality of life with the greatest total effects coming from parental stress and family stress.

Related findings indicated that there were differences among the three groups in terms of deployment specific issues, such as hazardous duty, satisfaction with military life, and daily family life. Tests of comparison (ANOVA) yielded significant differences between the group of spouses with non-deployed personnel and the groups of spouses with deployed service members. Both groups with deployed service members were significantly more stressed and felt that their children experienced more stress due to the war in Iraq. All three groups of spouses rated their satisfaction with military life lower than the perceived satisfaction with military life of their service-member husbands. The spouses of service members deployed for less than six months were significantly more stressed due to finances and household management than the spouses of service members deployed for longer than six months. The spouses of non-deployed personnel rated child discipline as less stressful than the other groups of spouses with deployed personnel.

Other related findings included rank ordering of the subscale variables. There were two scales assessing stressors. The Family Inventory of Life Events contained nine subscales, including intra-family strains, work and family transitions, pregnancy and childbearing, marital strains, financial and business strains, illness and family care, family legal, losses, and transitions in and out. The intra-family strains, work and family transitions, pregnancy and childbearing were the highest ranking subscales for the spouses of non-deployed personnel and those with service members deployed for less than six months. Marital strains ranked higher than pregnancy and childbearing for the spouses of longer deployed personnel. The Parental Stress Scale contained four subscales, including parenting strains, lack of control, parental satisfaction, and parental rewards. Parental strains and lack of control were the highest ranking scales for the two groups with deployed service members, while parental strains and parental satisfaction were the higher ranking subscales for spouses of non-deployed personnel.

The coping resources were assessed using the Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales with five subscales, including reframing, seeking spiritual support, acquiring social support, mobilizing family support, and passive appraisal. Reframing, seeking spiritual support, and acquiring social support were the highest ranking subscales for the group of spouses whose service members were not deployed and for those spouses of personnel deployed for longer than six months. The highest ranking subscales on F-COPES for the spouses of personnel deployed for less than six months were reframing, mobilizing family support, and acquiring social support.

The perception or appraisal of the situation was assessed using the Occupational Stress Inventory to wellbeing vis-à-vis psychological and physical strains, and the Orientation to Life Scale to assess sense of coherence. Psychological strains ranked higher than physical strains for all three groups regardless of deployment status. The highest ranking subscales for the sense of coherence for all groups were meaningfulness and comprehensibility. There were no subscales for the quality of life assessment.

Several implications for policy, practice, and theory emerged as a result of this study. The results indicated that the stress and coping factors, which influence quality of

xii

life, are experienced and perceived differently by waiting spouses depending on where they are in the deployment cycle. Furthermore, the perceptions of their stress and coping abilities also changed as deployments increase in length. Programs within the family support system in the military should be designed to help waiting spouses manage stress and coping during different phases of deployments. There was also an indication that spouses of longer deployed personnel used internal vs. external styles of coping and had better a quality of life, although their interpersonal relationships with deployed service members tended to suffer greater strain the longer the deployment lasted. Helping professionals could assist these spouses and families by fostering changes within their personal and familial coping strategies to further improve their resiliency. Such improvements from a policy and practice standpoint would benefit families of military personnel in the future as deployments increase in both frequency and length.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION There is considerable stress associated with being a member of the U.S. armed forces (Henry & Robichaux, 1999). It must also be noted that numerous stressors and strains have been found within the families of service members (Figley, 1993). These stressors and strains have included managing day-to-day family activities, parenting, and balancing home and work life for both the service members and their spouses/partners (Segal & Harris, 1993). The spouses or significant others of service members have been often left to fulfill these tasks alone, because these factors act within the context of a larger set of stressors associated with military life, such as deployment of the service member, training for possible military action, and relocation of the family to a new military post (Albano, 1994). The strength of personal and familial relationships are thought to serve as a buffer between family members and the stressors commonly found in military life (McCubbin, 1998). Any combination of these factors may be associated with a deterioration of functioning for family members of military personnel. Perhaps the most significant among these stressors has been the separation of military family members due to long-term deployments (Westhius, 1999). The present study examined the influence of family and parenting stress on the quality of life in spouses or significant others of military personnel when the service member is absent from the home for extended periods of time. Deployments are a necessary part of military life. Given that the United States has had worldwide interests in regional stability and maintained a military presence in various parts of the world, the seamen, airmen, and soldiers of the armed forces have been often required to participate in deployments to various parts of the world (Segal & Harris, 1993). These deployments cause the separation of service members from their families for extended periods and are a primary source of emotional strain for families in the military (Westhius, 1999). Although separations may last for varying periods of time, there has usually been a set time span for the return of military personnel from deployments. Deployments generally last anywhere from less than one month to around six months, with the shorter deployments for a unit�s specialized training (e.g., desert warfare) and longer ones for overseas duty in peacekeeping or military action (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992). In some cases deployments may be extended due to impending military conflict, as was the situation in the war with Iraq. During such times the family members of deployed personnel may find that the level of stress they experience surpasses their coping abilities causing a variety of problems for the both spouses and children within these families. The influence of children on the family system and the parental relationship has been discussed extensively in the family sciences literature during the past several

2

decades (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998). Quite often the variable utilized to measure the impact of children on the family has been parenting stress (Berry & Jones, 1995). Parenting stress has been generally defined as the stress resulting from day-to-day contact with children characterized by decreased satisfaction with the parenting role and a reduced quality of parent-child interaction (Berry & Jones, 1997). The stress exerted by children within the household seems to be mediated by several factors, including the overall strength of the couple relationship (Kurdek, 1998), the perceived amount of co-parenting taking place (Shapiro, Gottman, & Carerre, 2000), and the household division of labor (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998). Parenting stress has been also directly related to the number of children within the household, as well as the parents� ability to balance the multiple roles associated with daily life, such as work and other personal relationships (Berry & Jones, 1997). Given that military families may experience more strain due to training assignments and a lack of cooperative parenting between the spouses during deployments, understanding parenting stress during times of extended separation provided further information about the influence of this stressor on the overall functioning of spouses within military families. Family stressors and family strains constituted what have been commonly known as family demands, which tax the coping resources of the family system over the course of time (McCubbin, 1998). During the past few decades family scientists have come to realize the impact of these demands on families and their members (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). Family stressors are events that occur at relatively distinct points of time and require change by those experiencing them. Some examples of family stressors for military families are deployments and relocations (McCubbin, 1998). Family strains are hardships resulting from prior stressors, as well as the inherent tensions associated with ongoing roles, such as being a parent, holding a job, or being the spouse or child of a service member (McCubbin, 1998). Assessing the role that family stressors and family strains played in the overall erosion of coping resources and the eventual deterioration of functioning provided further insight into difficulties experienced by spouses/partners in Army families. In terms of coping resources, a variety of factors have been thought to influence both personal and family coping. One key set of factors was the intensity, duration, and number of stressors experienced at a particular time by an individual or family (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). Another set of factors appeared to reside within the individual, couple, or family in question, such as previous coping experience, emotional disposition, and family dynamics (Olson, 1993). Personal coping has been defined as individual traits, characteristics, or abilities used to meet demands, but may become depleted due to over-exposure to stressors and strains, such as health, education, and knowledge (McCubbin, 1998). Likewise, the traits, characteristics, or abilities used to meet demands, such as income, resilience, connectedness, and willingness to seek community support were several factors that comprised the definition for family coping (McCubbin, 1998). When assessed together personal and family coping resources provided the basis for understanding the relative dysfunction ultimately observed in many family members under stress and are pertinent to the military population of interest to this research. It is important to realize that stress and coping were not the only factors that influenced the disruption and eventual deterioration in functioning for individuals and

3

families. A key set of factors influenced by both stressors and coping resources were the physiological and psychological appraisals of stress and coping, and sense of coherence. These factors have been discussed under the general heading of perception, or definition, of events � stressors and coping resources (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989), although the term family appraisal of the situation has been used in some instances (McCubbin, 1998). How stressors and coping resources have been appraised by individuals and families respectively provided the basis for how the perception or definition of events was defined for this study. Given that stress has been known to exert an effect on the appraisal of physical and emotional well-being, it was important to discuss the physiological and psychological definitions pertinent to the perception, or definition, of events. Physiological factors affecting the perception of events have been defined as a sense of physical wellbeing expressed as a result of general health, physiological functioning, and the absence of debilitation due to disease processes (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). A physical sense of wellbeing may help to bolster coping abilities and buffer an individual from the stressors and strains of day-to-day life (Sapolsky, 1994). Psychological factors affecting the appraisal of events are incumbent upon a sense of emotional wellbeing expressed as a result of interaction with one�s environment, or social context (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). Several key components of emotional wellbeing, included personality features, the absence of factors predisposing one to mental illness, and psychological hardiness (Younkin & Betz, 1996). The interaction between physiological and psychological factors influencing the perception of events has been established as a crucial set of predictors in the eventual deterioration of both personal and family functioning, and have an effect on the eventual disorganization, or state of crisis, experienced at both the individual and interpersonal levels of analysis (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). Another factor affecting ones� perception of life or stress was sense of coherence. A sense of coherence is thought to consist of a pervasive, enduring, dynamic feeling of confidence that environments are predictable and that things will work out to one�s satisfaction (McCubbin, 1998). Antonovsky (1987) described sense of coherence as a person�s belief that he or she has mastery over immediate life situations, in terms of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Others have cited sense of coherence as a key factor in the linkage between stress and health disturbances (Critelli & Ee, 1996). It was important to assess the influence of sense of coherence on the manageability of life stressors in military families that may frequently experience a variety of life events as being disruptive. The disorganization, or crisis, experienced by the member of the couple who remains behind during a military deployment has been expressed in terms of quality of life. The definition for quality of life was derived from a similar definition used by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) for satisfaction with life, in which one must assess the overall judgement or appraisal of a person�s life in order to measure his or her satisfaction. Quality of life has been defined as a general expression of relative satisfaction with one�s circumstances. A general sense of emotional well-being, often characterized by the absence of significant psychological distress, has also been an important part of defining quality of life (Hudson, 1982). It was important that quality of life be measured in spouses of deployed military personnel because of the spouse�s

4

important role in maintaining the household and balancing her needs with those of the family during the time of separation. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of family and parental stress, level of coping, and perception of stress and coping on the quality of life for spouses and significant others of U.S. Army personnel during periods of separation caused by deployment. The influence of parental stress and the impact of day-to-day family stressors and strains constituted a set of predictor variables on quality of life. Personal and family coping resources were assessed as a set of factors influencing both the perception of stressors and coping resources, and quality of life. The perception of stressors and coping resources, or definition of events, was comprised of psychological and physiological appraisals, along with a person�s sense of coherence. This factor was thought to be influenced by both stressors and coping, and is a major predictor of quality of life as an outcome variable in the present study. These factors are all manageable during times when the service member is home, but manageability was thought to be reduced during periods of absence caused by deployment and separation. It has been argued that the military is merely a microcosm of our society at-large (Segal & Harris, 1993) and that the problems experienced by its families may be more prominent (or intensified) than those observed within the general population (Blount, Lubin, & Curry, 1992; Henry & Robichaux, 1999). However, it remains incumbent upon researchers to attempt a better understanding of the members of these families, along with the factors that may lead to a breakdown in their coping abilities and the ultimate dissolution of the relationships that provide the basis for these families. It is thought that the progression through the family life cycle in tandem with family and parenting stressors may be a key determinant of such factors (McGoldrick, Heiman, & Carter, 1993). The present study provided a better understanding of the effects of parenting stress, along with family stressors and family strains, on the members of the Army spouse�s/partner�s ability to cope, and their perception (definition) of events influencing coping, as these relate to the ultimate outcome of quality of life.

Theoretical Perspective

Three theoretical frameworks were utilized to provide a more complete understanding of family stress and the risk factors associated with military families during periods of deployment. These frameworks have provided a picture of how stress and coping impact both individuals and families. Family stress theory has been incorporated to conceptualize how stressor events impact families in a way that may eventually culminate in a crisis. Family systems theory explains the mechanisms and processes by which these stressor events alter family functioning in a way that may result in maladaptation. Family development theory facilitates analysis of the impact of normative and non-normative transitions on families across the life cycle. Family stress, family systems, and developmental frameworks share similar lines of inquiry into family processes. Therefore, these three frameworks have been combined for use in this study in order to better understand the processes that influence family functioning in military families. Family Stress Theory

Family stress theory began to emerge as a theoretical framework during the years after World War II, with the work of Hill (1949), who studied the stress associated with

5

the reunification of soldiers and their families. Perhaps this theory can be best characterized as an attempt to consolidate the developmental and systems approaches within the realm of family theory, in that Hill has been credited with formulating the developmental approach with Duvall in the 1950s (Klein & White, 1996). Each of these two frameworks possesses inherent explanatory capacities that lend themselves to the study of family transitions and the resultant changes within families undergoing such transitions, but combining parts of both into a single approach enhances our ability to explain certain phenomena like family stress. Of course, the development and dissemination of all of three approaches may be considered as parallel given their beginnings during the mid-20th century.

Hill�s theorizing culminated in the development of the ABC-X model of family stress (Nye & Berardo, 1966; McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). The ABC-X model possesses the following characteristics: A = the stressor, B = the family�s stress meeting resources, C = the definition the family gives the stressor and their perception of coping resources, and X = the crisis resulting from the stressor. Based upon an elaboration of this model by McCubbin and McCubbin (1989), it was thought that families develop or fail to develop crisis-meeting capabilities for a variety of reasons, including the �pile-up� of previous stressors, recently added stressors, and the resilience of the family based upon their family type. Such factors ultimately culminate in the adaptation or maladaptation of a family as conceived by the �double� ABC-X model and later the Family Resiliency Model. As time progresses a particular family will experience a continued erosion of coping resources and a perception that stressors are insurmountable, which further perpetuates the maladaptive state of the family (Boss, 2001).

Within the context of the ABC-X model or any of its more recent incarnations, a stressor (A) may be defined as any event taxing a family�s ability to cope with day-to-day hassles and strains. Such an event may originate from outside of the family or involve the actions of a family member. These events may also be normative, such as the birth of a child, or non-normative, such as an unexpected pregnancy, within the course of the family life cycle (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989). The family�s resources for coping with the stress (B) may include emotional, relational, and personal resources, such as positive communication styles, a sound marriage, or one�s spirituality. Hill (1958) proposed that the B factor was the �adequacy-inadequacy of family organization.� The appraisal or definition of the stressful event(s) by the family (C) is ultimately thought to determine the impact of the stressor on the family (i.e., asking �How stressful is the stressor?�). Thus, the crisis that the family experiences (X) is determined by several factors, including the family�s previous attempts to the meet and effectively resolve stressful situations. Resulting from this sequence of events, a family develops either adaptive or maladaptive behavior patterns, along with the emergence of possible individual symptomology (i.e., depression, substance abuse, or interpersonal conflict.). McCubbin further applied family stress theory in a military setting during the 1970s with families of returning Vietnam prisoners-of-war and those missing-in-action (McCubbin, Hunter, & Dahl, 1975). Much like Hill, after the Second World War, studying stress associated with reunification of families gave rise to further refinement in models developed to address such issues and provided researchers with a better understanding the process of family stress and coping. McCubbin�s work lead to the eventual expansion of the original ABC-X model, with the addition of the �pile-up�

6

factor and the concept of adaption (Boss, 1988). The origination and the major revision to the primary model associated with family stress theory (i.e., ABC-X) occurred as a result of the application of the theory to family life in the military. In both cases, the reunification of families separated by military service was found to be stressful (Hill, 1949; McCubbin, Hunter, & Dahl, 1975). The applicability of family stress theory to the study of stressors and strains associated with military life has been further demonstrated through modeling the effects of separation on those family members left behind in the wake of major deployments during the 1990s (Figley, 1993) and the eventual difficulties associated with reintegrating returning service members into their families (Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994). In that military life remains stressful due to a number of factors unique to military families (i.e., deployments), the further application and expansion of family stress theory within this realm of inquiry seemed warranted at this time. Family Systems Theory Another theoretical framework that emerged during the middle portion of the last century was family systems theory. Based on the work of general systems theorists in the fields of mathematics, cybernetics, and biology, the most basic premise of this approach is that the family may be viewed as a �system� of interconnected and interrelated parts like a complex machine or a biologic organism (von Bertalanffy, 1968). When viewed from this perspective, the family can be seen as a self-regulating system in which members assert influence over other members and their environment. This framework has provided the basis for theory and methods within the helping professions, especially within the field of family therapy. The application of systems thinking to the study of families represents a distinctly different way of conceptualizing human behavior and has provided family study with a perspective unique to understanding group interaction beyond the individual level (Kerr, 1981). There are several basic concepts and assumptions unique to family systems theory. The most basic assumption is based upon the cybernetic principle that all parts of the system are interconnected, in that changes in one part of the system will bring about changes in all other parts of the system and these changes affect the system in a recursive manner (Wiener, 1948; von Bertalanffy, 1968). Another basic assumption is the principle of non-summativity (i.e., the whole is more than the sum of its parts). Not only are systems made up of the elements contained within them, but they are also comprised of the relatedness between those elements. Moreover, to develop a basic understanding of any system, the entire system must be viewed and understood (Bateson, 1972). A third basic assumption of this approach is based on the notion that the environment exerts an influence on the system and the system responds by producing feedback, which exerts an influence on its environment (Kerr, 1981).

Systems are set apart from other systems, as well as their environments, by boundaries affecting the exchange of information between portions of the system and from outside of the system. Within families, boundaries are generally maintained by rules governing the flow of communication between family members and the environment (Lederer & Jackson, 1968). The flow of information is regulated into and out of the family system in the form of feedback. Feedback is thought to be comprised of input of information into the system from the environment and output from the system back into the environment. A balance of the exchange of information between parts of

7

the system, or between the system and the environment, gives rise to a state of equilibrium that a system actively seeks to maintain (Napier, 1988). Conceptually, a system�s equilibrium is neither positive nor negative, but depends on the current circumstances and previous states of equilibrium within the family (Kerr, 1981).

Given that a family may be viewed as a system of interrelated elements, any factor that may influence a particular element will influence the other elements within the system. A stressor may act upon the family system as input fostering a change in its previous equilibrium (Nichols, 1988). Of course, the stressor may originate from inside the family system itself. Ideally, the family system responds by reorganizing in light of the disequilibrium it experiences due to the stressor and reestablishes a state of equilibrium as an output from the system. This re-established equilibrium may, or may not, be similar to pervious states of equilibrium experienced by the family system. This is especially true for normal life transitions, such as children leaving home, that present themselves as opportunities for family reorganization (Skolnik & Skolnik, 1987). The family must re-establish a new overall state of equilibrium in response to life cycle changes (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989). For non-normal life transitions, the process is similar (e.g., job loss, etc.) from a family systems perspective and these changes are predictable within the developmental life course. The development of symptoms within members of a family system, such as depression or anxiety, may be seen as a failure of the system as a whole to adapt in the face of change (Kerr, 1981; Napier, 1988).

For the purpose of the current study, the family systems approach provided a means of conceptualizing family problems in terms of how a family system processes new information, experiences a disruption in established functioning, and attempts to re-assert equilibrium as a result. A number of researchers have sought to use systems theory as a means for further expanding our understanding of the interactive processes within couple and family relationships (Quinn & Odell, 1998). Within military families, these processes are often disrupted or impeded in some way, due to the difficulties inherent to a military way of life (Rotter & Boveja, 1999). These factors and the resulting disequlibrium may ultimately result in the dissolution of the family system. Family systems theory lended itself well to the explanation of familial responses to stressors and the effects those stressors have on the system as a whole by providing an explanation of the processes involved in changing the system over time (Kerr, 1981). Family Development Theory Family development theory has its roots in early family research conducted with Depression-era families. According to this approach, families experience a predictable set of transitions throughout the life course of the individuals involved in them as they progress through various stages across a family�s life span (Nye & Berardo, 1966). These normative life cycle transitions are coupled with unexpected events that act upon families in ways that create strains for the members (and the family group) that must be successfully resolved in order for the family to progress to the next stage in the life course (Carter & McGoldrick, 1988). Accordingly, some families may be unsuccessful in negotiating the stage transitions and there may be disruptions in the normal developmental life course for some families. There are a number of assumptions and concepts unique to family development theory. The most basic of assumptions from this perspective is that developmental processes within families are inevitable and ongoing over time. These familial processes

8

are inevitable because they are generally acknowledged as being driven by the individual growth and development of the child(ren) in the family (Bradt, 1988). These developmental processes are governed by norms and roles based upon the relative position of members within a family (Walsh, 1993). Although common themes and patterns have emerged in the study of these processes, these norms are generally unique to each family on their own subtle way.

A related assumption rests upon the idea that family development progresses in a series of predictable stages beginning with the coupling of two individuals, proceeding on through the birth and raising of their children, continuing with the departure of those children from the household and starting their own families, and ending when the couple is ultimately parted by death (McGoldrick, Heiman, & Carter, 1993). Conceptually, each stage requires a transition on the part of the family in order to progress to a subsequent stage (Walsh, 1993). Families may, or may not, navigate these transitions smoothly, or in a timely manner; thereby creating a delay in the progression through the course of the family life cycle.

It is generally acknowledged that Hill�s work with family stress and coping developed from his research on family transitions in tandem with Duvall�s work before and after World War II (Nye & Berardo, 1966). In an attempt to define normal movement through the family life cycle, families were envisioned as passing through a number of stages and transitions (McGoldrick, Heiman, & Carter, 1993). Assuming that a family�s progress through various life cycle stages is driven by the maturation of the oldest child and occurs in tandem with a number developmental tasks required for the proper nurturing and guidance of a family�s children (vis-à-vis developmental tasks), the transition to a subsequent stage of family development is considered by family researchers as a normal family process. Of course, it is widely understood that families experience non-normative events that may present the members with various disruptions and challenges. A stressor may appear as part of an unexpected occurrence within the family life cycle (McGoldrick, Heiman, & Carter, 1993). Such an event can create difficulty for the family as they attempt to transition to a subsequent stage of development (e.g., an adolescent pregnancy may hinder a family�s movement into the launching stage of its development).

Families may experience transitions as stressful whether or not these transitions are part of normal life cycle development. In applying this theory to work involving military families, we must understand that there are number of non-normative events experienced by military families. One such event is relocation. The average American family in the 1990s moved approximately every four years (McGoldrick, Heiman, & Carter, 1993). This average did not exclude military families, who move every 2 to 3 years, and are likely experience more life cycle disruption as a result (Albano, 1994). Another set of factors that may often prove disruptive for military families is the separation of members from each other due to deployments or training assignments (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992). When viewed within a developmental framework these factors may prove disruptive for families not only during the absence of the family member, but also upon the return of that member to the household (Peebles-Kleeger & Kleeger, 1994). Transitions and rituals between stages may be delayed or missed entirely as a result of the absence of a service member. In addition, deployments usually involved some form of dangerous activity, such as combat or peacekeeping, either of which could

9

result in the death of the service member. The prospect of either often produced added fear and anxiety for military family members (Desivilya & Gal, 1996). In many cases these frequent separations produced the most tension between the adult family members and ultimately resulted in the disruption of the entire family life cycle due to divorce, as they have often learned to function without the missing member during their absence (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992; Gill & Haurin, 1996).

Application of Theory In order to apply the theoretical frameworks in question, it was first necessary to briefly review some of the previous attempts to do so in this area in inquiry. A number of studies sought to provide further insight into the impact of stressors on families in daily life. There have also been a number of studies that have approached the question of stressors and strains associated with military life (Figley, 1993; Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994; Watanbe, Jensen, Rosen, & Newby, 1995). However, few studies have sought to causally model the process by which stressors and strains alter coping abilities and family perception of the stressor in a way that results in overall degradation of the familial stress response across the life cycle. Herein lay the uniqueness of the current study. Combining family stress, family systems, and developmental theories was beneficial for the testing of hypotheses and research questions of interest to this research. Developmental theory presented a framework for normal life cycle changes that allows the researcher to draw a distinction between those families who are proceeding on a normal life course and those who are not. Family systems theory provided a means by which the family structure and processes can be assessed; whereas, family stress theory allowed for the analysis of the impact stress and coping may have upon both the family structure and family life cycle trajectory. The use of these three approaches allowed the current research to: a) draw a distinction between normative and non-normative life cycle transitions, b) understand structural changes within the family due to stressors and transitions, and c) assess the cumulative effects of stressors and coping on the family and individual relationships in question. Thus, this research sought to model the cumulative effects of parenting and family stressors/strains, along with coping and the definition of coping and stress, on the overall outcome of quality of life.

Specifically, the present study used the family stress and resiliency model (Hill, 1949; 1958; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; Boss, 2001) to provide an improved understanding of the effects of parenting stress, family stressors, and family strains on coping resources, perception of stressors and coping (definition of events) and quality of life in Army spouses. Using Hill�s (1949; 1958) original ABC-X model as a theoretical basis for hypothesis testing, the current study assessed the interactive effects of the A, B, and C variables on the outcome of quality of life (X). The role of parenting stress, along with day-to-day family stressors and strains (A-factors), were used as predictors of personal and family coping abilities (B-factors), family definition of events and personal sense of coherence (C-factors), and quality of life (X-factor). As noted in the model, it has been hypothesized that such stressors exert both direct and indirect effects on quality of life.

The effect of environmental stressors and personal coping on quality of life has been previously established using coping and self-esteem as predictors for life

10

satisfaction (Utsey, Ponterotto, Reynolds, & Cancelli, 2000). Quality of life has been chosen as the primary outcome of interest to this study and will be used to assess the total effect of all of the variables (level of parenting and family stress, level of coping, and perception of events) within the hypothetical model depicted in Figure 1. Quality of life was chosen as an outcome because many military couples may spend up to half of their entire marriage apart during the service member�s career (Segal & Harris, 1993). It is understood that a number of factors may be predictive of life satisfaction, including expectations of life style, level of support, and the perceived sense of well-being experienced by those involved in relationships with military personnel (Albano, 1994). Among other things, researchers have found that length of separation due to training and deployment could positively predict lower satisfaction with the couple relationship within military families (Schumm, Resnick, Bollman, & Jurich, 1998). Therefore, further inquiry into the quality of life for military spouses or significant others seemed warranted.

Figure 1 � Path Diagram of Hypothetical Model of Factors Predicting Quality of Life

Statement of the Problem There have been a number of studies on the effects of stressors in military

families. Yet there have been few, if any, examinations of the influence of multiple stress factors and coping on quality of life in military spouses. In this study spouses or significant others of deployed members of the U.S. Army were compared as to their level of parenting stress, levels of family stressors and family strains, coping resources, perception of events, and quality of life. In addition, parenting stress, family stressors and strains, personal and family coping resources, and perception of events were used to

A Stressor(s)

B Coping Resources

C Def. of events (perceptions)

Quality of Life

Family Coping

Personal Coping

X Adaptation or Crisis

Parental Stress

Family Stressors & Strains

Personal Wellbeing

Sense of Coherence

11

predict quality of life for those spouses whose service members have been deployed for longer than six with those deployed for less than that amount of time. Quality of life was used as the criterion variable to determine the relative level of organization-disorganization or crisis experienced by each participant during the deployment.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Ho � The null hypothesis for this study has been stated as follows: There is no observed variability among the three groups of spouses or significant others of U.S. Army personnel whose service member has not been deployed, those who service member has been deployed less than six months, and spouses or significant others whose service member has been deployed for longer than six months who participate in this study in terms of the variables in question: a. parenting stress as measured by the Parental Stress Scale (Berry & Jones, 1995), b. family stressors and strains as measured by the Family Inventory of Life Events

(McCubbin, 1998), c. personal coping resources as measured by the Coping Scale for Adults � Short-

Form (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1984), d. family coping resources as measured by the Family Crisis Oriented Personal

Evaluation Scale (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989), e. physiological factors and psychological factors affecting the appraisal of stress

and coping (wellbeing) as measured by physical and psychological strain subscale of the Occupational Stress Inventory (Osipow & Spokane, 1987),

f. sense of coherence as measured by the Orientation to Life Scale (Antonovsky, 1987),

g. quality of life as measured by the Generalized Contentment Scale (Hudson, 1982).

Research Questions R1 - The first research question was: Can levels of parenting stress, family stressors and strains (A�s), levels of family and personal coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service members who have not been deployed within the past year (ND)?

(AND + BND + CND → XND) R2 � The second research question was: Can levels of parenting stress, family stressors and strains (A�s), levels of family and personal coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service members who have been deployed for shorter (s) than six months?

(As + Bs + Cs→ Xs) R3 � The final research question was stated likewise for spouses and partners of military personnel deployed for greater than six months (7+ months): Can levels of parenting stress, family stressors and strains (A�s), levels of family and personal coping resources (B�s), levels of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict quality of life (X) for spouses/partners of those service members (l).

(Al + Bl + Cl → Xl).

12

Specifically, could a model that includes the amount of stress, level of coping resources, and definition of the events (perception of stress and coping) be used to predict differences in quality of life for spouses/partners of deployed Army personnel?

Definitions

The definitions have been presented here in order to clarify the terminology used for this study: Parenting stress � the level of stress resulting from day-to-day contact with children characterized by decreased satisfaction with the parenting role and a reduced quality of parent-child interaction (Berry & Jones, 1995). Family stressors � level of stress associated with those predictable transitory event that families across their life spans (McCubbin, 1998). Family strains � level of stress associated with those unexpected experiences that lead to disruption and instability within families (McCubbin, 1998). (Parenting stress, along with family stressors and strains, may be defined as �A� under the ABC-X model.) Coping � the level of personal resilience and family resources for meeting and resolving stressful situations (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989) (�B� in the ABC-X model). Perception of the stressor(s) � the familial assessment of the severity of the stressor event(s), plus their appraisal of available coping resources, based on the absence of individual physical or psychological distress (wellbeing) and level of manageability with current life situations (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989) (�C� in the ABC-X model). Wellbeing � a general sense of emotional and physical wellness indicative of a lack of distress over current life situations at a given time (Adler & Hillhouse, 1996) Quality of life � an expression of the overall judgment of life satisfaction and the adjustment to demands associated with daily life; level of emotional tension experienced (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) (�X� in the ABC-X model). Stress � a state of tension within an individual caused by a disruption within their biological system (Sapolsky, 1994).

Assumptions

One of the primary assumptions underlying this study was that the respondents have the ability to report the information requested in an accurate and forthright manner. It was assumed that they will do so to the best of their abilities. Another assumption was that the respondents will not share the requested information prior to completing the instrument and will have no knowledge of other participants in the survey. A final assumption was that the sample was reflective of the military population in this geographic area and was representative of the spouses/partners of personnel serving within the U.S. Army at this time.

Limitations

The accuracy of the study results may have been limited by the reluctance expressed by the respondents to disclose personal and private information. Another limitation may have been the lack of generalizability due to the lowered response rate with the use of surveys to gather the desired data. A final limitation may have resulted

13

from reduced statistical power often observed due to the aforementioned lowered response rate.

Delimitations

There were several delimitations for the present study. The study was delimited to spouses and partners of U.S. Army personnel who were deployed at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These spouses, or significant others, of personnel were either married, or cohabiting, as opposed to single personnel. The sample was be delimited to those Army personnel and spouses, or significant others, with at least one child residing in the household. Since the minimum age for enlistment in the U.S. Armed Services is eighteen, the survey was delimited to adult respondents.

Abbreviations

1. FILE-C: Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (McCubbin et al., 1981). 2. GCS: Generalized Contentment Scale (Hudson, 1982) 3. F-COPES: Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale (McCubbin et al.,

1981). 4. CSA: Coping Scale for Adults: (Frydenburg & Lewis, 1984). 5. PSS: Parental Stress Scale (Berry & Jones, 1995). 6. OSI: Occupational Stress Inventory (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). 7. OLS: Orientation to Life Scale (Antonovsky, 1987). 8. DSO: Division Surgeon�s Office, 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division � Ft. Stewart

� Hinesville, Georgia 9. FAP: Family Advocacy Program � Army Community Services � Ft. Stewart �

Hinesville, Georgia 10. ACS: Army Community Services � Ft. Stewart � Hinesville, Georgia. 11. FORCCOM: Force Command � Ft. McPherson � Atlanta, Georgia. 12. CHPPM: U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. 13. FRG: Family Readiness Groups (organized by the non-commissioned and

commissioned officers spouses for support of families and children during deployments).

14

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature for parenting and family stressors influencing the

quality of life for Army spouses during deployments is divided into four sections. Each section is organized around the primary components of the hypothetical model used in this study. The first section of the literature review will present recent research findings relevant to military families. The second section will include a brief overview of the recent literature on stress and also include the biopsychosocial approaches that have influenced the field in more recent years. The third section of the current of literature review will focus on the research conducted on stress and the family system during the past few decades. This section of the review will include the recent research conducted on the impact of stress on both individuals and families, as well as the literature on the most common types of stressors experienced by individuals and families. The final section of this literature review will focus on the topic of quality of life in terms of parenting, family influences, and relationship influences on emotional well-being.

Overview of the Study

The focus of the current study is to ascertain the cumulative effect of stressors, coping ability, and definition of stressor events on quality of life among military spouses or significant others during military deployments. The variables of interest in this study are stressors that families experience associated with parenting, family stressors and family strains (A factors), as well as personal and family coping abilities (B factors) and perceptions or definitions of the events (C factors) that may lead to reduction in quality of life (i.e., X factor or disorganization-adaptation). The use of this model will allow the present study to improve our basic understanding of the factors influencing the quality of life experienced by spouses or significant others during separations from service members on deployments.

Military Families

A number of researchers have pointed out the importance of balancing military life and the needs of family members. It is well understood that the relocation, separation, and reunification experienced in the military creates a number of demands that challenge the integrity and balance within these families. There are also factors concerning deployment to hazardous areas of the world where the service member may be placed in harm�s way creating stress and assailing the coping abilities of their families during such times (Westhius, 1999). It has been argued that the deployment of soldiers may constitute the most prominent set of stressors experienced by military families. The overall disorganization experienced by families, even among reservists, during such times

15

depends heavily upon their abilities to cope with stress and maintain some semblance of normality while the service member is away (Figley, 1997).

Several studies have focused on the ability of military families to preserve their basic emotional integrity even as their members are away. In one study of families of Israeli service members, it was found that family life and military life comprised two domains within which the service member must operate (Desivilya & Gal, 1996). Their data revealed that the families who successfully managed the competing demands of both domains reported greater satisfaction. Achieving balance within and between these competing domains allowed families to feel less burdened during times of stress. It must be noted, however, that as a result of the limited national area and scope of operations the amount of separation and relocation among members of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is often less than that experienced by members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Hence, comparisons must be made carefully while understanding that balancing competing professional and family domains is important to managing stress and coping in many spheres of life.

There is evidence that the stress associated with separation from loved ones may also be mediated by several other factors. One such factor in managing the demands associated with military life seems to be the quality of the relationship between the service members and their significant others. Gill and Haurin (1998) found that the satisfaction with life experienced by a military officer�s wife, in terms of her own employment opportunities, career advancement, and economic consequences, greatly affected the service member�s decision to remain in the military. The husband�s career satisfaction was a more important factor than the satisfaction expressed by their wives, but this influence was thought to be mediated by the husband�s perception of the economic consequences of the wife�s employment. When assessed for satisfaction with life, the females in the study were almost always negatively impacted by their husband�s career decisions (Gill and Haurin, 1998).

In another study of military couples, female spouses of service members reported lower marital satisfaction comparable to previous gender differences observed in studies of marital quality (Schumm, Resnick, Bollman, Stephan, & Jurich, 1998). Women often express more distress with the marital relationship and frequently score lower on indices of marital satisfaction than men (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Schumm et al. (1998) found that a factor predicting marital satisfaction for women in this sample was the perceived quality of time the husbands spent with the family and the wives� perception of how engaged the father was with their children. Such findings indicated the importance of the interplay between marital and parental interaction as a possible mediator of stress and tension within military families.

There has also been evidence that the quality of the parent-child relationship and the perceived involvement with children influenced perceived overall quality of life for family members. In a study assessing the effects of raising a handicapped child on the functioning of service members, perceived social support was found to be a significant determinant for buffering the effects of stress on the couple relationship for both those families with and without handicapped children (Watanbe, Jensen, Rosen, & Newby, 1995). The quality of the couple relationship and its effect on perceived quality of life for each individual member of the couple cannot be understated. Of course, factors such

16

as these constitute only one facet of the entire array of stressors associated with military life.

Another set of factors included those not experienced as a part of the normal family life course. Recent surveys indicated that a large number of military personnel were divorced, separated, or were single parents. As many as six percent (6%) of the entire population of military personnel were single parents (Military Family Resource Center, 2000). According to one set of data from a group of officers in the U.S. Army, over 67% of these respondents (n=291) reported being separated from their spouses at one time or another during their marriages (Parker, Call, & Barko, 1999). Problems stemming from separation and divorce in the military may be comparable to those experienced by the general population, but may seem more intensified due to the excess stressors experienced by these couples. The division of familial assets, custodial arrangements, and visitation for children were common concerns for military couples experiencing divorce or separation (Parker, Call, & Barko, 1999).

Once divorced, a common situation facing single parent service members revolves around how to balance the needs of their children with their military careers. Issues involving relocation to new communities, as the result of re-assignment, can upset stability in the lives of the children in such families. During deployments, the service members and their unit command structure must work together to develop a good care plan for children of these divorced personnel (Henry & Robichaux, 1999). Divorce is generally a temporary status for most members of the population. Often fathers in the military are awarded custody of their children after the divorce, due to the comprehensive health and dental care provided by the military to service members and their families (Segal & Harris, 1993). These fathers remarry and form blended families as they produce offspring with their new spouses, creating step-sibling systems within one household. One recent set of researchers referred to this pattern of fathering as �family swapping� and pointed out that children who are not in the custody of their fathers are more likely to be impoverished as a result of this phenomenon (Manning & Smock, 2000).

Many of the divorced service members remarry and often remarry other service members. According to recent data, there were over 6,700 dual-military couples serving in the U.S. Army alone (Henry & Robichaux, 1999), comprising approximately 6% of the total force. According to recent reports, there are over 34,000 of these couples serving in the armed forces (Military Family Resource Center, 2000). While these couples may constitute a numerical minority, they present a unique and perplexing scenario for the general staff and the military alike. When these personnel are deployed, they generally are not able to deploy at the same time, if they have children at home. Children in these families are generally sent to live with immediate kin. Often one spouse, usually the female, is required to give up her career in order to maintain some semblance of family stability for the sake of their children. Such a sacrifice can create resentments that may undermine the future of the couple�s relationship (Gill & Haurin, 1998).

The decision to give up one�s career aspirations may cause further problems for the couple. Even if one spouse is not compelled to give up his/her career, there may exist the expectation that he or she (generally �she�) engage more actively in the process of child rearing and daily household maintenance (Gill & Haurin, 1998). These former service members often reported more stress and less satisfaction with their daily lives. Such expectations prove to be problematic for the couple�s relational satisfaction and

17

may serve to reduce the overburdened members view of his or her quality of life. It is this quality of life that has been found to most often influence one�s decision to remain committed to such things as careers, marriages, child rearing, and other personal endeavors (Kelly, 1994). This seems to be a part of the population of military personnel that has been overlooked by past research and should be studied in greater detail, especially with the large number of spouses in reserve unit and increased activation of these units. Stress and Military Families

The stress associated with being a member of the U.S. armed forces has been previously documented (Hunter & Nice, 1978). During the past twenty-five years, a number of researchers have sought to determine the effect of a variety of stressors on service members and their families, such as peace-time deployments (Albano, 1994), reassignment (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992), and warfare (Rosen, Teitelbaum, & Westhius, 1994). From these studies, and others, social scientists have been able to develop a more accurate picture of life in certain military families (Segal & Harris, 1993). What has become apparent is that the new and more complex role requirements of military personnel have taxed the emotional resources of many military families (Henry & Robichaux, 1999).

In such diverse settings as Kosovo and Somalia, military personel have been asked to perform peacekeeping duties to help ensure the basic freedoms of emerging democracies. More recently, the war on terrorism has seen the rapid deployment of soldiers and support personnel to areas of the world, like Afghanistan and Iraq, where they can neutralize terrorist threats and topple regimes engaged in hostile actions toward the U.S. Such deployments constitute a new, non-traditional role for members of the armed forces (Segal & Harris, 1993). It has also been hypothesized that the stress associated with such deployments, along with the more traditional events that are part of military life (e.g., reassignment), have detrimental effects on the families of military personnel (Albano, 1994). Of particular interest, has been the impact of military affiliation on interpersonal relationships and overall emotional health within these families (Figley, 1997). Among the most important relationships of interest are those between parents and their children in military families (Watanbe, Jensen, Rosen, & Newby, 1995). The effects of stress on spouses and children during more frequent, long-term separations has been reported and may be the subject of further research in the near future as military intervention is required around the world.

As the job of being a soldier, sailor, or airman has grown increasingly complex, the stressors associated with the challenges of maintaining a military career and a stable household have exerted a strain on all family members. As a result of deployment, training, reassignment, and the ever-present prospect of combat, military families face considerable odds of maintaining some semblance of a normal life (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992). Military families also face the daily difficulties associated with maintaining intimate relationships and raising their children within a complex social institution. These factors influence the emotional resources of military families and, to some extent, hinder their ability to cope with emerging life situations (Segal & Harris, 1993). In response to these situations, military families may experience crises and require assistance from caregivers within the military community, such as Army

18

Community Services (ACS). These factors have also been shown to exert an effect on retention, morale, and certain aspects of job performance among military personnel (Albano, 1994).

Any number of life events may be characterized as unexpected or unpredictable in terms of family stress and coping. These events are similar to those previously discussed, but may be perceived by family members as more disruptive due to their unexpected nature. Events such as separation, reunification, relocation, divorce, and remarriage may all be classified as non-normative life events. Many of the separations experienced by military families are the result of deployments and �in the field� training, although a distinction exists between wartime and peacetime deployments (Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994). Reunification after deployment during the Persian Gulf War created stressful reactions in many families with service members involved in that conflict (Figley, 1993). There has been mounting evidence that deployments in war-torn countries, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, created a unique set of stressors for deployed personnel and required special coping skills for the families of these service members upon their return (Segal, Segal, & Eyre, 1992). As the military develops new ways of waging war on new battlefronts, these factors will continue to play a vital role in the successful support of families within the military. The recent conflict in Iraq has present researchers with the opportunity for improved understanding of stressors and strains experienced by military families.

Perhaps no other single stressor is more disruptive to normal processes in military families than the deployment of service members (Kelly, 1994). No review of the literature on stress in military families would be complete without a discussion of the specific impact of deployment on these families. Deployment constitutes the central piece of an array of stressors that military families experience. Families in the military are often stressed in anticipation of the deployment. They are generally worried about the service member during the separation and are anxious about a reunion at the end of the deployment (Westhius, 1999).

Deployments create a unique challenge to the basic structural integrity of the family when an adult member is taken from the home for an extended period of separation (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992). During this time the family is required to adjust to the absence of the member by altering the way they interact with each other and by further adapting to their situation. This creates an extra strain on the adult member left behind to cope with daily family life, despite the numerous services that are available to military families at their local installation (Henry & Robichaux, 1999). It is most frequently the wives and mothers who are left to function as the sole parent within these families. These wives are often not the biological parents of the children in their households (i.e., step-mothers) and may face the added challenge of dealing with visitation issues while the service member is away (Rotter & Boveja, 1999).

It has been noted that during the deployment the remaining family members eventually adapt to the absence of the service member (McCubbin, Dahl, & Hunter, 1976). Since many deployments are generally time-limited, the spouse and children may begin to anticipate the return of the service member. In many cases, the changes within the family structure will have become relatively permanent and daily functioning of members will have stabilized, causing the return of the service member to be experienced as a disruption to family life (Figley, 1993). If relations within the couple dyad are

19

problematic or parent-child problems exist prior to the deployment, then the opposite of a joyful reunion may await the returning service member (Schumm, Resnick, Bollman, & Jurich, 1998). In some families the time away may actually be a relief for the family members and create tension when the deployment ends, although under normal circumstances it is the reintegration of the service member back into the household that constitutes the primary stressor upon his or her return from deployment (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992).

Hill (1949) first discussed the phenomenon of reunification stress in soldiers and their families returning home from World War II. McCubbin et al. (1976) further refined the concept with their study of Vietnam-era POW�s returning home from imprisonment during that conflict. Others have looked at reunification and reintegration difficulties after shorter periods of separation while in military service in Grenada, Panama, and the first Persian Gulf War (Figley, 1993; Westhius, 1999). Still others have discussed the reunification stress experienced by families after time-limited deployments for peacekeeping duties (Segal, Segal, and Eyre, 1992). When service members returned from deployment they invariably experienced problems after an initial �honeymoon� period. This period during reunification was often followed by considerable strain and the seeking of assistance from various community resources (e.g., chaplains and social work services).

Several themes emerged from these studies. Reintegration was experienced as difficult if the returning spouse perceived significant changes in the wife who remained behind with younger wives being more likely to exhibit change during the absence (Segal, Kammeyer, & Vuozzo, 1987). Rosen, Durand, Westhius, & Teitelbaum (1995) found that male service members often felt left out of the household when they returned and that they often reported resenting their wives for being able to function so well in their absence. It was also found that jealousy and mistrust of the spouse by the returning service member were significant barriers to the reunification process. The researchers concluded that the presence of these factors was negatively associated with successful reunions of service members and their families after deployments (Rosen, Durand, Westhius, & Teitelbaum, 1995. Army Spouses and Their Children The U.S. Army is the largest of the armed services in the U.S. military (DOD, 2002). This branch of the service is charged with the task of rapidly placing a large force on the ground in hostile territory and engaging in military action quickly and effectively. The Army has forces engaged in peacekeeping duties or military action in more than a dozen countries around the world as of 2003. In order to maintain their readiness, soldiers must be highly trained and constantly ready to deploy (a.k.a., �world-wide qualified). Training often requires that the soldier stay �in the field� conducting live exercises for several weeks at the time. They may also be required to change their MOS (job) and unit with short notice, which often requires the relocation of the entire family to a new Army post. Army families generally move every two to three years, so that any given installation may lose up to a third of its population each year (Westhius, 1999).

The separation of service members from their families, for whatever reasons, places a strain on the daily coping abilities of the spouse or partner left behind. This is especially true for U.S. Army families with younger children and may be made more

20

strenuous if those families contain children from a previous relationship (Rosen, Teitelbaum, & Westhius, 1993). The parent left behind may be faced with a variety of difficulties associated with being in an unfamiliar �Army� town, connecting with services �on-post,� and managing the daily lives of children inside and outside of the household (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992). A number of families reported stress and anxiety associated with relocation for up to twelve months after their move from one military post to another (Kelly, 1996). During this time the family members are particularly vulnerable to depressive and anxiety disorders commonly observed with an increased level of stress (Rotter & Boveja, 1999).

It has also been reported that some Army families have experienced difficulties with re-integrating service members into the family system after their return from deployment (Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994). The difficulty with re-integration often results in feelings of estrangement among family members who have been functioning without the service member during the separation time frame. It has been reported that the service members and their families experience a great deal of distress as a result of such phenomena (Medway, David, Cafferty, & Chappell, 1995). In an attempt to support families during separations, the U.S. Army has recognized that such problems exist and has generally sought to create an extensive network of family support services (Segal & Harris, 1993). However, in some cases, these family members are still unable to find the necessary support from support services or within their local communities (Amen, Jellen, Merve, & Lee, 1988). When these families fail to connect with available local resources, such as ACS (Army Community Services) and their unit�s FRG (Family Readiness Group), some of their members may suffer emotionally (Segal & Harris, 1993).

Given the fact that military families often experience strains as a result of factors, such as relocation and separation, the stressors associated with what would otherwise be normative family life cycle transitions may create additional disruption for the members of these families (Parker, Call, & Barko, 1999). The family life cycle is generally acknowledged as the set of transitions that all families undergo in tandem with the life course of each individual member (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989). The cycle takes place vis-à-vis a sequential set of stages and the transitions that fall between these stages. For example, the birth of an infant generally marks a transition from non-parent to that of a parent for the adult members of a family. Along with such transitions, come changes in the role requirements of each parent within the family. Of course, these stages and transitions continue for the family until the death of one spouse or the other. Children become toddlers, enter school, and finally leave the household and start families of their own (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989).

The separation of Army family members due to relocation or duty assignments can cause significant difficulties for other family members during family transitions, and thus, disrupt the family life cycle altogether (Parker, Call, & Barko, 1999). Parents serving in any branch of the military may miss important milestones in the development of their children and families due to a variety of reasons. Such absences may prompt the spouses of service members to demand that they choose between their military careers or their families (Gill & Haurin, 1998). Often the choice is difficult, since both are usually inextricably linked. This choice often comes as a result of reduced overall marital quality among the couples in these families and serves to impact overall quality of life for each individual member (Mikulincer, Florian, & Solomon, 1995). In the U.S. Army, wives

21

tend to be younger, the couple tends to have more children, and families are more likely to be blended (Westhius, 1999).

Improving our understanding of the emotions associated with the combined stressors and strains associated with military life may further our understanding of quality of life, service member morale, and possible reasons for leaving the military. According to Segal and Harris (1993), there have been over 100 scientific and applied documents, as well as briefings, that have served to advance our understanding of the relationship between the U.S. Army (in particular) and its families. Researchers have shown that the variable with the strongest impact on personnel and unit readiness was the amount of perceived support their leaders gave to the service member and their families (Henry & Robichaux, 1999), although this influence was thought to be mediated by a variety of other factors such as family coping and willingness to access available resources.

Family and Parenting Stress

Stress may be defined as the state of tension arises in an organism upon presentation of a stressor that disrupts the organism�s previous state of homeostasis (Sapolsky, 1994). People may experience the stressor in an acute or chronic manner depending upon the nature of the stressor. An acute stressor is short-term in duration and may take the form of a minor auto accident that leaves someone without a car for a few days, whereas suffering a long-term illness or job dissatisfaction may be considered chronic stressors. Regardless of the initial cause, the physiological changes that the individual undergoes can be considered the underlying biological factors of stress. The entire process has been found to be triggered by the release of glucocorticosteroids by the adrenal glands into the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the brain to release higher levels of norepinepherine; thus, creating an �alarm� state for the organism. Whether or not the stressor requires an acute or chronic stress response from the individual determines the actual damage to the vital systems. Psychosocial stressors tend to be more chronic, as well as unpredictable, in their nature and effect upon human beings (McDaniel, 1996). It is the chronic nature of such stressors that disrupts normal functioning in all organisms and causes the continued employment of the stress response. The stress response itself may eventually become damaging to the organism (Sapolsky, 1994). This damage may be physiological, taking the form of a decreased immunological response that puts the organism at risk from disease processes, or psychological distress, subsequently resulting in an altered emotional state (e.g., depression or anxiety) (Post, Weiss, Smith, & Leverich, 1996). Overall cumulative effects of stress on the immunological systems may be observed in the eventual development of diseases that result from individual genetic predisposition like cancer and coronary artery disease (Adler & Hillhouse, 1996). While research into the impact of stress health-related issues is important, it is the manifestation of stress at the interpersonal level that has received a considerable amount of attention within the social and behavioral sciences during the past few decades. Family Stress At the familial level, individuals experience life events as stressful for a variety of reasons. Each individual possesses different levels of coping ability, as well as different perceptions and definitions of stressful events, based upon previous attempts at

22

adaptation (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). These previous attempts to adapt create a particular individual�s stress response. Depression, anxiety, and other emotional maladies may be viewed as symptomatic of maladaptation. This maladaptation may be seen at the individual or family level of analysis. Of course, higher organisms, like human beings, tend to live within the relative safety and comfort of groups. These groups can also be a source of stress and discomfort to their members.

It was Hill (1949) who first began to conceptualize family stress as a variable for analysis in the family sciences. His theorizing culminated in what became know as the ABC-X of family stress and coping. The �A� factor within this model is comprised theoretically of the stressor or event that creates a hardship for the family. Whether the stressor originated from within the family or outside the family, these event generally fell into one of three categories according to Hill: �dismemberment (loss of a member), accession (addition of a member), demoralization (loss of family morale), or a combination of the three, such as the departure of an adult member due to infidelity� (Hill, 1949, p. 10). All of these events were thought to threaten the unity of the family and could result in a crisis for the members at some point. Other researchers further elaborated Hill�s model and extended the categories of family of family stressors to include change in locale, imprisonment, financial problems, and even the �pile-up� of several of stressors experienced in sequence by a family (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).

Human family systems are fraught with structural features and individual temperaments that render them vulnerable to variety stressors that may cause disruption and require adjustment of members or adaptation in family functioning. The structural integrity of families changes over the course of time and as the boundaries between the members change (McGoldrick & Walsh, 1999). The influence of these changes at the familial level impact individuals, who in turn feed information back into the family system further altering the structure and processes within these families. This variability in cohesion, adaptability, and communication within families at different times may prove stressful for individuals and threaten the overall integrity of their families (Olson, 1993). In a recent study of the influence of the family system on adolescent sexual activity, Davis and Friel (2001) reported that the closeness of relationships between parents and their children determined the initiation of early sexual activity in young girls. In terms of closeness, data from other studies have suggested that it is the cohesiveness of members and firm boundaries that buffer families from a variety of internal and external stressors (Lansford, Ceballo, Abbey, & Stewart, 2001). The amount of cohesiveness and adaptability among family members determines the amount of resilience observed in families when experiencing stressful events (Boss, 2001; Olson, 1993).

Family stressors often originate from outside of the family, but may occur from within as members develop and change. Serious illnesses, substance use, and the untimely death of a member all have a serious impact on family processes and structure (Rolland, 1993). In an extension of his previous work on family stress, Hill (1970) described how maladaptation to family stressors influenced families for several generations in terms of the impact on members. There are also studies dealing with the intergenerational effects of life altering problems like alcoholism on families and their members (Steinglass, 1987). The impact of stressors and pile-up on multiple generations in families reduces coping ability and creates a tendency toward catastrophizing events in these maladaptive families (Olson, 1993).

23

Parenting Stress A key stressor within the context of family stress is the difficulty associated with

parenting. It has recently been established that parenting stress may influence quality of life in a variety of ways. It is thought that the stressors associated with parenting differ depending upon the stage of the family life cycle development (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989). In some cases the arrival of a child may serve to disrupt or stabilize the couple�s relationship, contingent on how satisfied the couple was with their relationship prior to childbirth and how prepared the individuals were to become parents (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998). This relationship seemed to be associated with stage of family development being experienced by a family at any given point in time, with marital satisfaction at its lowest and an increase in parenting stress appearing when children are younger and decreasing as they age and as parents become more competent (McGoldrick, Heiman, & Carter, 1993). The presence of children within the household has an influence on the individual adjustment and stability of a couple�s relationship. Often mothers struggle with the decision of returning to work and how soon they should do so. It has been shown that the timing of this decision had slightly negative effects on the cognitive development and behavioral problems in some children (Han, Waldfogel, & Brooks-Gunn, 2001). This study found that a number of factors mediated these outcomes, such as quality of daycare, ethnicity, and impoverishment. Another study used multiple measurement points over the course of three years to assess the influence of the arrival of a couple�s first child on their overall marital stability (Belsky & Rovine, 1999). These researchers found that the arrival of a couple�s first child was more predictive of marital dissolution when the couple was less stable and reported more conflict prior to the birth of their child. They also found that higher scores on co-parenting indices and previous stability of marital interactions were reflective of lower overall declines in marital satisfaction subsequent to the birth of the first child.

The age of the mother at the time of parenthood has also been predictive of greater parenting stress and has also been highly correlated with a variety of negative outcomes for children, such as poor test scores and grade repetition (Levine, Pollack, & Comfort, 2001). Shapiro, Gottman, and Carrere (2000) found that interpersonal expressions of fondness, the husband�s awareness of his wife and their relationship, and lower negativity were mediating factors in terms of parenting stress after the arrival of the first child. These studies supported the belief among family researchers that parenting stress may be predicted by a variety of factors and that this stressor may subsequently influence satisfaction in relationships. These effects also emerged as a part of study assessing the differences between the husband�s and wives� appraisals of marital quality and level of co-parenting within the first four years. It was found that lack of co-parenting was not a predictor of later divorce, but significantly predicted dissatisfaction. Also it was found that there were no significant differences in divorce rates in the study between those couples with children and their childless counterparts (Kurdek, 1998).

Considerable discourse has continued over the influence of children on marital relations. This influence seems to be mediated by a number of factors that existed prior to the arrival of the first child, such as socio-economic status, household division of labor, and individual differences (Belsky &Hsieh, 1998). The presence of children within military families has been deemed to influence these systems in a variety of ways.

24

A number of researchers have pointed out the importance of balancing military life and the needs of family members (McCubbin & Dahl, 1976). One such study of families of Israeli service members, found that family life and military life comprised two domains within which the service member must operate. Those families who successfully managed the competing demands of both domains reported greater satisfaction (Desivilya & Gal, 1996).

There was also evidence that the quality of the parent-child relationship and the perceived involvement with children influenced the perceived quality of life for all family members. In a study assessing the effects of raising a handicapped child on the functioning of service members, perceived social support was found to be a significant determinant for buffering the effects of stress on the couple�s relationship for both those families with and those without handicapped children (Watanbe, Jensen, Rosen, & Newby, 1995). In all of these studies, it was found that parenting, in some way, influenced both individual and couple satisfaction with their relationship and life in general in the military.

Personal and Family Coping

Assessing personal and family coping is accomplished at two levels of analysis and encompasses two separate, but overlapping, bodies of literature. The ability to cope adequately with stressors at the individual level is important because coping is a key factor to one�s self-esteem, sense of well-being, and life satisfaction (Wall & Hayes, 2000). At the familial level, coping is seen as a collective of resources that each individual within the family possesses and contributes to the family�s overall coping response to stressors and crisis meeting ability (Boss, 1997). An integration of the two concepts is important in order to understand the interactive process between these variables in the lives of individuals and families. Personal Coping and Psychological Hardiness Personal coping may be best defined in terms of several psychological constructs, which include the ideas of self-esteem and psychological hardiness. Parry (1990) describes coping as the way individuals master and assuage the stress that results when events challenge their routine predictions about world. Coping with stress requires two basic responses from the individual: a) dealing with the feelings associated with the problem, and b) dealing with the problem itself. Inability to cope with the problem creates feelings of discomfort, such as anxiety, for the individual (Parry, 1990). This anxiety may fuel a panic response or depression, which may create feelings of despair further incapacitating the individual�s coping response. Further impairment of the individual�s coping response often leads to an overall sense of self-doubt and shame at one�s inability to deal effectively with life�s problems (Chapman & Santana, 1997). These eventually result in feelings of helplessness, a negative appraisal of self-worth, and poor self-esteem for the person (Parry, 1990). From a cognitive frame-of-reference, this lack of crisis meeting capability reduces the overall psychological hardiness of the individual.

Psychological hardiness refers to a disposition or attitude possessed by an individual that influences the way they perceive stress and that buffers them against the hardships of daily life (Younkin & Betz, 1996). Younkin and Betz (1996) described

25

psychological hardiness as a key facet of an individual�s personality that serves as the basis for all cognitive coping mechanisms. Psychological hardiness is composed of three primary components: commitment (e.g., taking up a task), challenge (e.g., managing that task), and control (i.e., internal vs. external loci). People who possess a fair amount of psychological hardiness experience life in terms of happiness, rather than sadness, and often experience life as filled with more positive than negative events (Dixon & Reid, 2000). Psychological hardiness is related to several other constructs commonly discussed within the behavioral and social sciences, including disposition and outlook on life.

Of course personal coping mechanisms and psychological hardiness are important to the management of stressful life events, but stressors tend to fall into two categories: acute or chronic (Miller & Kraus, 1996). Acute stressors are usually temporary and may be dealt quickly by the individual or alleviate themselves soon after they appear (e.g., several deadlines falling in the same week due to over scheduling at one�s job). Chronic stressors, however, cannot be dealt with right away and may not be easily alleviated, such as a lengthy physical illness. While acute stressors may be dealt with expeditiously by an individual, it is the nature and complexity of chronic stressors that tend to contribute most heavily to the erosion of psychological hardiness and coping skills by dimming one�s view that things will eventually improve (Chapman & Santana, 1997). Chronic stress has been found to trigger a cascade of physiological and emotional responses that culminate in the inability to cope becoming a stressor (McDaniel, 1996). To the extent that these factors co-mingle, the individual coping response can be seen as possessing both psychological and physiological features.

There are number of coping styles that develop depending on the individual that range from avoidant (emotion-focused) to acceptance (cognitive-focused) models (Miller & Kraus, 1996; Parry, 1990). Avoidant styles of coping center around withdrawal, denial, and suppression of thoughts associated with the stressor; whereas acceptance models feature cognitive restructuring the impact of stressors, attempts at resolution of the crisis, and emotional growth from the experience (Miller & Kraus, 1996). Recent studies addressing the issue of coping have sought to determine the influence of more long-term severe stressors on effectiveness of coping and coping styles. These coping styles may impact the ability to contend with various debilitating life events. In one study of chronic alcoholics, it was found that group treatment aimed at restructuring their coping skills to deal with life problems, rather than avoid them, was predictive of sobriety at eighteen months follow-up (Litt, Kadden, Cooney, & Kabela, 2003). These results indicate that predisposing factors to relapse in substance users can be reduced by altering an individual�s coping styles.

Another recent study sought to determine the influence of coping skills on the self-management of chronic pain (Endler, Corace, Summerfeldt, Johnson, & Rothbart, 2002). It was found that those patients, who self-identified as having avoidant styles of coping, experienced greater distress from their pain than those who were reported to adhere to a more acceptance-oriented model of coping across multiple measurement points. The authors suggested a closer assessment of personality factors when treating individuals for chronic pain in order to determine effectiveness of outcomes for those patients. Thus, an individual�s style of coping has proven to be a primary determinant in how persons deal with stressful life situations and how they prepare to deal with stressors in terms of their acuteness or chronicity.

26

Family Coping Family coping has often been viewed as a collection of individual stress responses

of family members, but at the family level of analysis an appraisal must be made of the cumulative coping resources at the family�s disposal in times of troubling life events. Hill (1949) attempted to characterize family coping in terms of the resources that families possessed, such as role structure and clarity, flexibility, and previous success at managing difficult life situations. He defined these family coping resources as the �B� factor within his ABC-X model of family stress. Hill originally thought that families possessed resources inherent within them to deal with hardships or weaknesses that increased their vulnerability to stressors (Hill, 1949). McCubbin and Patterson (1982) contended that previous success at meeting life stressors are crucial to the development of what they regard as family strengths and add that such strengths create a pattern of positive adaptation for families that deal well with problems. Thus, family coping is comprised of individual coping responses, but it is coping at the familial level that is much more than the sum of its individual parts.

Others have suggested that the familial coping response is not only determined by the family�s previous attempts to deal with stressful life situations, but that the type of family system also plays a role in their ability to meet life problems effectively (McCubbin, Olson, & Larsen, 1987). Olson (1993) maintained that families ranged from balanced to midrange to unbalanced in terms of their flexibility (i.e., ability to change), cohesiveness (i.e., closeness), and their ability to communicate with one another. Balanced families tend to function more optimally and are able to deal with troubling life situations more effectively; while at the other extreme, unbalanced do not function well overall and are prone to rapid disintegration when faced with hardships. Midrange families tend to possess elements of both balanced and unbalanced families and may become unbalanced if placed under too much stress (Olson, 1993). When all of these factors are considered, family coping is important to the ultimate goal of adaptability in functioning for any given family faced with repeated stressors and changes across the course of the family life span (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989).

There have been a number of studies within the social sciences that have attempted to expand our knowledge of the impact of stress and coping on family members. One such study recently found that coping efforts for couples, where the wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, were influenced by the couple�s determination of the illness as �our� problem as opposed to �her� problem alone (Skerrett, 2003). This approach to coping was perceived as helping the couple establish a sense of direction in their coping response to the illness. In another study dealing with family coping, researchers found that individual tendencies toward perfectionism and negative coping strategies in one spouse thwarted the couple and family�s attempts to deal effectively with a long-term emotional illness in the other spouse and resulted in lower overall marital quality (Haring, Hewitt, & Flett, 2003). Implications for family functioning in response to stressful events are not limited to severe physical or mental illnesses.

The family structure in single parent and remarried families has been shown to impact the family�s ability to cope with stressors that arise from inside of the family system. In one study disruptive behavior in children within these types of families was exacerbated due to the factors of poor co-parenting, excess parental strain, and too few resources to cope with role demands (Hilton & Desrochers, 2003). These results

27

indicated that disruptive events during the family life cycle may erode family coping resources and prove detrimental to the family members in these situations. Whether stressors arise from within the family or whether they arise externally, the coping resources of the family may very well be taxed and require that the family change in a variety of ways to respond to these demands. These changes, as mentioned previously, may serve to unbalance a relatively stable family or they may create the impetus needed to promote positive change in those families who are already able to adequately meet life�s demands (Rolland, 1993). In either case, the directionality of the change depends on the nature of the family type, the family�s coping resources, and the severity of stressor.

Definition of Events and Sense of Coherence

Stress and coping are two factors that influence the disruption and eventual deterioration in functioning for individuals and families. How the stressful events are defined by individuals and families also influence whether the family experiences a crisis or disorganization. One set of variables influenced by both stressors and coping resources are the physiological appraisals of stress and coping, psychological appraisals of stress and coping, and sense of coherence. These factors have been previously discussed under the heading of perception, or definition, of events � stressors and coping resources (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). The term family appraisal of the situation has been used in some instances, in that �families develop a shared view� of the catastrophic nature of certain life situations (McCubbin, 1998). Hill (1949, p. 10) originally discussed the definition of the stressor by a family as whether �members treat the event as if it were or were not a threat to their status, goals, and objectives.� This third category of variables are generally discussed as the �C� factor within Hill�s ABC-X model.

Physiological and psychological functioning have been cited as influential on personal appraisals of stress (Hutri & Lindeman, 2002). A person�s sense of mastery over their immediate environment, or an ability to manage daily life situations, are commonly referred to as a sense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1987). These are often measured by assessing psychological and physiological factors affecting the appraisal of stress and coping, and sense of coherence. Since stress and life problems are known to exert an effect on the appraisal of physical and emotional well-being, it is important to discuss the physiological and psychological definitions pertinent to the perception, or definition, of events.

Physiological factors affecting the perception of events are defined as a sense of physical well-being expressed as a result of general health, physiological functioning, and the absence of debilitation due to disease processes (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). A physical sense of well-being may help to bolster coping abilities, and buffer an individual from the stressors and strains of day-to-day life (Adler & Hillhouse, 1996). Fatigue and physical exhaustion due to biological systems distress are often viewed as a result of chronic stress or a pile-up of acute stressors that take on a more chronic manifestation. At the heart of such physiological difficulties are often disruptions in sleep and eating habits, as well as a reduction in levels of physical activity and life interest. These may eventually culminate in an illness of a psychosomatic nature for the individual, such as hypertension, adult onset diabetes, and gastrointestinal problems (Critelli & Ee, 1996).

28

These symptoms are also commonly referred to as vegetative symptoms of depression within various biochemical models of the illness. In a recent study of young working women, it was found that concerns for health and well-being were mediating factors in the prediction of dysphoria (i.e., depressed mood) after a job change or relocation (Raghavan, Lee, & Berenbaum, 2002). Concern for one�s physical wellness is at the core of many other physical and emotional problems. Caregivers often report that subverting concern for their own physical needs (e.g., food, rest, etc.) often leads them to experience feelings of exhaustion, emotional detachment, and alienation from others (Figley, 1998). This seems to be true regardless of whether the caregiver has a professional or personal relationship with the one in need of care. One particular study presents evidence that there is a link between glucose metabolization and feelings of exhaustion in the those caring for loved one�s with Alzheimer�s dementia. In this study, the authors reported what they thought to be a link between the regulation of insulin production, feelings of being overwhelmed by their situation, and the onset of physical exhaustion, or what they referred to as �burn-out� (Zhang, Vitaliano, Lutgendorf, Scanlan, & Savage, 2001). Health factors are paramount in terms of immune functioning also. Being under physical distress may actually trigger a variety of genetic predispositions to diseases an individual may possess ranging from recurrent depression to susceptibility to carcinogens (Post, Weiss, Smith, & Leverich, 1996). While there is more to be understood, the relationship between physical wellness and the ability to cope with stress has been established.

Psychological factors affecting the appraisal of events are incumbent upon a sense of emotional wellness expressed as a result of interaction with one�s environment, or social context (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). There are several key components of emotional well-being. These include personality features, the absence of factors predisposing one to mental illness, and psychological hardiness (Younkin & Betz, 1996). The psychological factors influencing the perception of events form part of a crucial set of predictors in the eventual deterioration of both personal and family functioning. These perceptions have an effect on the eventual disorganization, or state of crisis, experienced at both the individual and interpersonal levels of analysis (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989).

The presence of anxiety, irritability, dysphoria, and malaise constitute a common set of psychological problems experienced as troublesome by many individuals. These psychological symptoms are generally synonymous with the onset of emotional disturbances such as major depression or generalized anxiety. Many view these conditions as symptomatic of underlying biochemical processes and consider them as part of a broader spectrum of physiological disorders with both neurochemical and endocrinological manifestations (McDaniel, 1996). This view is sometimes referred to as the biopsychosocial approach that frequently guides the treatment of these conditions within the medical community (Sapolsky, 1994). Within this approach factors in the person�s social environment are thought to impact them in some way (i.e., act as stressors); yet it is the awareness and the perception of these factors that ultimately determine whether or not they negatively affect the individual or not. In a recent study of the influence of social awareness and personal integrity on the perception of life changes, the absence of these factors was found to be stressful for participants. The presence or absence of anxiety related symptoms was found to be mediated by how the individuals in

29

the study discussed and processed their life situations in terms of perceived personal strengths and reliance on those around them for support (Cohler, 2001), although these may have also been influenced by a number of other personality factors as well. Sense of Coherence Another factor affecting one�s perception of life problems or stressors is sense of coherence. A sense of coherence is thought to consist of a pervasive, enduring, and dynamic feeling of confidence that environments are predictable and that things will work out to one�s satisfaction (McCubbin, 1998). Antonovsky (1987) describes sense of coherence as a person�s belief that he or she has mastery over immediate life situations, in terms of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Others have cited sense of coherence as a key factor in the linkage between stress and health disturbances (Critelli & Ee, 1996). McCubbin (1998) further points out that �sense of coherence allows a family to clarify problems into issues that may be resolved satisfactorily, decrease the intensity of emotional burdens, and carry on with its fundamental tasks of promoting social and emotional development.� While families may indeed develop a collective sense of coherence, it is the individual members who seem best able to communicate this systemic phenomenon. Those lacking a sense of coherence may experience an erosion of coping abilities along with an intensification in the perception of life events as stressful. Several studies indicate that a relationship may exist among these factors. These studies found that a group of office employees with high job demands and low control of job tasks had a low sense of coherence when asked about their overall job satisfaction (Soederfeldt, Soederfeldt, Olson, Theorell, & Jones, 2000). Employees with low levels of coherence felt out of control and experienced greater personal dissatisfaction. Therefore, the level of coherence indeed had a mediating influence on the relative job satisfaction and performance of the individuals in question. In another study, it was found that level of coherence and manageability were important to those engaged in military peacekeeping duties. Among those who had experienced traumatic events during their service, level of coherence and post trauma support of the soldiers significantly influenced the recovery process (Larson, Michel, & Lundin, 2000). Sense of coherence has also been linked to the expressions of spirituality in populations of both well and �unwell� individuals. A link was found between spiritual practices and recovery from both physical and emotional illnesses (George, Larson, Koenig, & McCullough, 2000). The professing of spirituality and religious practice also lead to reduced onset of illness and more speedy recovery from illness due to increased sense of coherence, social support, and healthy behavioral practices. These results were perhaps associated with a meaning of life derived from a belief in the hereafter or the view of one�s physical integrity in terms of religious teachings (i.e., body as a temple); nonetheless, significant differences apparently existed in terms of recovery for the population of interest in this study.

The perception of stressors and coping resources by individuals and families respectively has been the focus of a number of studies on a variety of topics ranging from the long-term effects of care giving to the perception of occupational overload (Zhang Zhang, Vitaliano, Lutgendorf, Scanlan, & Savage, 2001; Hutri & Lindeman, 2002). While physical and psychological wellness and sense of coherence are all important

30

individually, it is the combination of these variables that seems to be a mediating factor in an individual�s ability to cope with stress. The more recent depictions of the ABC-X model underscore the complex relationship between the individual, family, and contextual levels of analysis (McCubbin, 1998). The combination of these factors as they impact those who were separated from their loved ones due to extreme circumstances warrants further exploration. It is important to assess the influence of physical and psychological wellness, along with sense of coherence, on the manageability of life stressors in military families who may frequently experience a variety of life events as being disruptive. At this time, the military environment provides a perfect opportunity to better our understanding of these influences.

Quality of Life

During the past decade the amount of attention devoted to the topic of quality of life and satisfaction with life by researchers, clinicians, and talk-show psychologists, has proliferated to the point of near constant awareness on the part of the public at-large. There are a number of different definitions used to discuss quality of life. As a construct, quality of life is best seen as an expression of the overall judgment of life satisfaction and the adjustment to demands associated with daily life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Such judgments require that individuals make a comprehensive appraisal of their life situation, their ability to contend with that situation, and their view of their future life situation (Christopher, 1999). In fact, there is a sizable body of literature assessing quality of life in terms of personal responses to catastrophic illness and end of life issues within the medical establishment (Heckman, 2003). A related construct is life satisfaction, which is frequently viewed and measured as a person�s opinion about their current life situation at any given time (Diener & Diener, 1995). A number of factors are thought to influence such appraisals, including the quality of a person�s marital and family relationships. Indeed a strong correlation exists between satisfaction with life and marital quality (Bradbury, Fincham & Beach, 2000).

There are a number of similar constructs within the social and behavioral sciences, including psychological wellbeing, psychological hardiness, and contentment (Diener, 1984). It is thought that such subjective appraisals of well-being include a personalized assessment of one�s satisfaction with life (Christopher, 1999). Ryff (1989) ties the concepts of psychological well-being and satisfaction with life together theoretically by pointing out that �being well� requires autonomy, environmental

mastery, positive relationships, sense of life purpose, personal growth, and self-

acceptance. It has been found that in order to make an appraisal about one�s quality of life, an individual generally takes these six factors into account (Diener & Diener, 1995). Hermon and Hazler (1999) reported that individual perception of wellbeing was heavily influenced by the presence of an internalized �wellness� model and the impact of external stressors. Thus, quality of life may be seen as a personalized sense of current wellbeing encompassing a variety of definitions, and is heavily influenced by past experience and an anticipation of the future.

It has been established that the level of life quality may fluctuate across time when factors such as age, emotional and physical well-being, satisfaction with close relationships, and various stressors are considered (Thabes, 1997). These decreases in quality of life are often signaled by increases in depressive and anxiety symptoms in the

31

individual, and strained relations with loved ones at the interpersonal level (Dixon & Reid, 2000). The most notable decreases in quality of life and sense of well-being often occur as a result of drastic changes in a person�s life situation (Wall & Hayes, 2000). A number of these changes are predictable and associated with the family developmental life course, such as births, marriages, and relocation. Others may be unpredictable, disruptive, or detrimental to one�s quality of life, such as an unexpected pregnancy, a divorce, or the sudden death of a loved one. Some have argued that the long term impact of divorce and the emotional recovery process required may be reflective of the influence of such life altering events on quality of life (Thabes, 1997). Others have argued that those being subjected to the unrelenting psychological strain of social factors, such as racism or discrimination, may experience an overall reduction in their quality of life along with irreparable damage to self-esteem (Utsey, Ponterotto, Reynolds, & Cancelli, 2000). In any event the quality of life experienced by an individual should indeed be seen as the product of a variety of influences in a person�s life, including personal well-being, marital satisfaction, and parent-child relations. Marital Influences on Quality of Life There is evidence that women are more likely to experience a lower quality of life than their male counterparts for a variety of reasons. There are gender differences in the way that women and men view their work, family responsibilities, and marriages that influence their quality of life. This gender difference is most often reported in the marital satisfaction literature (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). There is perhaps no more widely studied discrepancy in the social sciences than the differences in marital satisfaction of women and men. It is the marital dyad that forms the basis for the entire family structure, including relationships with children, extended kin, and the community (McGoldrick & Walsh, 1999). Therefore, looking at gender differences in quality of life should include a discussion of marital quality and satisfaction with parent-child relationships.

It is thought that women�s marital relationships are pivotal in terms of their perception of the amount of support they receive emotionally, along with help in daily tasks like parenting and household maintenance, and the impact of these on their quality of life. Wives more often reported being less satisfied with their marriages and family situations than their husbands (Schachar, 1991). Women in this study who felt that their husbands were less involved with their daily activities were likely to report greater dissatisfaction. Women have also reported holding higher expectations for their marriages than their husbands (Schumm, Webb, & Bolman, 1998). Such expectations often result in greater disappointment and a lower sense of well-being for women (Grote & Frieze, 1998).

Women are also more likely to report the emotional symptoms of being distressed than men, especially as these symptoms related to their marriages. It was usually the development of emotional complaints, such as depression, that brought one or both members of a couple into contact with a helping professional, but therapy is initiated more often at the request of the wife than of the husband (Kosek, 1996). A number of studies have sought to determine the nature of the relationship between marital dysfunction and depressive symptoms. One particular study provided evidence of a stronger causal link between depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction over the course of the relationship, rather than the opposite influence (Ulrich-Jakubowski, Russell,

32

& O�Hara, 1988). These researchers concluded that the relationship between marital relations and emotional problems depended on whether emotional problems existed in excess of the marital situation inferring that individual appraisal of quality of life may indeed be mediated by the presence of emotional symptoms in one spouse or the other. Children and Parenting

The presence of children within the household has an influence on quality of life and the stability of a couple�s marriage. This influence depends greatly upon the age of the children, number of children, and the amount of co-parenting taking place. One study used multiple measurement points over the course of five years to assess the influence of the arrival of a couple�s first male child on their overall marital stability (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998). They found that the arrival of a couple�s first child was more predictive of marital dissolution when the couple reported more conflict prior to the birth of their child. The authors also suggested that higher scores on co-parenting indices and previous stability of marital interactions were reflective of lower overall declines in marital satisfaction subsequent to the birth of the first child. Shapiro, Gottman, and Carrere (2000) similarly found that expressions of fondness, the husband�s awareness of the wife and their relationship, and lower interpersonal negativity were predictive of stable marital satisfaction scores after the arrival of the first child. These studies supported the long-held belief that marital relations prior to childbearing may be predictive of subsequent marital stability and personal satisfaction. Further evidence of these effects emerged as part of a study assessing the differences between husband�s and wives� appraisals of marital quality, within the first four years, as a predictor of later divorce and found no significant differences in divorce rates between those couples with children and their childless counterparts (Kurdek, 1998).

There has been continued debate over the influence of children and parenting on marital relations and personal satisfaction. In a number of cases the individual appraisal of quality of life differed in terms of parenting satisfaction and marital quality (Porter & Hsu, 2003). Many respondents report that their satisfaction with one is often very different from the other (i.e., parent-child relations may be viewed as better than marital relations in many cases). This discrepancy indicates that although the constructs of marital satisfaction and quality of life are strongly correlated; one does not account for all of the observed variability in the other when consideration is given to a third variable like parenting satisfaction. However, this influence seems to be mediated by a number of other factors that may have existed prior to the arrival of the first child, such as SES, household division of labor, and personality differences (Belsky &Hsieh, 1998). Quality of life has become an important outcome in the assessment of emotional well-being and close relationships. In any event, personal assessment of quality of life may ultimately determine the extent to which an individual will remain committed to the relationships with those around them, or whether they remain involved with these relationships at all. Quality of Life in Military Families Among military spouses, a number of factors influence their overall assessment of quality of life in terms of their parenting and marital satisfaction. Some of these influences have been discussed in detail in previous sections of this review, but a brief overview may clarify several points with regard to quality of life among military spouses.

33

They tend to be younger and are more likely to have younger children who are closer in age to each other. These women may be married to a service member who�s been married previously and therefore are more likely to be a step-parent to children from a spouse�s prior marriage (Henry & Robichaux, 1999). Spouses are likely to have been in the military once themselves and have given up their military career in order to stay at home with their children (Daley, 1999). They are more likely to have moved within the past year than others in the general population and there is high probability that they have been separated from their spouse due to a duty assignment within that year (Westhius, 1999). Their situation is likely to be altered by a variety of influences over which they have little or no control, including spouse�s re-assignment, extension of duty, and changes in national foreign policy (Parker, Call, & Barko, 1999). During times of separation, military spouses may receive little support from their deployed service member and often experience difficulty accessing on-post family resources. It is during these times military spouses and significant others experience significant reduction in their quality of life (Rosen, Westhius, & Teitelbaum, 1994). This reduced quality of life has been primarily linked to the burden of parenting alone, the single-handed management of the household, and the loneliness associated with being separated from their loved ones for an extended period of time (Medway, David, Cafferty, & Chappell (1995). The result of these and other influences on quality of life certainly prove detrimental in the long run for many military spouses, their children, and their relationship with their significant others. There are others who certainly show signs of adaptation the longer they remain affiliated with the military and this population epitomizes the definition of resiliency. Another key factor in managing the demands associated with military life seems to be the quality of the relationship between the service members and their significant others. Gill and Haurin (1998) found that the quality of life experienced by a military officer�s wife, in terms of career advancement and economic consequences, greatly affected her perception of marital quality and ultimately his decision to remain in the military. In another study of military couples, it was found that female spouses of service members reported lower marital satisfaction comparable to previous gender differences observed in studies of marital quality (Schumm, Resnick, Bollman, Stephan, & Jurich, 1998). Regardless of the influences, quality of life among spouses of service members is the product of a number of interactive and mediating factors.

Conclusion

In order to summarize the points discussed in this chapter, we must acknowledge that there are a variety of factors that ultimately exert an influence on the quality of life experienced in Army spouses. The focus here has been on the discussion of the predictive modeling of stressors and coping when quality of life is an outcome using the constructs contained within the ABC-X model (Hill, 1949; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). The stress associated with parenting, along with stressors and strains experienced by military families during times of separation, may alter their abilities to cope and their perception of the stressors and their coping abilities (definition of events). In addition to the normative stress factors, the separation of family members due to deployment, training, and relocation influence coping and definition of events among families. These

34

factors will ultimately influence the quality of life for members of the population in question.

This review of the literature has sought to address theoretical backgrounds and current research in terms of the variables of interest to this study: family and parenting stress, personal and family coping, definitions of events, and quality of life. Some areas have been thoroughly probed, while others warrant more inquiry. It is clear that efforts should be made to further our knowledge of the unique situations found within the families of members of our armed forces. Military spouses and significant others experience a variety of stressors that are uncommon in the general population, including lengthy separations due to deployments and training, more frequent relocation, and an increased likelihood of blended family situations (Albano, 1994; Segal & Harris, 1993; Westhius, 1999). During the past few years, the military has been asked to engage in both peacekeeping and waging war around the world straining the coping resources within these families. This study seeks to further our knowledge of the causal mechanisms that account for the variability in coping with stress, defining both coping resources and extent of the stressors, and quality of life in military spouses and significant others during times of separation.

35

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The focus of this study was on the ABC-X model and the variables associated with it as an explanatory system for the assessment of quality of life among Army spouses/partners during military deployments. Of specific interest to this research was the effect of parenting stress, family stressors and family strains, personal and family coping, and individual perception (definitions) of the event, on quality of life for spouses and/or partners of deployed U.S. Army personnel. The discussion that follows includes sampling, instrumentation, data collection, and the analyses of data.

Sample Sampling

This study was designed to utilize a random sample of spouses or significant others of military personnel drawn from a local population posted to a military installation on the southeastern seaboard of the United States. These respondents were selected randomly from a larger population of U.S. Army families assigned to Ft. Stewart and Hunter AAF. Ft. Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield were chosen because they are home to the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division whose units have been deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq during the past two years. These participants were drawn from both married and unmarried couples who are cohabiting. No attempt was made to separate those participants who have been married previously from those who had not been married, other than through demographic data. To be eligible for participation in the present study, the participants reported at least one child who resided within the household, be considered active duty in the U.S. Army themselves, or the spouse/partner of an active duty service member.

Participants were sampled from listings of on-post housing units provided by the postal service. At the time of this study, there were approximately 2200 housing units located on-post at Ft. Stewart consisting of three zip codes for mailing (31314, 31315, 31316). Any soldier, regardless of rank, married with dependent children may be eligible for these housing units. These on-post family housing units were utilized in an effort to eliminate the possibility of non-parents and non-military spouses from the sample. The on-post listings for family housing were used to obtain a mailing list from which the sample was derived. Sample Size

Sample size for this study was calculated for both F-tests and path analysis. Since path analysis is a special case of regression, further discussion of power estimation and

36

minimal sample size appears in a subsequent paragraph. Obtaining an adequate sample

size for comparing sample means (µ) between three groups was based upon three factors:

1) Type I error (alpha or α) � the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (Ho) when

the null is true, 2) Type II error (beta or β) � the probability of accepting the null hypothesis (Ho) when the null is false, and 3) the degree to which the null hypothesis (Ho) is false, if it is indeed false (effect size or ES) (Brewer, 1996). For this study, the Type I error was set at 0.05 which is considered the minimum standard within the social

sciences (α=0.05). Type II error was set at 0.10 for this study (β=0.10). The effect size

(ES) for determining significance given α=0.05 and β=0.10 has often been one-half a standard deviation (ES=.50) and was employed here. The probability of correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis (Ho) has been referred to as �power� and calculated as 1-

β (1 = one standard deviation) will be set at 0.90 (Brewer, 1996). There is no generally accepted standard for power in the social sciences, although a minimum of .80 has been thought to be necessary for hypothesis testing (Shavelson, 1988).

In calculating the number of respondents needed for the sample in this study,

given a preset α, β, and ES, the following equation was used:

N = [(Zα + Zβ) σ/ES]2 = [(1.96 + 1.28) 100/50]2 = (3.24)(2.0)2 = 41.99 = 42

The total n=126 is number of participants, with n=42 in each group, necessary for testing

the null hypothesis in this study (µn≠µl ≠µg). In order to attain adequate power for data analysis using path analysis, a minimal

10:1 ratio of respondents to parameters estimated must be considered (Mueller, 1996). According to Mueller (1996), much larger ratios are desirable if significance tests are to be trusted. In this case the number parameters to be estimated was six and equal to the number of regression equations used to construct the path model in question (Tate, 1998). Using this rule of thumb, the minimal desired sample size for each path analysis in this study was 60 respondents (spouses of non-deployed vs. spouses of earlier deployed vs. spouses of later deployed). In order to verify this figure, a calculation for minimal sample size was derived. Based upon the existing standards for using regression analysis within the social sciences, the following formula was used to calculate the minimal sample size for the path analysis used in this study.

F = t2 = βj2/SEβj

2 = rj2/1(1-R2)/(n-k-1) (Tate, 1998)

The relationships among the five parameters necessary to make a determination

for adequate sample size were as follows: βj represents the regression coefficient for the

jth variable, SEβj is the standard error for each coefficient, rj2 is the variability explained

by the jth variable when entered into the regression equation, R2 is the variability explained by the entire model, k is number of predictor variables in the model, and n is the sample size. In solving this equation, the t-statistic was calculated for a couple of reasons. First, the t-ratio may be used as a confidence level in sample size formulas for means by indicating the desired level of statistical significance. Second, most statistical computer programs calculate the t-ratio when running an ANOVA or regression

37

command. Thus, the t-ratio is more easily specified than regression coefficients or their standard errors in such cases (Milton, 1986; Tate, 1998).

In order to solve for n in this study, the following formula was used given the values k=4, t=2, R2=.35, and rj

2=.05. The decision to use these preset values were based on the work of previous researchers using the proposed model for this study (Lavee, McCubbin, & Patterson, 1985).

N = k + 1 + t2 (1 � R2)/rj

2 (Milton, 1986) = (4)+1+ (2)(.65)/(.05) = 63

When using the specified values of k, t, R2, and rj

2, the minimal n was calculated to be 63 respondents per path model given the statistical power requirements for regression

analysis. Statistical power (1-β) has been established as a function of sample size. Both models and their sample size calculations (F-ratio vs. regression) fall under the general linear model, providing a more accurate parameter estimation of the population in both instances. In this case the sample size (n=[3] [63]=189) required for path analysis was greater. Therefore, the minimal sample size necessary for assessing the three research questions for this study was 189 respondents. Since the standard response rate of 25 to 35% has been reported within the social sciences (Rea & Parker, 1996), a minimum of 936 survey packets needed to be mailed to the respondent couples in order to ensure that 25% of all questionnaires were returned for analysis.

Instrumentation

The instrumentation used to measure the variables of interest to this study were chosen based on a review of the literature of family measurement techniques. It has been understood that no variable can be measured without error. The scales and instruments selected for inclusion in this study were selected because their reliability coefficients generally exceeded .80, which corresponds with the minimum standards for measurement error within the behavioral and social sciences (Brewer, 1996). In some cases, the selected subscale items were correlated with the original instruments. In those cases, validity assessments have been provided instead. The following scales and instruments were chosen because they provide an adequate assessment of the variables in question. Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic factors were assessed using a modified version of a demographic questionnaire developed for use with Army personnel and their significant others by the chaplain corps at Ft. Stewart (Appendix A � Items 1-26). These items dealt with a number of questions pertinent to military families, including the length of time in the Army, the service member�s rank and salary range, number of relocations, number of deployments, and the number of children within the participant�s household. This portion of the instrument was designed to provide the researcher with a generalized composite of life within a complex organization, such as the U.S. Army, allowing for the measurement of several variables thought to influence satisfaction with Army life (e.g., number of relocations and deployments).

38

�A� Factor � Stressors A1 � Parenting Stress was measured by the Parental Stress Scale (PSS) to

determine the stress that soldiers and spouses associate with parenting (Berry & Jones, 1995) (Appendix A � Items 27-44). This scale contains 18 Likert-type items grouped into four subscales including: closeness with children, satisfaction with parenting, positive and negative emotions associated with being a parent, and difficulties associated with being a parent. Each item allowed respondents to choose from responses ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Lower scores reflect less stress associated with parenting; whereas higher scores are indicative of higher parenting stress, with items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, and 18 on the PSS requiring reverse scores. The test-retest reliability for this scale has been established as r=.81. The Cronbach�s-α for the Parental Stress Scale for this study was r=.86. This scale has been previously used as a measure of stress and satisfaction associated with parenting. In its initial development, the authors compared the PSS to a number of existing instruments, including the Parenting Stress Index (Berry & Jones, 1995). The PSS was found to possess validity and strong internal reliability as a result of its initial trials. Berry and Rao (1997) provided further data on stress associated with balancing work and fathering using the PSS to develop a more comprehensive instrument to measure the interplay between family and workplace stress. This study explored contributions from various system levels to the work/family stress dynamic. Since its introduction, the PSS has provided accurate and concise measurement of several aspects of the variable parenting stress, positive and negative emotions associated with parenting, and overall satisfaction with parenting.

A2 � Family Stressors were assessed using a subscale developed from a

modification of the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE-C) to measure family stressors and life transitions. The Family Stressors Index consists of 10 Likert-type items taken from the modified 71-item FILE-C (Appendix A � Items 45-115). This scale was designed to assess the normative (stressors) life events and changes experienced by a family within the past year (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989; McCubbin & Patterson, 1987). Individuals are asked to rate how stressful each of these life events has been ranging from 1=no stress to 4=high stress. The Family Stressors Index has been reported to possess a validity coefficient of 0.70 (with the original FILE-C). The reliability of this instrument has been reported as below the accepted standard within the social sciences (r=.28 for this study). As a result the subscale was used with the entire FILE-C.

The use of this FILE-C subscale allows for the measurement of specific stressors associated with transitions from family life cycle stages and the disruptions associated with those transitions. The index items are concerned with the experience of any such stressors within the past year by the family in question. Family stressors are thought to appear as predictable components of the family cycle, and include adding or losing family members, as well as disruptions due to illness, job loss, or divorce (McCubbin, Patterson, & Wilson, 1983). McCubbin (1998) further defined family stressors as events that occur at relatively distinct points in time and call for family change. The Family Stressors Index was comprised of original FILE-C items: 25, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 51, 58, 60, and 65.

39

A3 � Family Strains were assessed utilizing a subscale developed from a modification of the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE-C) to measure family stressors and life transitions. The Family Strains Index consists of 10 Likert-type items taken from the modified 71-item FILE (Appendix A � Items 45-115). This subscale was designed to assess the non-normative (strains) life events and changes experienced by a family within the past year (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989; McCubbin & Patterson, 1987). In order to complete this scale, individuals are asked to rate how stressful each of the life events has been ranging from 1=no stress to 4=high stress. The Family Strains Index has been reported to possess a validity coefficient of 0.87 (with the original FILE-C) (McCubbin, Patterson, & Wilson, 1983). The reliability of this scale has been established below the minimal standard for the social sciences (r=.70). For this study, the Cronbach�s-α was 0.76. As a result the subscale was used with entire FILE-C.

The use of this FILE-C subscale allowed for the measurement of specific strains that may be associated with transitions through life cycle stages and the disruptions of those transitions. The index items are concerned with the experience of any such strains within the past year by the family in question. Family strains are thought to appear as the unpredictable components of the family cycle associated with changes in interpersonal dynamics associated with stage transitions, including increases in conflict between various family members, monetary or financial problems, the debilitation of a family member, or job change (McCubbin, Patterson, & Wilson, 1983). McCubbin (1998) further defines family strains as unresolved hardships of prior stressors or inherent tension of an ongoing role (i.e., role strain). The Family Strains Index was comprised of original FILE-C items: 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 34, 43, and 52.

FILE-C � Family Stressors and Strains The minimum standards for measurement error accepted within the behavioral

and social sciences require that reliability coefficients generally exceed Cronbach�s α of .80 (Brewer, 1996). Due to the low reliability coefficients derived from the family stressors and family strains subscales when used alone, the entire 71-item Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE-C) (McCubbin, Patterson, & Wilson, 1983) has been incorporated into the survey used for this study. The FILE-C was designed to assess the appraisal of family stressors, strains, and transitions by one or both adult members in a family unit. The current study uses a modification of the original FILE-C previously used by Darling and McCoy-Smith (1993). This modification consisted of the expansion of the original dichotomous responses (�yes� or �no�) to whether stressors were experienced within the past year (or not) to a four point Likert-type scale ranging from 1=no stress to 4=high stress. The FILE-C contains a total of nine subscales for the assessment of other family life events and changes from which the twenty items for measuring family stressors and family strains are derived. These include: intra-family strains, assessing member conflict and parenting strains (seventeen items); marital strains (four items); pregnancy and childbearing strains (four items); finance and business strains (twelve items); work/family transitions and strains (ten items); illness and family care strains (eight items); losses (six items); �in and out� transitions (five items); and legal problems (five items). The overall reliability of the FILE-C has been established as r=.81, with the various subscales ranging in reliability from .30 to .73 (McCubbin & Patterson, 1987). The FILE-C may be found within the current survey instrument in

40

Appendix A � Items 45-115. For the present study the Cronbach�s α for the FILE-C was r=.83 �B� Factor � Resources for Coping B1 � Family Coping was assessed by the Family Crisis Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES) developed by McCubbin, Olson, and Larsen (1987) (Appendix A � Items 116-145). This 30-item, Likert-type, self-report scale has five subscales including acquiring social support, seeking spiritual support, mobilizing the family to acquire and accept help, reframing, and passive appraisal. The responses vary from 1=strongly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=moderately agree; and 5=strongly agree. The Cronbach�s alpha reliability of this scale is 0.83. F-COPES was designed to focus on two levels of interaction: a) the individual to the family system (i.e., ways in which the family handles difficulties from within), and b) the family system to the larger social context (i.e., ways in which the family deals with problems emerging from outside its boundaries) (McCubbin, Larsen, & Olson, 1991). This scale has been used to assess internal family coping abilities in terms of the reframing and passive-appraisal subscales, while external family coping patterns are assessed vis-à-vis the three subscales for seeking spiritual support, acquiring social support, and mobilizing the family to acquire and accept help (McCubbin, Olson, & Larsen, 1987). The same authors report a test-retest reliability of the F-COPES over a various number of administrations to be r=.81. For the present study the Cronbach�s α for the F-COPES was r=.82. B2 � Personal Coping was assessed using the Coping Scale for Adults-Short Form (CSA-SF) by Frydenberg and Lewis (1994) (Appendix A � Items 146-164). The CSA Short Form is a 19-item, Likert-type, scale with one open-ended question, developed for use with adults over the age of 18 from factor analyses of items from the Coping Scale for Adolescents. The scale was designed to measure 18 coping strategies such as willingness to seek social support, focusing on solving the problem, working hard and achieving, worrying, tension reduction, social action, ignoring the problem, keeping to self, focusing on the positive, seeking relaxing diversions, and physical recreation. Each item is rated on a five point scale. The responses vary from on a scale from 1 to 5: 1=doesn�t apply; 2=used very little; 3=used sometimes; 4=used often; 5=used a great deal. The short form of this scale has been reported to have comparable construct validity with the original 74-items Coping Scale for Adults. The original CSA was developed for use with adults in order to assess personal and individual coping. The short form (CSA-SF) is often used when the administration of the CSA is impractical, or inconvenient (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1997). In the present case using the longer 74 item CSA would create a longer instrument, which could lower the overall response rate. The CSA-SF is comprised of original CSA items: 4, 17, 19, 22, 28, 31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 64, and 73. The reliability coefficient for the CSA-SF has been established as r=.84 (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1997). For the present study the Cronbach�s α for the CSA-SF was r=.65, although the reliability indicators for two of the subscales, dealing with the problem and optimism, were both above r=.80 at r=.80 and r=.85 respectively. This scale as used for comparative analysis, but dropped as factor in the causal model as a result of poor reliability.

41

�C� Factor � Definition/Perception of the Event C1 � Psychological Strains was measured by the psychological strain subscale of the Occupational Stress Inventory (OSI) developed by Osipow and Spokane (1987) (Appendix A � Items 165-174). This subscale consists of 10 Likert-type items allowing for the following responses: 1=rarely or never true; 2=occasionally true; 3=often true; 4=usually true; and 5=true most of the time. The reliability of this subscale was reported to be r=.83 (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). The OSI has been used to assess individual perception of stress in relation to their job and has frequently been a key measurement tool in the assessment of �burn-out� among professionals (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). The perception of psychological strain has been a key component of this construct and has often been utilized as an indicator of how the individual reports defining the events causing the difficulties ultimately affecting their wellbeing (Parry, 1990). This subscale of the OSI assessed irritability, depression, anxiety, disposition, worry, and sense of humor as they relate to an individual�s emotional well-being (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). For the present study, the Cronbach�s α for the psychological stress subscale of the OSI was r=.94. C2 � Physiological Strains was measured by the physical strain subscale of the Occupational Stress Inventory (OSI) developed by Osipow and Spokane (1987) Appendix A � Items 175-184). This subscale consists of 10 Likert-type items and allows for the following responses: 1=rarely or never true; 2=occasionally true; 3=often true; 4=usually true; and 5=true most of the time. The reliability of this subscale has been established as r=.85 (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). The physiological strain associated with a given occupation has been used as a measure for the relative dissatisfaction ultimately resulting in the �burn-out� among professionals (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). Physical well-being has been cited as a contributing factor to the onset of a number of stress-related illnesses like heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders, and immunological response in the body (Critelli & Ee, 1996). The physical strains subscale of the OSI has been used as a self-report assessment for the physiological well-being of the individual. This subscale includes questions assessing physiological factors affecting well-being such as: sleeping and eating habits, fatigue, malaise, substance use, physical aches and pains, and weight gain/loss (Osipow & Spokane, 1987). For the present study, the Cronbach�s α for the physiological stress subscale of the OSI was r=.91.

During the review of literature for this study, it was noted that wellbeing was used frequently as an assessment for the appraisal of stress and coping, which were heavily influenced by the perception of physiological and psychological strains (Parry, 1990). It was decided that both subscales could be combined into a single variable or assessed separately. In this case, combining them produced a more reliable measure. When both scales were combined as a single measure for this study, the Cronbach�s α was r=.96 for an assessment of wellbeing. C3 � Sense of Coherence was measured through the use of a scale developed by Antonovsky (1987) entitled the Orientation to Life Scale (OLS) (Appendix A � Items 185-197). This scale incorporates questions designed to measure such constructs as comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness � collectively known as sense of coherence. This 13-item, Likert-type scale incorporates responses ranging from 1=rarely

42

or never true; 2=occasionally true; 3=often true; 4=usually true; and 5=true most of the time. The internal consistency of this scale is .83, with the scale�s reliability reported as r=.81 (Antonovsky, 1987). For the present study, the Cronbach�s α for the OLS was r=.92. Sense of coherence may be generally defined as individuals perceptions of their mastery over a given set of situations or life experiences (Antonovsky, 1979). The three subscales of the OLS (comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness) were designed to assess the three factors that are most commonly reported as exerting an influence over this sense of situational mastery. According to McCubbin and McCubbin (1989) sense of coherence refers to the degree to which individuals and families call upon their appraisal skills to manage stressful life events, strains, and changes. Sense of coherence is thought to be a key within the assessment of resiliency in individuals and families (Antonovsky, 1979). �X� Factor � Crisis (Level of Disorganization/Crisis) X � Quality of Life for spouses or significant others will be measured by the Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) (Hudson, 1982) (Appendix A � Items 198-222). This 25-item Likert-type scale was developed as an instrument for assessing the degree of contentment that a person feels about their life and surroundings. This contentment includes factors contributing to individual satisfaction with life, such as the presence (or absence) of depressive symptoms, sociability, positive relationship experiences, and emotional well-being (Hudson, 1982). Individuals completing the GCS are asked to rate each response item on a scale of one to five (1=rarely or none of the time; 2=a little of the time; 3=some of the time; 4=a good part of the time; and 5=most or all of the time). The GCS

possesses strong test-retest reliability with a Cronbach�s α of r=.92 and a criterion validity of .85 when originally compared with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Hudson, 1982). For the present study, the Cronbach�s α for the GCS was r=.97.

The GCS has been used to assess emotional symptoms (e.g., feeling blue, or hopelessness) and vegetative symptoms (e.g., poor sleep, or crying spells) associated with depressive disorders in both research and clinical settings. It is extremely valuable as a clinical tool in that it was designed to yield a clinical cut-off score of 30, with scores above the cut-off indicating more experience of distress and lower contentment with life situation (Hudson, 1982). Items 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24, of the GCS are reverse scored using the formula Y = 6 � X in order to calculate a sum of reverse scores

(ΣY). This score is then converted into a total score (S) by subtracting the number of

items on the scale (25) from ΣY using the formula S = ΣY � 25. This procedure produces a range of values for the GCS between 0 to100 (Hudson, 1982). Items not answered or scored outside of the proper range by the respondent are given a score of zero (0). Lower scores (S<30) on the GCS are indicative of an individual�s contentment with their life situation, which is thought to be reflective of a better overall quality of life. Higher scores (S >30) tend to indicate some moderate to severe amount of distress and lower overall quality of life as these scores increase above the cut-off of thirty (30). Scores greatly exceeding the clinical cut-off of 30 (greater than 50) may indicate the potential for severe distress and the need for immediate clinical intervention (Hudson, 1982).

The GCS has been used previously as a measure of quality of life in a number of studies, including those focusing on the effects of ethnic/gender influence on emotional

43

well-being (Woody & Green, 2001), women�s long-term adjustment after divorce (Thabes, 1997), and women�s sexual satisfaction following hysterectomies (Darling & McCoy-Smith, 1993). It has been found to possess good reliability in the study of clinical outcomes as well with use at multiple measurement points (Flowers & Booraem, 1995). The GCS clinical cutting scores have received attention for their efficacy and dependability in terms of measuring improvement in a variety of conditions often seen in psychotherapy, including depression, adjustment disorders, and dysthymia (Nugent, 1994).

Data Collection

Survey This study was designed to use a sample of married and non-married cohabiting

participants drawn from a population of spouses and significant others of U.S. Army personnel. A survey was used gather the desired information about each participant. The survey consisted of the eight instruments used to assess each of the variables of interest. The survey also contained questions used to derive demographic data from each spouse or significant other participating in the study.

After obtaining permission for research on human subjects from the Institutional Review Board at Florida State University (Appendix B), the respondents were selected by randomly sampling the number of family housing units on-post at Ft. Stewart. There were 2162 of these households on Ft. Stewart at the time these participants were selected. The survey was mailed to the selected respondents. The survey packets consisted of an informed consent letter explaining the purpose of the study and instructions for completing the survey (Appendix C), along with a coded survey (Appendix A), and business reply return envelopes for the surveys. Also included in this packet was a letter of greeting from the executive director of The Fraser Center and the board president of the Mary Lou Fraser Foundation for Families explaining the importance of the respondent�s participation in this study (Appendix C). Respondents were instructed to answer the questions to the best of their abilities and asked not to discuss their answers with others prior to mailing the survey back to the researcher.

For this study, 1000 packets were mailed to the predetermined households. The participants were selected by taking every other household from the three zip codes on Ft. Stewart � 31314, 31315, and 31317. A post card reminder was sent to all participants reminding them to return their survey packets after two weeks in order to increase participation rates. The final sample consisted of 205 surveys and a response rate of 20.5%. Table 1 has been provided for a brief discussion of the final sample.

The optimal response rate for this study would have been 25% or more. There were perhaps several reasons for the response rate of 20.5% in this particular population. The use of a mailing service may have contributed to a lower response rate due to the lower priority assigned to bulk rate mail. Another possible explanation centers upon the fact that the survey was lengthy at 225 questions (Appendix A). Another set of explanations included factors such as age, education, and perception of the study. A majority of respondents were younger women (median age= 26). They also tended to be less well educated, given that only 49% (n=101) of the sample had completed high school.

44

Table 1 � Final Sample Characteristics

Sample groups Total # of

surveys

mailed

1st

return

2nd

return

Final n

per group

Non-deployed * 50

(5.0%)

17

(1.7%)

67

(6.7%)

Deployed < 6 months * 53

(5.3%)

16

(1.6%)

69

(6.7%)

Deployed > 6 months * 65

(6.5%)

4

(0.4%)

69

(6.9%)

Total 1000

(100%)

171

(17.1%)

34

(3.4%)

205

(20.5%)

There was also the possibility that they may have not recognized the importance

of completing a survey for a research study. A number of survey forms were not used due to being filled out incorrectly or incompletely. There apparently was one male spouse who answered the survey. This case was also dropped from the final sample total. It would be interesting at some point in the future to study male military spouses to compare and contrast the military spouse experiences and perceptions based on gender. There were also 19 active duty females who were military spouses also. These participant�s responses were left in the final sample for data analysis, since all of them were part of a dual military couple, the spouses of deployed service members, and fit the criteria for the population of interest. This group was not large enough to warrant separate analysis to test for differences in stress, coping, appraisal, and quality of life factors. At some point in the future, further attempts should be made to obtain data for this unique group of military spouses.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 12 (SPSS 12) and Linear Structural Relationships, Version 8.54 (LISREL 8.54). The data analyses employed the standard statistical tests including frequency distributions, measures of central tendency and dispersion, correlation, F-tests, tests of significance, and a special case of multiple regression analysis (path analysis). Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Data were subjected to basic statistical analysis, including means, medians, and correlational coefficients for the variables and the three groups in question. It has been recommended that testing the hypothesis of group differences in perception of quality of life be completed utilizing an ANOVA test for testing differences between the means of the three groups of interest in this study (Brewer, 1996). Post-hoc tests, such as Tukey�s HSD and LSD, used with the one-way ANOVA procedure and the HSD were utilized to control for the inflation of family-wise error rate in this case (Tate, 1998).

45

Path Analysis The direct and indirect effects of the stressors, coping, appraisal of stress and coping on life quality were analyzed using path analysis. Path analysis provided the researcher with a multivariate means of estimating the direct, indirect, and total effects among a set of variables (Mueller, 1996). The term path analysis has often been used interchangeably with structural equation modeling (SEM), but in reality path analysis is a special case of SEM that allows the researcher to estimate the strength of relationships between the variables within the theoretical model (Mueller, 1996). The graphical representation of the hypothesized model is called a path diagram. For the current study the certain variables were thought to exert a unidirectional influence on other variables in

the model (X→Y) making this particular model recursive. Within each path model, there are two types of variables. Those variables thought to be influenced by factors outside of the model are considered to be exogenous, while those influenced by other variables within the model are endogenous (Tate, 1998). Each predicted effect of one variable upon another variable (i.e., each path within the model) can be represented mathematically by a structural equation, which is simply a regression equation specific to the variables in question. These are known as structural or path coefficients. The predicted effect of exogenous on endogenous variables was denoted with the lower case

Greek symbol �gamma� (γ). The influence of endogenous variables on other endogenous

variables were denoted with the lower case Greek symbol �beta� (β). Any measurement errors associated with endogenous variables was denoted with the lower case Greek

symbol �zeta� (ζ) (Mueller, 1996). In this study, the A-factor comprised the only exogenous variable in the model

and has been denoted mathematically as �X1�. The B-factor, C-factor, and both X-factors were considered endogenous variables denoted as Y1,2,&3 for illustrative purposes in the subsequent path diagram. The structural, or path, coefficients and the variables associated with each were denoted using the lower case Greek letters and the subscript for the number of the variable path in question. Thus, the predicted effect of an

exogenous variable X1 on endogenous variable Y2 has been denoted as γ21, with the

measurement error for Y2 represented as ζ2. The predicted effect of an endogenous

variable, such as Y1, on another endogenous variable Y2 has been denoted as with a β.

Thus, the path coefficient has been depicted as β21. It has been noted previously that within the ABC-X model, the X factor was generally measured as a dependent variable and possibly confused with an exogenous variable, in this case �stressor�, under the general notation associated with path analysis. This illustration in general notation was used as a means of familiarizing the reader with the nomenclature associated with structural equation modeling. In general SEM notation, italics were used when referring to variables within the model (e.g., Y2) and should not be confused with the study�s hypothetical model (i.e., ABC-X). A path diagram representing the variables of interest to this study in general notation and the structural coefficients associated with each of these variables has been shown for the benefit of the reader in Figure 2.

Path diagrams may be mathematically stated by using the previously discussed symbols and a regression equation for each structural relationship or path in the model (Tate, 1996). In a hypothetical model, such as the present case, where four endogenous variables were thought to be influenced by a single exogenous variable, the structural relationships among the variables of interest may be illustrated by the set of regression

46

equations in Figure 3. Again, as in the case of the path diagram, the various structural

coefficients have been represented for the benefit of the reader by the symbols alpha (α),

beta (β), gamma (γ), and zeta (ζ) from the Greek alphabet.

X1 = A-factor � stressor(s) � parenting stress, family stressors, and family strains (exogenous) Y1 = B-factor � coping resources � personal and family coping (endogenous)

Y2 = C-factor � perception of stress and coping � physiological factors, psychological factors, and sense of coherence (endogenous)

Y3 = X-factor � disorganization or crisis � relational quality (endogenous)

Figure 2 � Path Diagram of Study Model in General Notation

In the first equation, Y1 represented coping resources for families and individuals

(B-factor), with α1 representing the intercept term for that particular equation, γ11X1 depicted the influence of the exogenous variable stress (A-factor) on coping resources

(Y1), and ζ1 was the error term associated with the measurement of the relationship between X1 and Y1. As for the second equation, Y2 denoted the definition of events by the

families and individuals. The term α2 depicted the intercept term for the equation. β21Y1 denoted the effect of the endogenous variable coping resources (B-factor) on the

endogenous variable definition of events (C-factor) and γ21X1 depicted the influence of the exogenous variable stress (A-factor) on the endogenous variable definition of events

(C-factor). ζ2 symbolized the error term associated with the measurement of the relationships in question. In the third and final equation Y3 represented quality of life

(X1-factor), and α3 denoted the intercept term for this regression equation. The term

β31Y1 depicted the endogenous influence of coping (B-factor) on relational quality, while

β32Y2 symbolized the influence of definition of events (C-factor) on quality of life. γ31 X1 represented the effect of the exogenous variable stress (A-factor) on the endogenous

variable relational quality (X1-factor), and ζ3 depicted the measurement error associated with the relationship.

X1

Y1

Y2

Y3

γ11

γ21

γ31

β21

β32

β31

ζ3

ζ1

ζ2

47

Y1 = α1 + γ11X1 + ζ1

Y2 = α2 + β21Y1 + γ21 X1 + ζ2

Y3 = α3 + β31Y1 + β32Y2 + γ31 X1 + ζ3

Figure 3 � Mathematical Representation of the Study Path Model

The variables in the model and their measurement were accomplished using the

LISREL 8.54 statistical package. This particular computer program was specifically designed for assessing such complex relationships between exogenous and endogenous variables within a structural equation model where a beta coefficient is calculated for each path within the model. Thus, its use has been warranted and indicated based on a recent review of the literature (Mueller, 1996; Tate, 1996).

48

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of parenting and family stress on the quality of life among U.S. Army spouses during military deployments. The Army spouses were compared in terms of parenting and family stress, personal and family coping, well-being, sense of coherence, and quality of life based on length of separation due to military deployment. In addition, the previously mentioned factors were used in conjunction with length of military service, number of deployments, and various other family characteristics to assess overall quality of life for these participants.

This chapter has been organized into four sections. The first section includes descriptive statistics and demographic characteristics for the sample. The second section incorporates statistical findings related to the null hypothesis and research questions. The third section deals with the results of the path analyses and the related findings. The final section provides a summary of all statistical analyses and findings.

Sample

The information in Table 2 has been presented to provide the demographic characteristics of the sample in terms of length of deployment, as well as a breakdown of the respondents by their marital status, identified race and ethnicity, spouse�s rank, level of education, level of family income, percentage of income contributed by respondent to the household income, and whether the spouse was a step-parent. Rank was broken down into the following categories in terms of length of deployment: enlisted (E1-E4), enlisted non-commissioned officer (E5-E9), warrant officer (W1-W4) and officer (O1-O6). The percentages for all demographic data have been given for the portion of the total number of respondents by category.

Characteristics of the Final Sample

The final sample consisted of 205 female spouses of deployed and non-deployed service members. The usable surveys were divided into three groups of spouses based upon length of deployment. A group of non-deployed spouses (n = 65) constituted the first group and was used as a basis for comparison for the other two groups of spouses whose service members were deployed less than six months (n = 69) or spouses whose service members were deployed for longer than six months (n = 67).

The spouses ranged in age from 19 to 55 (mean age = 28.6), with a median age of 26 for the entire group. With regard to marital status, 171 of the spouses surveyed reported that they were married. Thirty-four members of the sample identified themselves as being remarried. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the sample consisted

49

of 92 (44.9%) �Caucasians,� 47 (22%) �African-Americans,� 37 (18%) �Hispanic or Latinos,� 12 (5.9%) �Asian-Americans,� 11 (5.4%) �Multi-ethnic,� 5 (2.4%) �Pacific Islanders,� 2 (1.0%) �Others,� and 1 (0.5%) �Native American.� Unique to this sample was the larger number of minority participants than found in the general population, which has been noted as a reflection of the racial and ethnic make-up of the military as a whole. The three categories of African-American, Hispanic, and multi-ethnic groups together were similar in number (45.4%) to those who identified themselves as Caucasian (44.9%).

Table 2 � Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Variable Non deployed

n (%)

Deployed

< 6 months

n (%)

Deployed

> 6months

n (%)

Totals

N (%)

Marital Status

Married 53 (31.0) 56 (32.7) 62 (36.8) 171 (83.4)

Remarried 14 (6.8) 13 (6.3) 7 (3.4) 34 (16.6)

Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian 25 (12.2) 31 (15.1) 36 (17.6) 92 (44.9)

African-American 18 (8.8) 14 (6.8) 13 (6.3) 47 (22.0)

Hispanic 13 (6.3) 13 (6.3) 11 (5.4) 37 (18.0)

Asian- American 5 (2.1) 5 (2.4) 2 (1.0) 12 (5.9)

Multi-ethnic 3 (1.5) 4 (2.0) 4 (2.0) 11 (5.4)

Pacific Islander 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0) 5 (2.4)

Other 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0)

Native American 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)

Totals 67 (32.7) 69 (33.7) 69 (33.7) 205 (100.0)

Spouse Rank

E1-E4 18 (8.5) 23 (11.0) 24 (11.5) 65 (31.0)

E5-E9 26 (12.0) 27 (12.5) 25 (12.5) 78 (37.0)

W1-W4 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 5 (2.5)

O1-06 21 (10.5) 17 (8.5) 18 (9.0) 56 (28.0)

Totals 67 (32.5) 69 (33.0) 69 (33.0) 205 (100.0)

Education

Some HS 8 (3.9) 12 (5.9) 6 (2.9) 26 (12.7)

GED 5 (2.4) 6 (2.9) 5 (2.4) 16 (7.8)

High School 20 (9.8) 20 (9.8) 19 (9.3) 59 (28.8)

Some College 17 (8.3) 13 (6.3) 22 (10.7) 52 (25.4)

Bachelors Degree 15 (7.3) 13 (6.3) 14 (6.8) 42 (20.5)

Masters Degree 2 (1.0) 3 (1.5) 2 (1.0) 7 (3.4)

Professional 0 (0.0) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)

Totals

67 (32.7) 69 (33.7) 69 (33.7) 205 (100.0)

50

Table 2 � Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (continued)

Variable Non deployed

n (%)

Shorter Deployed

1-6 months

n (%)

Longer Deployed

7+ months

n (%)

Totals

N (%)

Family Income

<$20,000 6 (2.9) 12 (5.9) 6 (2.9) 24 (11.7)

$20,001 - 30,000 8 (3.9) 18 (8.8) 20 (9.8) 46 (22.4)

$30,001 � 40,000 10 (4.9) 11 (5.4) 16 (7.8) 37 (18.0)

$40,001 � 50,000 14 (6.8) 6 (2.9) 11 (5.4) 31 (15.1)

$50,001 � 60,000 15 (7.3) 7 (3.4) 6 (2.9) 28 (13.7)

$60,001 � 70,000 9 (4.4) 3 (1.5) 5 (2.4) 17 (8.3)

$70,001 � 80,000 0 (0.0) 7 (3.4) 1 (0.5) 8 (3.9)

$80,001 � 90,000 4 (2.0) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 8 (3.9)

$90,001 � 100,000 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)

>$100,000 1 (0.0) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5)

Totals 67 (32.7) 69 (33.7) 69 (33.7) 205 (100.0)

Income %

contributed by

respondent

<25% 38 (18.5) 52 (25.4) 46 (22.4) 136 (66.3)

26% � 50% 27 (13.2) 11 (5.4) 14 (6.8) 52 (25.4)

51% - 75% 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.5) 6 (3.5)

>75% 0 (0.0) 5 (2.4) 6 (2.9) 11 (5.4)

Totals 67 (32.7) 69 (33.7) 69 (33.7) 205 (100.0)

Step-parent

Yes 26 (12.7) 21 (10.2) 17 (8.3) 64 (31.2)

No 41 (20.0) 48 (23.4) 52 (25.4) 141 (68.8)

Totals 67 (32.7) 69 (33.7) 69 (33.7) 205 (100.0)

# of children in

household

1 6 (3.1) 10 (5.1) 11 (5.6) 27 (13.8)

2 29 (14.8) 27 (13.8) 30 (15.3) 86 (43.9)

3 21 (10.7) 21 (10.7) 18 (9.2) 60 (30.6)

4 10 (5.1) 7 (3.6) 6 (3.1) 23 (11.7)

Totals 66 (33.7) 65 (33.2) 65 (33.2) 196 (100.0)

The breakdown of the spouse sample by rank of service member was accomplished by creating five categories corresponding to the personnel divisions within the U.S. Army: enlisted, non-commissioned officer, warrant officer, and officer. The demographics of the sample by rank were 78 (37%) �non-commissioned officer,� 65 (31%) �enlisted,� 56 (28%) �officer,� and 5 (2.5%) �warrant officer.� The larger number of non-commissioned officer (NCO) spouses was expected given the nature of this population. Non-commissioned officers have been in the military long enough to have re-enlisted at least once, are therefore older, and more likely to be married with families. When examining spouses by rank of service members, it was found that a majority of spouses married to enlisted personnel were between ages 18 and 24 (48 out of 57 or 76%

51

of enlisted spouses). There were no wives of officers younger than twenty-three (23) years of age in this sample of military spouses. By comparison, non-commissioned officer and officer spouses tended to be older than their enlisted counterparts. Non-commissioned officer�s spouses reported the largest number of households with one or more children when compared to the other groups based on rank. Nearly half of the sample (49.3%) reported having a high school education, GED, or less (n = 101), with a sizable portion of this group (n = 42) reporting that they had not graduated from high school at all (12.7% of the total sample). Of this group, 16 respondents reported having obtained a GED (7.8% of total sample) at some point since dropping out of school. Approximately one quarter of the entire sample (25.4%) reported having attended college (n = 52), while another 25.4% reported having obtained a bachelors degree or higher (n = 52). Analyses performed on education level by rank revealed that the officers spouses were more likely to have obtained an advanced degree (n = 33 or 16.8% of total sample) when compared with the other groups by rank (n = 8 for NCO or 4.1% of total sample). No enlisted spouses in this sample reported having attained a degree beyond high school. When income levels were analyzed for the sample, it was found that a sizable portion of the sample reported a household income of less than $40,000 annually (52.1%). This salary range served as a point of demarcation for this group because it was attained only by senior non-commissioned officers (e.g., E-8) with over fourteen years of service or officers who have attained the rank of captain (O-3) with a minimum of three years of service. A majority of spouses of enlisted personnel reported (60 of 67 enlisted spouses) reported family incomes of less than $30,000 annually, with the majority reporting that they did not work outside of the home. Employment outside of the home was a key factor in determining level of family income for the entire sample. Seventy-nine out of eighty-seven spouses of non-commissioned officers reported household incomes of less than $60,000 per year and were more likely to report working outside of the home than either of the other groups by rank (35.1% of total sample). No spouses of officers (n = 56) in the sample reported income levels of less than $30,000 per year, with only 37.5% of this group (n = 21) reporting working outside of the home. Spouses of non-commissioned officers were much more likely than any of the other spousal groups to work outside of the home (61.8%, or 48 of 78 NCO spouses), compared with only19.2% of enlisted spouses reporting working outside of the household (12 of 62 enlisted spouses) for this sample. Parenting issues were also important in understanding the demographic characteristics of this sample. The first characteristic of interest was the number of respondents who identified themselves as step-parents. Almost one-third of the sample reported being step-parents (31.2% or 64 of 205). Analyses were performed for those who reported being step-parents by rank. The spouses of non-commissioned officers comprised the largest number of respondents who reported that they were step-parents (67% or 48 of 64 step-parents in sample), with 43.6% of non-commissioned officer spouses reported being step-parents. This group by far accounted for the largest number of step-parents of any group within the sample. Of the two groups of spouses of deployed service members, 18.5% reported being step-parents, or 38 of the 64 identified step-parents in the sample.

52

Another parenting demographic of interest was the number of children within the household by groups of spouses within the sample. Within the sample of spouses who responded to the survey, 27 (13.8%) reported having one child in the household, 86 (43.9%) reported two children within the household, 60 (30.6%) reported three children within the household, 23 (11.7%) reported four children living within the household, and 4 (2.1%) reported more than four children living within their households. There were five respondents who identified themselves as parents, but did not report children living within their households at the time they were surveyed. As a group, non-commissioned officer spouses reported more children living in the household and were more likely to have three or more children within their households than the other two groups of spouses in the sample. This group of NCO spouses comprised 40.2% (n = 76) of the households with children present in the household for the entire sample.

Research Hypothesis and Questions Description of the Variables The quality of life experienced by the population of interest was the dependent variable for this study. There were six predictor variables thought to influence the quality of life experienced by the respondents based on the length of time their spouses were deployed for military duty. These predictor variables included: level of parental stress, level of family stress, level of family coping, level of personal coping, levels of psychological and physiological wellbeing, and level of coherence. The variables were selected because they fit the constructs within the ABC-X model of Family Stress, where A-factors represent stressors, B-factors represent coping, C-factors represent definition of events, and X-factors represent level of adaptation. The model used for the current study sought to assess the levels of stress, coping, well-being, sense of coherence, and quality of life at both the personal and family level for the respondents surveyed. Stressors constituted the first set of variables within the hypothesized model that would influence all other factors within the model. The level of parental stress was a measure of the perceived experience of parenting as stressful by the individual respondent. Higher scores on the Parental Stress Scale indicated a higher level of stress associated the role of parenting. The level of family stress was an assessment of stressful events and the intensity of those stressors experienced by the respondent and their families during the past year. Higher scores on the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes scale were reflective of greater influence of stressors experienced by the respondents. Coping factors at the family and personal level provided the second set of variables within the model used for this study. Family coping was assessed by the Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale in which greater scores indicated greater utilization of family coping resources among the respondents surveyed. The level of family coping was an assessment of how well stressful events are dealt with by respondents and their families. Personal coping was assessed by the Coping Scale for Adults, Short-Form, where higher scores were more reflective of higher levels of personal coping. The level of personal coping was an assessment of how well stressful events were dealt with by the respondents surveyed.

53

Definition of events, or appraisal of stressors and coping, was the third set of variables assessed as part of this study. Physiological and psychological strains were combined to provide a measure of personal well-being. These factors were assessed by the psychological and physiological strains subscales from the Occupational Stress Inventory, where higher scores were thought to be indicative of greater levels of physical and emotional health concerns, and a lower overall sense of personal wellbeing. A second facet of definition of events, or appraisal of stressors and coping, was sense of coherence which was assessed using the Orientation to Life Scale, where lower overall scores indicated a better sense of comprehension, manageability, and meaningfulness of life for the respondents. For the predictive analysis these scales were reverse scored so that higher scores reflected greater wellbeing and sense of coherence. The level of adaptation that a person experienced during deployment was hypothesized to be assessed by the quality of life perceived by the respondents in this study. Quality of life was influenced by all of the other variables within the model used for this study. The Generalized Contentment Scale was used to -assess quality of life for respondents in all three groups. Quality of life was indicated by the relative lack of distress perceived by the respondent, with lower scores on this instrument yielding more favorable perceptions. The higher respondents scored on this scale, the greater their distress (i.e., lower quality of life) with a score of 30 being the cut-off for significance in clinical settings. In other words, higher scores over the clinical cut-off have been established as clinically significant for the presence of problems relating to lower quality of life. This scale was reverse scored for predictive analyses where higher scores reflected greater quality of life. Research Hypothesis 1. Ho - There would be no observed variability among the three groups of spouses or significant others of U.S. Army personnel whose service members have not been deployed, those whose service members have been deployed less than six months (1to 6 months), and spouses or significant others whose service members have been deployed for longer than six months (7 months or more) who participate in this study in terms of the variables in question:

a. parenting stress as measured by the Parental Stress Scale (Berry & Jones, 1995), b. family stressors and strains as measured by the Family Inventory of Life Events

(McCubbin, 1998), c. personal coping resources as measured by the Coping Scale for Adults � Short-

Form (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1984), d. family coping resources as measured by the Family Crisis Oriented Personal

Evaluation Scale (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989), e. well-being or physiological and psychological factors affecting the appraisal of

stress and coping (definition of events) as measured by physiological and psychological strains subscales of the Occupational Stress Inventory (Osipow & Spokane, 1987),

f. sense of coherence as measured by the Orientation to Life Scale (Antonovsky, 1987),

g. quality of life as measured by the Generalized Contentment Scale (Hudson, 1982).

54

Analysis of variance was used to determine whether the mean scores of spouses or significant others of non-deployed service members, service members deployed less than six months, or service members deployed more than six months differed relative to the seven variables within the research hypothesis. The findings from ANOVA and post-hoc procedures have been presented in Table 3. Potential scale ranges for each variable have been included in this table. In all cases where there were significant differences among the three groups when post-hoc tests were run and reported. The Tukey HSD values were used, unless otherwise noted in the text.

Table 3 � Tests of Differences of Major Variables in Study Based on Length of Deployment

Variable Non-

deployed

Mean

(n=67)

Deployed <6

Months

Mean

(n=69)

Deployed >6

Months

Mean

(n=69)

F value df F sig

Parental Stress

31.0ab 38.8a 37.6b 15.41 2 .000*

Family Stress

13.0ab

24.7ac

19.3bc

21.16

2 .000*

Family Coping

114.7ab

110.1a

107.2b

8.92

2 .000*

Personal Coping

48.7ab 51.9a 51.8b 5.81 2 .004*

Well-being

26.5ab 47.7a 44.1b 79.18 2 .000*

Sense of Coherence

18.9ab 30.2a 27.8b 55.13 2 .000*

Quality of Life

13.8ab 40.6ac 34.3bc 61.77 2 .000*

*p<.05

a-c = To identify variables with differences at p ≤ .05, look for pair s with matching letter s.

Potential scale ranges for each variable:

# Items reverse coded for predictive analyses only.

The test of hypothesis 1a yielded a significant difference among the three groups in terms of parental stress, with a mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members (ND) of 31.0, a mean score for spouses of services members deployed for a

Variable Scale Ranges

Parental Stress

Parental Stress Scale 18-90

Family Stress

Family Inventory of Life Events 0-213

Family Coping

Family Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale 29-145

Personal Coping Adult Coping Scale � Short Form 19-95

Well-being

Occupational Stress Inventory � Psychological and

Physiological Strains Subscales #

20-100

Sense of Coherence Orientation to Life Scale # 13-55

Quality of Life Generalized Contentment Scale # 0-100

55

shorter period of 38.8, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed a longer period of 37.6 resulted from the analysis. The difference between the three groups on level of parental stress was significant (F = 15.41; df = 2; p<.001). The null hypothesis for the differences in parental stress based on length of deployment was rejected. When post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among the three groups, significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both of deployed groups (p<.001) in that the spouses whose service members were not deployed had lower parental stress. The difference between the group with service members deployed for a shorter period of time and the group with service members deployed for a longer period was found to be non-significant. Both groups with deployed service members experienced similar levels of parental stress. In the testing of hypothesis 1b, significant differences were found among the mean scores of the three groups in this study regarding level of family stress. A mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members (ND) of 13.0, a mean score for spouses of services members deployed a shorter length of time of 24.7, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed longer of 19.3 resulted from the analysis. The difference among the three groups on level of family stress was significant (F = 21.16; df = 2; p<.001). The null hypothesis for the differences in family stress based on length of deployment was rejected. Post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among all three groups, significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both deployed groups (p<.001). The spouses of non-deployed service members experienced less family stress than the groups with deployed service members. The difference between the shorter deployed group and the longer deployed group was found to be significant (p<.01), with a greater mean score for the shorter deployed group (24.7). The group with service members deployed for a shorter period of time (<6 months) experienced greater family stress.

In the testing of hypothesis 1c, significant differences were found among the mean scores of the three groups of interest to this study in level of family coping. A mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members of 114.7, a mean score for spouses of service members deployed a shorter period of 110.1, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed a longer period of 107.2 resulted from the analysis. The difference among the three groups on level of family stress was significant (F = 8.92; df = 2; p<.001). The null hypothesis for the differences in family coping based on length of deployment was rejected. When post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among all three groups, significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both deployed groups (p<.05). The spouses of non-deployed service members employed greater level of family coping than the spouses of deployed service members. The difference between the group deployed a shorter period of time and those deployed for a longer period of time was found to be non-significant. This means that both groups of spouses with deployed service members experienced similar levels of family coping.

In the testing of hypothesis 1d, significant differences were found among the mean scores of the three groups of interest to this study in level of personal coping. A mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members of 48.7, a mean score for spouses of services members deployed a shorter period of 51.9, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed for a longer period of 51.8 resulted from the analysis. The difference among the three groups on level of personal coping was

56

significant (F = 5.81; df = 2; p<.004). The null hypothesis for the differences in personal coping based on length of deployment was rejected. Post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among all three groups. Significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both deployed groups (p<.01) with spouses of non-deployed personnel experiencing lower levels of personal coping. The difference between the group with service members deployed for shorter than six months and those deployed longer was not significant in this case. The two groups of spouses with deployed service members experienced similar levels of personal coping.

In the testing of hypothesis 1e, significant differences were found among the mean scores of the three groups of interest to this study in levels of wellbeing. A mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members of 26.5, a mean score for spouses of service members deployed for a shorter period of 47.7, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed a longer period of 44.1 resulted from the analysis. The difference among the three groups on level of wellbeing was significant (F = 79.18; df = 2; p<.001). The null hypothesis for the differences in wellbeing based on length of deployment was rejected. Post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among all three groups. Significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both of deployed groups (p<.001) with spouses of non-deployed personnel lower levels of distress associated with higher wellbeing. The difference between the shorter deployed group of spouses and those with service members deployed for a longer period of time was found to be non-significant.

In the testing of hypothesis 1f, significant differences were found among the mean scores of the three groups of interest to this study in level of sense of coherence. A mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members of 18.9, a mean score for spouses of services members deployed for a shorter period of 30.2, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed longer of 27.8 resulted from the analysis. The difference among the three groups on sense of coherence was significant (F = 55.13; df = 2; p<.001). The null hypothesis for no observed differences in sense of coherence based on length of deployment was rejected. Post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among all three groups. Significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both of deployed groups (p<.001). Spouses of non-deployed personnel experienced greater sense of coherence than the spouses of deployed service members. The difference between the group with service members deployed for a shorter length of time and those with service members deployed longer was found to be not significant with regard to sense of coherence.

In the testing of hypothesis 1g, significant differences were found among the mean scores of the three groups of spouses in level of quality of life. A mean score for spouses of non-deployed service members of 13.8, a mean score for spouses of services members deployed for a shorter period of 40.6, and a mean score for spouses of service members deployed a longer period of 34.3 resulted from the analysis. The difference among the three groups on level of quality of life was significant (F = 61.77; df = 2; p<.001). The null hypothesis for the difference in quality of life based on length of deployment was rejected. Post hoc tests were performed for comparisons among all three groups. Significant differences were found between the non-deployed group and both of the deployed groups (p<.01). Spouses of non-deployed service members experienced greater levels of quality of life. The difference between the group with service members

57

deployed for a shorter length of time and those with service members deployed longer was found to be significant (p<.05), with a greater mean score for the group of spouses with service members deployed less than six months (40.6). The group of spouses married to service members deployed for less than six months experienced lower quality of life than their longer deployed counterparts.

Both groups of spouses with deployed service members scored above the clinical cut-off score of 30 on the Generalized Contentment Scale (Hudson, 1982). Only 2% of the spouses of non-deployed service members scored above the cut-off with their scores ranging from 1 to 31. The scores of the group of spouses with service members deployed for less than six months ranged from 2 to 81 with 63% scoring over the clinical cut-off of 30 indicating that they were more distressed and experienced a lower quality of life than the other group of spouses with service members deployed for longer than six months. The scores for the group of spouses with service members deployed for longer than six months ranged from 6 to 70, with 41% of the group scoring above cut-off of 30. Scores of above 70 on this measure were thought to be indicative of severe problems, possible suicidal risk, and could require hospitalization (Hudson, 1982). None of the spouses of non-deployed personnel or spouses with service members deployed longer than six months scored above this cut-off, while almost 10% of the group with personnel deployed less than six months scored above this level indicating severe incapacitation among some spouses in this group.

Causal Modeling

For the three research questions in this study, path analyses were conducted to assess the relationships among all of the variables in the hypothetical model. Each path analysis yielded a measure of explained variability for the model (R2) and a coefficient (β) for each path within the model. Goodness-of-fit indices were also determined for each path model based on the Pearson χ2 statistic. The GFI measures how much better a model fits compared to no model at all (Mueller, 1996). A GFI score of 0.9 or above is considered an optimal indicator of a �good-fit� of data to the hypothetical model (Tate, 1998). Path analyses were performed for each of the three groups of Army spouses in question: spouses of non-deployed service members, those spouses whose service members had been deployed for a shorter period of time (6 months or less), and those spouses whose service members were deployed a longer period of time (more than 6 months). The correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations for the variables in the model have been presented in Table 4.

Significant correlations were found between quality of life and a number of the variables within the model for each of the three groups in question. The apparent correlations that existed among the variables in question and the groups of spouses whose service members had been deployed for a shorter period of time (17 of 21 coefficients at p<.05) were most notable. Personal coping did not correlate highly with a number of the other variables in the model, especially for the scores observed for spouses of non-deployed personnel and those spouses of service members deployed for longer than six months. This disparity may be related to the relatively low Cronbach�s reliability (r = .65) originally observed with this scale in the reliability analysis for this study. It was also the least contributing measure explaining the observed variability between scores for the tests of comparison. Quality of life was most highly correlated with level of family

58

coping (B-factor), sense of wellbeing, and sense of coherence measures (C-factors) within the model.

Table 4 � Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations for Major Variables in the Study

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Parental Stress

1.0

.329**

.446**

.470**

-.364**

-.425**

-.366**

.073

-.113

-.047

.318**

.239

.468**

.251**

.264*

.535**

.350**

.176

.590**

Family Stress

1.0 -.227

-.400**

-.283*

.180

-.021

.276*

.516**

.346**

.414**

.428**

.287*

.257*

.389**

.277*

.384**

Family Coping

1.0 -.053

.310**

.174

-.524**

-.381**

-.486**

-.327**

-.392**

-.296*

-.591**

-.328**

-.495**

Personal Coping

1.0 .251

-.266*

-.010

.217*

-.452**

-.125

.240

-.448**

-.165

Well-being

1.0 .625**

.688**

.769**

.836**

.805**

.883**

Sense of Coherence

1.0 .566**

.789**

.870**

Quality of Life

1.0

Mean 31.0

38.8

37.6

13.9

24.7

19.3

114.6

110.1

107.2

48.6

51.9

51.8

26.5

47.7

44.1

18.9

30.2

27.8

13.8

40.6

34.3

SD 7.2

9.1

9.7

6.8

13.1

10.5

8.4

10.5

11.5

4.9

6.1

7.6

5.9

11.5

12.7

2.6

7.4

8.1

6.7

16.1

18.3

Note: ND = 0.00 Shorter Deployed= 0.00 Longer Deployed = 0.00 *p<.05 **p<.01

In the path analyses for the three groups in question, direct, indirect, and total effects were calculated. The personal coping variable was dropped from the path analyses for the three groups. The decision to drop this variable was the result of a lower set of correlations with other variables in the model and a lower overall contribution to the outcome variability when goodness-of-fit indices were assessed. The beta (β) coefficients were non-significant at p ≤ .05.

59

Research Question One Can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family and personal

coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service members who have not been deployed within the past year? All path coefficients were significant with the exception of parental stress to family coping. The explained variance for the model was R2 = .701. The GFI was .913 indicating a good fit of data to the model. The path diagram for the spouses of non-deployed service members with beta coefficients has been provided in Figure 4.

Figure 4 � Path Model for Group of Army Spouses with Non-Deployed Service Members Quality of life was directly related to level of family coping, wellbeing, sense of

coherence, parental stress, and family stress. There was a positive relationship between family coping, wellbeing, sense of coherence, and quality of life meaning that higher family coping, a greater sense of psychological and physiological wellbeing, and a greater sense of coherence were related to a better quality of life. Conversely, parental stress and family stress were inversely related to quality of life. Greater levels of parental stress and family stress were related to poorer quality of life. When examining the indirect relationships within the model, family stress was mediated by family coping in its relationship to quality of life. The less family stress these families experienced, the more they employed family coping and the better their quality of life. When they redefined family stress and felt that they could manage the situation; their quality of life was enhanced. Their ability to use family coping enhanced their sense of wellbeing, along with the ability to manage and comprehend their situations, which had a positive influence on quality of life. Family and parental stress were mediated by wellbeing and sense of coherence. The lack of physical and psychological health reactions to family

Parental

Stress

A

Family

Stress

A

Family

Coping

B

Wellbeing

C #

Sense of

Coherence

C #

Quality of

Life

X #

.211*

*Significant at p ≤ .05 R2 = .701

#Scales reverse scored.

.681*

-.350*

.509*

-.389*

.566*

-.428*

-.516*

-.318*

-.165

.327*

-.269*

-.251*

60

and parental stress, along with the belief that they could handle the situation, were related to a higher quality of life.

Research Question Two

Can levels of parenting stress, family stressors and strains (A�s), levels of family coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service members who have been deployed for six months or less? The explained variance for the model was R2 = .739. The GFI was .901 indicating a good fit of the data to the model. The path diagram for the spouses of service members deployed for a shorter period of time with coefficients has been provided in Figure 5.

Figure 5 � Path Model for Group of Army Spouses of Shorter Deployed Service Members

Quality of life was directly related to family coping, wellbeing, sense of

coherence, and family stress. There was no direct relationship between quality of life and parental stress for this group. Family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence were positively related to quality of life. Family stress was inversely related to quality of life, with higher levels of stress producing lower quality of life. Indirectly, family coping was mediated by wellbeing and sense of coherence, as was the indirect relationship between family stress and quality of life. Lower levels of family coping were related to more emotional and physical strains associated with poorer wellbeing, along with less manageability and comprehensibility (i.e., lower sense of coherence), resulting in lower quality of life. Parental stress was mediated by sense of coherence meaning that greater parental stress was related to a reduced sense of manageability and comprehensibility of the situation producing a lower quality of life for this group.

Parental

Stress

A

Family

Stress

A

Family

Coping

B

Wellbeing

C #

Sense of

Coherence

C #

Quality of

Life

X #

.381*

*Significant at p ≤ .05 #Scales reverse scored. R2 = .739

.508*

-.176

.328*

-.277*

.456*

-.287*

-.346*

-.239

-.023

.392*

-.173

-.264*

61

Research Question Three Can levels of parenting stress, family stressors and strains (A�s), levels of family

coping resources (B�s), levels of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict quality of life (X) for spouses/partners of those service members deployed for a period longer than six months? All path coefficients were significant with an explained variance for the model of R2 = .875. The GFI was .931 indicating a good fit of the data to the model for this group. The path diagram for spouses of service members deployed longer than six months with coefficients has been provided in Figure 6. Quality of life was directly related to sense of coherence, wellbeing, family coping, family stress, and parental stress. Greater family coping, greater sense of physical and psychological wellbeing, and greater sense of coherence were related to a higher quality of life. Family stress and parental stress were inversely related to quality of life meaning that higher levels of stress were related to a lower quality of life. As a group these spouses experienced high levels of stress which were related to lower levels of coping, physical and psychological wellbeing, and sense of coherence. Indirectly, the relationship between family coping and quality of life was mediated by wellbeing and sense of coherence. Family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence mediated the relationship between parental and family stress, and quality of life. Higher stress levels required higher levels of family coping, which were related to greater sense of physical and psychological strain (i.e., wellbeing) and lower sense of coherence. The excessive utilization of coping and appraisal factors was related to lower quality of life.

Figure 6 � Path Model for Group of Army Spouses of Longer Deployed Service Members Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects In the models for spouses of non-deployed service members, spouses of service members deployed for shorter periods of time (six months or less), and spouses of service members deployed longer (more than six months), the direct, indirect, and total effects

Parental

Stress

A

Family

Stress

A

Family

Coping

B

Wellbeing

C #

Sense of

Coherence

C #

Quality of

Life

X #

.137*

*Significant at p ≤ .05 R2 = .875

#Scales reverse scored.

.608*

-.590*

.495*

-.384*

.573*

-.257*

-.414*

-.468*

-.264*

.296*

-.265*

-.535*

62

for observations of parental stress, family stress, family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence were calculated for quality of life. One major advantage of using path analysis was that direct structural effects and indirect effects through intervening variables were obtained. Direct effects were calculated for endogenous on exogenous variables for all three groups. Indirect effects were calculated for the effects of a model path coefficient with an intervening variable coefficient. Total effects were calculated by summing the direct and indirect effects components from the path analyses for each group of spouses depending on the length of deployment of their service members.

Effects Components for Spouses of Non-deployed Service Members The direct, indirect, and total effects for the spouses of non-deployed service

members were calculated and have been provided in Table 5. For the spouses of non-deployed service members, levels of parental stress, level of family stress, level of family coping, psychological and physical wellbeing, and sense of coherence levels had a significant total effect on the reported quality of life. Wellbeing, family coping, and family stress provided the greatest total effect on quality of life. The model for the non-deployed group accounted for approximately 70% of the observed variance in their quality of life scores. Table 5 � Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Group with Non-Deployed Service Members

Non-Deployed

Variable Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total Effects

Parental Stress

-.350*

-.137*

-.487*

Family Stress

-.389*

-.192*

-.581*

Family Coping .509*

.108*

.617*

Well-being .681*

--- .681*

Sense of Coherence

.566*

--- .566*

R2 = .701

*p<.05

Effects Components for Spouses of Service Members Deployed < 6 months

The direct, indirect, and total effects for the spouses of service members deployed for a shorter period of time were calculated and have been provided in Table 6. For the spouses of service members deployed less than six months, level of family stress, level of family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence exerted a significant total effect on the reported quality of life. The level of parental stress provided the least total effect on quality of life for this group of deployed spouses. The level of family coping, level family stress, and level of wellbeing provided the greatest total effect on quality of life. The model for the group of spouses with service members deployed for less than six months accounted for approximately 74% of the observed variance in their quality of life scores.

63

Table 6 � Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Group with Service Members Deployed < 6 months

Deployed < 6 months

Variable Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total Effects

Parental Stress

-.176

-.064 -.240

Family Stress

-.277*

-.384* -.661*

Family Coping

.328*

.370*

.698*

Well-being

.508*

--- .508*

Sense of Coherence

.456*

--- .456*

R2 = .739

*p<.05

Effect Components for Spouses of Service Members Deployed for > 6 months The direct, indirect, and total effects for the spouses of service members deployed

for longer periods of time (more than six months) were calculated and have been provided in Table 7. For the spouses of service members deployed longer than six months, level of parental stress, level of family stress, level of family coping, level of wellbeing, and level of sense of coherence exerted a significant direct influence on the reported quality of life. The parental stress and family stress provided the greatest total effect on quality of life. The levels of family coping, level of wellbeing, and sense of coherence also provided significant total effects on quality of life as well. The model for the group with service members deployed for longer than six months accounted for approximately 87.5% of the observed variance in their quality of life scores. Table 7 � Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects for Group With Service Members Deployed > 6 months

Deployed >6 months

Variable Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total Effects

Parental Stress

-.590*

-.170*

-.760*

Family Stress

-.384*

-.265*

-.649*

Family Coping

.495*

.137*

.632*

Well-being

.608*

--- .608*

Sense of Coherence

.573*

--- .573*

R2 = .875

*p<.05

Related Findings There were a number of related findings of interest in this study. Several demographic variables were examined regarding members of each group of spouses. In

64

order to test for these differences, further analyses were performed for all three groups using questions specific to the Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment, along with scores on the reliable subscales of the instruments used to assess stressors, coping, wellbeing, sense of coherence, and quality of life as determinants for comparison purposes. Comparisons among the three groups were made using one-way ANOVAs and Tukey HSD to test for significant differences between the means of the three groups. Deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom For the first set of analyses performed for related findings, comparisons were made among the three groups based their responses the following set of questions: a) How stressful was the recent Persian Gulf deployment for you? b) How stressful was the recent Persian Gulf deployment for your children? c) During deployments, how stressful are finances? d) During deployments how stressful is household management? e) During deployments how stressful is children�s discipline? f) How satisfied are you with military life? g) How satisfied is your spouse or partner with military life? The participants were asked to respond to a five point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 4 for the survey items. The response choices ranged from �0 = not stressful at all� to �4 = very stressful� for the stress related questions and from �0 = very unsatisfied� to �4 = very satisfied� for the satisfaction with military life questions.

There were significant differences among the groups in their responses to the stressful nature of the deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom for the spouses themselves and the perception of stress by their children. Significant differences were found between the group means of spouses of non-deployed personnel (ND = 1.1) and both groups of spouses of deployed personnel (F = 107.52; df = 2; p ≤ .001), with no significant difference observed between the two deployed group means for both of the variables in question (shorter deployed = 3.1; longer deployed = 2.9). Spouses of deployed service members perceived greater stress due to the deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom similarly regardless of the length of deployment. For perceived stress levels in their children similar patterns were observed with significant differences (F = 67.73: df = 2; p ≤ .001) in group means observed between spouses of non-deployed personnel (ND = 0.6) and both groups of spouses of deployed service members (shorter deployed = 2.4; longer deployed = 2.2). The spouses of service members deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom similarly perceived the stress experienced by their children regardless of the length of time that the service member had been deployed. It appears that the deployment of a service member to Operation Iraqi Freedom was more stressful for spouses and their children than the actual length of deployment.

When asked to assess their own satisfaction with military life, significant differences (F = 4.59; df = 2; p ≤ .05) were observed between group means for spouses of non-deployed personnel (ND = 2.6) and both groups of spouses of deployed service members (shorter deployed = 2.2; longer deployed = 2.5). Post hoc tests indicated no significant differences between the means of the two deployed groups for both of the variables in question. Both groups of spouses of deployed service members apparently experienced similar levels of satisfaction with military life. The spouses asked to assess the satisfaction of their service member spouses with military life, significant differences

65

(F = 3.15; df = 2; p ≤ .05) were observed between the group means of the spouses of non-deployed service members (ND = 3.0) and both groups of spouses of deployed service members (shorter deployed = 2.7; longer deployed = 2.9). When post hoc tests of significance were performed, however, the difference between the two deployed groups was not found to be significant. Both groups similarly perceived their spouse�s satisfaction with military life.

Table 8 � Tests of Differences Among Groups Based on Wartime Deployment

Variable Non-

deployed

Mean

(n=67)

Deployed <6

months

Mean

(n=69)

Deployed >6

months

Mean

(n=69)

F value df F sig

How stressful was the

recent Persian Gulf

deployment for you?

1.1ab

3.1a

2.9b

107.52 2 .000**

How stressful was the

recent Persian Gulf

deployment for your

children?

0.6ab

2.4a

2.2b 67.73 2 .000**

Military life:

How satisfied are you

with military life?

2.6ab

2.2a

2.5b 4.59

2 .011*

How satisfied is your

spouse or partner

with military life?

3.0ab

2.7a

2.9b 3.15 2 .045*

During deployments,

how stressful are the

following:

Finances 1.2ab

2.6ac

2.0bc 25.59

2 .000**

Household

management

1.2ab

2.9ac

2.2bc 53.49

2 .000**

Children�s discipline

0.7ab

2.2a

2.2b 45.59 2 .000**

**p<.01 *p<.05

a-c = To identify variables with differences at p ≤ .05, look for pair s with matching letter s.

With regard to the difficulty associated with several of the daily tasks required of

spouses during deployments, significant differences were observed among the means for all three groups of spouses (F = 25.59; df = 2; p ≤ .001) for difficulty with finances and household management during deployment. When examining stress due to finances, a lower group mean was observed for the spouses of non-deployed personnel (ND = 1.2) than for the two groups of spouses of deployed service members. The group mean for

66

spouses whose service members had been deployed for longer than six months (longer deployed = 2.0) was significantly less (HSD p ≤ .05) than the observed group mean for the spouses of personnel deployed for less than six months (shorter deployed = 2.6). The group of spouses with service members deployed for less than six months perceived greater financial difficulties than the group spouses with services members deployed for longer.

Similar patterns emerged when comparisons were made among the three groups in terms of the stress experienced due to household management. In this case the means for all three differed significantly (F = 53.49; df = 2; p ≤ .001), with a lower group mean for the spouses of non-deployed personnel (1.2). Again, the group mean for the spouses of service members deployed longer than six months (2.2) was significantly lower (p ≤ .05) than the observed mean for the spouses of service members deployed less than six months (2.9). The group of spouses with service members deployed for less than six months experienced more difficulty with daily household management than the group whose service members had been deployed for longer than six months.

When comparisons were made among the means of the three groups in terms of children�s discipline during deployments, significant differences were found between the mean for the spouses of non-deployed personnel (0.7) and the means of the two deployed groups (shorter deployed = 2.2; longer deployed = 2.2). When tests of significance were performed, no significant difference was found for the means of the two groups of spouses of deployed service members. In this case, both groups of spouses with deployed service members experienced a similar degree of stress with child discipline. These two groups differed in terms of financial issues and household management indicating that the spouses with longer deployed service members, except in the case of child discipline, perceived less stress with longer deployments. Ranking Ordering of Subscales A determination of rank order of the subscale variables was performed for the three groups of spouses in this study to determine the frequency with which each group experienced stressors, employed various coping resources, and appraised their life situations. Rankings were derived by dividing the group subscale means by the number of subscale items and were placed in order by the total group rankings (Table 9).

The three greatest stressors for the non-deployed groups were work and family transitions, intra-family strains, and pregnancy and childbearing. The group of spouses with service members deployed for less than six months ranked intra-family strains higher followed by work and family transitions, and pregnancy and children strains The spouses of longer deployed service members ranked high on intra-family strains and work and family transitions, but ranked marital strains as third highest among their stressors. Their perception of marital strains ranked higher than either of the other two groups of spouses surveyed.

In regard to the parental stress variable, parental strains and parental satisfaction were the highest ranking subscales for the spouses of non-deployed service members compared to parental strains and lack of control for both groups of spouses of deployed service members. The spouses of personnel deployed less than six months ranked higher on parental strains and lack of control than the either of the other two groups of spouses. The spouses of service members deployed for longer than six months, based on rank

67

ordering of subscales scores, experienced lower lack of control than the spouses in the group with shorter deployed service members. Table 9 � Rank Ordering of Subscale Variables

Variable

Non-deployed Shorter Longer Total

Family Stress

Intra-family Strains 0.24 0.67 0.59 0.51

Work & Family Transitions 0.30 0.38 0.34 0.34

Pregnancy & Childbearing 0.21 0.35 0.16 0.24

Marital Strains 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.24

Financial & Business Strains 0.19 0.30 0.18 0.22

Illness & Family Care 0.13 0.21 0.08 0.15

Family Legal 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.09

Losses 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.08

Transitions In & Out 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.06

Parental Stress

Parental Strains 2.45 2.99 2.90 2.78

Lack of Control 1.37 1.98 1.90 1.75

Parental Satisfaction## 1.43 1.79 1.77 1.67

Parental Rewards## 1.11 1.38 1.34 1.28

Family Coping

Reframing 4.32 3.98 4.04 4.11

Seeking Spiritual Support 3.95 3.72 3.84 3.83

Acquiring Social Support 3.86 3.73 3.49 3.69

Mobilizing Family Support 3.60 3.82 3.46 3.63

Passive Appraisal 3.75 3.51 3.48 3.58

Personal Coping

Non-productive Coping 3.98 3.66 3.77 3.76

Sharing 3.53 2.82 3.19 3.18

Dealing With Problems 1.38 1.15 1.20 1.29

Optimism## 0.72 1.17 1.07 0.99

Wellbeing #

Psychological Strains 1.47 2.70 2.40 2.20

Physiological Strains 1.18 2.07 2.01 1.76

Sense of Coherence #

Meaningfulness 1.69 2.37 2.29 2.12

Comprehensibility 1.42 2.40 2.18 2.00

Manageability 1.33 2.31 2.05 1.90

# Lower scores on wellbeing and sense of coherence subscales equate better wellbeing and sense of coherence.

## Due to reverse-coding lower scores equate better satisfaction and greater rewards.

When rank ordering the subscales for family coping variable, the group of spouses with non-deployed service members used reframing, spiritual support, and social support to cope with their life situations, which was similar to the rankings found in the group of spouses deployed for longer than six months. However, the top three rankings for the group of spouses with service members deployed for less than six months varied in that they also used reframing as a coping mechanism, but based on rank ordering they

68

mobilized family support and acquired social support more often than they employed spiritual support. This result differed from the patterns observed among the other two groups of spouses for family coping. The rank ordering for the subscales associated with the personal coping variable indicated all three groups of spouses ranked higher on non-productive coping, followed by sharing, regardless of their deployment status.

Rank ordering of the wellbeing subscales indicated that all three groups of spouses regardless of deployment status experienced psychological strains more often than they experienced physiological strains. Among the three groups, spouses with service members deployed for less than six months ranked higher than the other two groups in psychological strains. The groups differed in terms of ranking the on sense of coherence subscales with the group of spouses with service members deployed less than six months ranking higher on comprehensibility. The group of spouses with non-deployed service members, as well as the spouses of service members deployed for longer than six months, both ranked higher on the meaningfulness subscale. It is of interest that all three groups of spouses ranked lowest on the manageability subscale, which seemed to indicate a similarity across the groups regardless of deployment status. Open Ended Items There were three open-ended items provided for the respondents in this study. These questions were designed to give the participants a chance to speak freely about their situations and �give voice� to the data that were otherwise anonymously collected. There were several themes consistent with the quantitative findings that emerged from the open-ended responses. The first theme was that communication could have been better and that information through various support services on-post was poorly handled. Another theme that emerged was the apparent displeasure with the redeployment dates and how these changes caused undue stress for the spouses in this study. The depth of information provided for children was another interesting theme given the various reported ages of their children, as was the belief that there was some greater purpose for what was occurring in their lives at the time they were surveyed. One other theme that was worth noting was the better overall adjustment to the separation of deployment among those spouses who professed a belief that events would work-out for the best or a faith in God. Lack of Adequate and Accurate Information � Poor Support Services:

• More phone calls for the kids would have been nice, but I understand all the reasons why they didn�t have access�

• I have found that the finance offices don�t take their job seriously � they lost paperwork, lost our allotment forms four times, took six months to get it started due to their incompetence and our credit rating has suffered.

• When you have experienced problems related with the Army, many people turn their back on you even though it is their job to help the families.

• You usually don�t get the support they say they bring the families. You find yourself hopeless because you can�t solve the problems without your spouse.

69

• There is actually nobody that really cares for the well-being of the spouse or the kids � you get severe post-partum depression, �so what, you don�t really need your husband�� The Army really has to change in that aspect � it�s really sad!

Length of Deployment as a Stressor:

• The longer he�s gone the easier it is to forget that you�re actually part of a team. A short deployment is a cake walk now. Long deployments leave the single parent exhausted.

• It is emotional and hard to do both parental roles.

• At first it�s hard on the kids to adjust; about three or four months into it they get better and get used to new active routines and things.

• A long deployment is always difficult.

Changes in Redeployment Dates as a Stressor:

• The longer, the worse it got, especially if you were promised they would return six times, always got the hopes up just to be disappointed.

• We did not know when he was coming home and that was bad (for us).

• DON�T tell us anything if it is not 100% sure. They�ve changed the ETA five times � �yeah they�ll be home by the middle of July� oh, sorry, it�ll be two to four months before we even know�� That I can�t take!!

• The stressful thing for our family is not knowing how long the deployment will last-we find it easier when we have a fairly certain return date to look forward to.

Information Provided to Children:

• Well their dad and step-dad are military and our boys know that they signed up for the job. They also know that sometimes countries don�t see eye to eye and sometimes you have to have a country keep the peace.

• I don�t have to tell them anything. They see it all on the news.

• My son is too young to understand � I just told him that daddy is at work far away.

• I tell them that their dad has to go and help other people who don�t have it as good as us � that it�s his job and that if he had a choice, he would stay here, but he doesn�t have a choice. That�s his job right now (to help others).

70

Sense of Purpose and Duty:

• This is your father�s job to defend our country and I make them feel proud yet excited for when he returns.

• I�m proud to be a military wife. I can take all it dishes out. It�s my husband�s job and I support him 100%!

• This is a way of life for us. My husband was in the Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, and Korea during the past 15 years.

• If anything, being in the Army has given my husband and I a sense of purpose that he needed and an opportunity for me to recognize and evaluate my own my own instabilities and insecurities, taking me to find help and counseling in friends, family, and church members.

Belief That Things Would Work Out for Their Families (Belief in God):

• God is in control and nothing will happen that He won�t help us deal with.

• I tell them that God will protect their daddy while he is away.

• My husband and I were married less than seven months when he deployed � he has been gone for seven months. It has been hard, but even so, we have grown closer to God and each other.

• It is important to just stay positive and support each other and the two of you support your kids.

Summary

The final section of this chapter has been devoted to summarizing the results of the analyses of the hypotheses and the research questions for this study. The minimal standard used to reject the null hypothesis was p≤ 0.05. This information has been summarized in Table 11 with rejection decisions and significance levels provided for the hypotheses tested. For the research questions, β coefficients for each model path, model R square, and significance levels for the coefficients have been provided.

Table 10 � Summary of Analyses for Hypothesis and Research Questions

Hypothesis Tested Significance

Hypothesis Level Decision

Ho - There would be no observed variability between the three

groups of spouses or significant others in terms of length of

deployment for the variables:

a) Parental Stress

.000 Rejected

b) Family Stress

.000

Rejected

71

Table 10 � Summary of Analyses for Hypothesis and Research Questions (continued)

c) Family Coping

.000

Rejected

d) Personal Coping

.004

Rejected

e) Well-being

.000 Rejected

f) Sense of Coherence

.000 Rejected

g) Quality of Life

.000 Rejected

Research Question #1 Findings

Can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family

coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events

(C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service

members who have not been deployed within the past year (ND)?

Parental Stress to Family Coping β = -.165

Parental Stress to Wellbeing β = -.318**

Parental Stress to Sense of Coherence β = -.251*

Parental Stress to Quality of Life β = -.350**

Family Coping to Wellbeing β = .211**

Family Coping to Sense of Coherence β = .327**

Family Coping to Quality of Life β = -.509**

Wellbeing to Quality of Life β = .681**

Sense of Coherence to Quality of Life β = .566**

Family Stress to Family Coping β = -.269**

Family Stress to Wellbeing β = -.516**

Family Stress to Sense of Coherence β = -.428**

Family Stress to Quality of Life β = -.389**

R2 = .701 **p≤.01 *p≤.05

Research Question #2 Findings

Can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family

coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events

(C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service

members deployed less than 6months the past year?

72

Table 10 � Summary of Analyses for Hypothesis and Research Questions (continued)

Parental Stress to Family Coping β = -.023

Parental Stress to Wellbeing β = -.239

Parental Stress to Sense of Coherence β = -.264*

Parental Stress to Quality of Life β = -.176

Family Coping to Wellbeing β = .381**

Family Coping to Sense of Coherence β = .392**

Family Coping to Quality of Life β = -.328**

Wellbeing to Quality of Life β = .508**

Sense of Coherence to Quality of Life β = .456**

Family Stress to Family Coping β = -.173

Family Stress to Wellbeing β = -.346**

Family Stress to Sense of Coherence β = -.287*

Family Stress to Quality of Life β = -.277*

R2 = .739 **p≤.01 *p≤.05

Research Question #3 Findings

Can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family

coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events

(C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses/partners of service

members deployed longer than 6months the past year?

Parental Stress to Family Coping β = -.264*

Parental Stress to Wellbeing β = -.468**

Parental Stress to Sense of Coherence β = -.535**

Parental Stress to Quality of Life β = -.590**

Family Coping to Wellbeing β = .137**

Family Coping to Sense of Coherence β = .296*

Family Coping to Quality of Life β = -.495**

Wellbeing to Quality of Life β = .608**

Sense of Coherence to Quality of Life β = .573**

Family Stress to Family Coping β = -.265*

73

Table 10 � Summary of Analyses for Hypothesis and Research Questions (continued)

Family Stress to Wellbeing β = -.414**

Family Stress to Sense of Coherence β = -.257*

Family Stress to Quality of Life β = -.384**

R2 = .875 **p≤.01 *p≤.05

74

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of parenting and family stressors, personal and family coping, sense of coherence and personal wellbeing on the quality of life among U.S. Army spouses during military deployments. The Army spouses were compared by groups for parenting and family stress, personal and family coping, sense of coherence and well-being based on length of separation due to military deployment. Causal modeling was used to provide a framework for explaining the influence of the stress, coping, and appraisal variables in the model on quality of life. In addition, the participants were compared in terms of stressors experienced specific to this and other recent deployments. The pertinent findings have been provided for discussion.

Summary of the Study

A survey design was used to test the hypothetical model predicting the influence of parental stress, family stress, family coping, personal coping, personal wellbeing, and sense of coherence on quality of life for military spouses of service members deployed for different periods of time to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The ABC-X model from the family stress and resiliency framework (Hill, 1949; McCubbin, 1996) was incorporated to study the influence of stress factors (family and parental stress), coping factors (family and personal), and appraisal factors (wellbeing and sense of coherence) on crisis or disorganization levels (quality of life) for the spouses of deployed members of the U.S. Army.

The respondents were surveyed during the summer of 2003 prior to the return of members of the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division to Ft. Stewart, Georgia. Sampling was achieved by obtaining a mailing list from the three zip codes of family housing units on-post and every other household was selected by using systematic random sampling. One thousand survey packets containing a survey, cover letter, informed consent form, and incentive coupons were sent out to the selected respondents. The surveys were returned during the late summer and early fall at which time they were categorized for subsequent data analysis. A second notice was sent requesting that the recipient return the completed survey in the pre-paid envelope. The return results and specifics of sampling were previously mentioned in Chapter Three. The questionnaire consisted of 23 demographic items, plus 3 items pertaining to the specific stressors related to Operation Iraqi Freedom and other recent deployments. There were also three open-ended questions provided for the respondents in this survey.

75

The remainder of the 200 items in the questionnaire were taken from the seven scales used to measure the variables of interest to this study. The variables and their corresponding scales were the Parental Stress Scale to assess parental stress, Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes to assess level of family stressors within the past year, Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale to assess level of family coping, Coping Scale for Adult, Short Form to assess level of personal coping, Psychological and Physiological Strains Subscales from the Occupational Stress Inventory to assess levels

of personal wellbeing, Orientation to Life Scale to assess perceived sense of coherence, and the Generalized Contentment Scale to assess the quality of life experienced by the participants. The ABC-X model from the family stress and resiliency framework (Hill, 1949) was used to study the observed influences of stress factors (family and parental stress), coping factors (family and personal coping), and appraisal factors (wellbeing and sense of coherence) on quality of life for the spouses of members of the U.S. Army. Based upon the premise of the family stress and resiliency model from family stress theory, the family will adjust to various changes in stressor levels, coping levels, and appraisal or perception of both stress and coping factors, in order to ultimately experience adaptation or maladaptation to the situations experienced. One hypothesis and three research questions were used in this study of the impact of deployment on spouses of members of the U.S. Army. The null hypothesis (Ho) in this study was that there would be no variability in the observed scores for the variables of interest (i.e., levels of parental stress, levels of family stress, levels of family coping, levels of personal coping, appraisal of personal wellbeing, appraisal of sense of coherence, and subjective assessment of quality of life) based on the length of deployment. One-way analysis of variance, with Tukey�s post-hoc procedure (HSD), was used to determine whether significant differences existed among the three groups of spouses of deployed service members.

The research questions for this study were stated as follows: 1) can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family and personal coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses or partners of service members who have not been deployed within the past year; 2) can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family and personal coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses or partners of service members who have been deployed for less than six months within the past year; 3) can levels of parental stress, family stress (A�s), levels of family and personal coping resources (B�s), level of perception (definitions) of events (C�s) predict life quality (X) for spouses or partners of service members who have been deployed longer than six months within the past year? The research questions for each group were addressed using path analysis to assess the influence of the predictor variables within the model, levels of parental stress, levels of family stress, levels of family coping, levels of personal coping, appraisal of personal wellbeing, and appraisal of sense of coherence, on the outcome variable of assessment of quality of life for the military spouse. The results of this study indicated that the length of deployment was a significant factor in terms of the influences of stressors, level of coping, and appraisal or perception factors on the quality of life for this sample of Army spouses. With regard to family

76

stress, wellbeing, sense of coherence, and quality of life, the observed means for the spousal group whose service members had been deployed longest differed significantly from the group of spouses whose service members had been deployed a shorter length of time. Both of the deployed groups� means differed significantly from the observations for the spouses of non-deployed service members for all of the variables within this model. Longer deployment appeared to have less impact on quality of life than shorter deployment for the respondents.

Separate path analyses were performed for each of the three groups to test for the influences of predictor variables in the model on the outcome variable. The variables predicting quality of life were parental stress, family stress, family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence. Personal coping was removed as a variable in predictive analyses due to the low level of reliability of the scale found with this sample and low contribution of variability to the hypothetical model. The influences on quality of life differed for the three groups of spouses in this study. The quality of life for the spouses of non-deployed service members resulted from less stressor influence, greater coping influence, and higher influence from appraisal factors than the other two groups. Notably, the quality of life for spouses of personnel deployed for less than six months was not directly influenced by parental stress. The quality of life of spouses of service members deployed for longer than six months seemed more directly influenced by parental stress and family stress than other variables in the model. The model R2 for the group of spouses of service members deployed for longer than six months was larger indicating greater explained variance in quality of life. The goodness-of-fit indices were high for the three spousal groups indicating a good model fit of the data derived from the variable observations.

Discussion of the Findings

Discussion of Methodology There were a number of limitations to this study based on the difficult nature of this population to survey. These difficulties have been discussed previously by researchers involved in research with military families (McCubbin, 1998; Rosen et al 1993). The first limitation deals with mobility, while the second issue involves access to military personnel and their families. A final issue centers on the constant cycle of deployments characteristic of the military. In terms of mobility, a major limitation of this study was that these respondents could only be surveyed using a cross-sectional methodology at the time that they were deployed. A number of the respondents likely moved to another military facility since the time of the survey (PSC � permanent change of station). Data from the same respondents on reunion stressors would have helped complete the explanation of the deployment/reunion cycle. Several attempts were made to obtain participants by utilizing resources readily available to the researcher. It was thought that the survey packets could be distributed through the chaplaincy service at Ft. Stewart, since several chaplains were attached to each brigade in the division at the battalion level. With the build-up toward hostilities in Iraq during the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, the majority of the chaplains within the 3rd Infantry Division were deployed with their assigned units and unavailable to assist with the survey. Plans were also in place to distribute the survey packets through the chief medical officer of the 3rd Infantry Division�s office (Division Surgeon), but this option was not available due to the deployment of division-level medical personnel with troops to Kuwait.

77

It was assumed that a number of the potential respondents in the non-deployed spousal group were either service members placed with their unit�s rear detachment and remained at Ft. Stewart, or were the spouses of service members who were placed with their unit�s rear detachment. Most likely, these service members were in a non-deployable MOS (military occupational specialty) or were not able to deploy due to the lack of an adequate family care plan. More data on their specific status would have been useful, thus the lack of this information could be viewed as another limitation to this study. The difficulty associated with obtaining data on the specific status of troops has been previously detailed by McCubbin et al (1983). It was difficult to organize the study, get approval from committees and institutional review panels, and obtain printed scannable surveys within the specified time prior to the return of troops to Ft. Stewart. The surveys were sent out in early July of 2003, about one month prior to the return of the entire division. The time constraints inherent with studying a military population served as a major limitation in the study. Once personnel began to return from deployment, deployment stress was no longer the primary stressor for these households. It is reasonable to speculate that this factor may have also contributed to a lower response rate for the study, in that the spouses in households who were reunited earlier with service members may not have deemed it necessary to return a survey detailing their quality of life during deployments The length of the survey instrument itself was also a likely factor in the lowered response rate (Ellis, 1998). The amount of time to complete the entire form was calculated to be approximately 35 to 40 minutes without distractions. Within households where children were present, it is likely that there were numerous distractions. The survey was also thought to be more difficult for the respondents due to the complex nature of relationship between the levels of the variables within the model (i.e., required the individual to think about family and personal issues at the same time). A letter prior to the survey packet would have perhaps increased the amount of participation, but limited funds required that the packet be sent out with no prior notice with only a follow-up notice by mail. The limited amount of funding was also responsible for the lack of monetary incentive for participation, although a coupon for discount admission to several area activities was included in each packet as an incentive. There was no way of knowing whether or not the participants took advantage of the incentive due to the cross-sectional nature of this study. To discuss one final limitation of this study, one must consider that the participants who completed the survey were motivated to do so for a couple of reasons. Each of these reasons may have served to bias the sample in some way. First of all, there was the anger expressed in the media by a number of spouses as the redeployment dates (return to post) were changed and delayed throughout the summer of 2003. This may have provided an added amount of stress for the participants and an incentive for them to anonymously complain about their situation. The number of spouses who completed the survey without fully understanding the questions asked may have been a factor as well. A large number of participants had less than a college education, which usually predisposes prospective participants to be less inclined to realize the importance of the research process (Rea & Parker, 1997). A sizable portion (approximately 30%) of the final sample were younger, married to lower ranked soldiers, and had only a high school

78

education or less. This percentage may approximate this demographic category comprising the spouse population at Ft. Stewart. Discussion of the Hypothesis and Research Questions Comparison and Post-hoc Procedures

This research provided an analysis of data derived from a sample of spouses of deployed and non-deployed service members. Based on previous research (Amen et al, 1988; Blount et al, 1992), deployed spouses were divided into two groups based upon whether the length of deployment for their service member was less than six months or longer than six months. To test the null hypothesis in this study, comparisons were made among the three groups for the variables parental stress, family stress, family coping, personal coping, wellbeing, sense of coherence, and quality of life. Significant differences were observed between the spouses of non-deployed service members and the two groups of spouses of deployed service members with non-deployed spouses experiencing lower parental and family stress, better personal and family coping, lower physical and psychological strain associated with wellbeing, better sense of coherence, and lower distress associated with better quality of life due to their spouses not being deployed at the time they were surveyed.

Other studies that have used spouses of non-deployed personnel for comparative purposes found higher levels of satisfaction with life within these populations (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). The spouses of personnel deployed for less than six months experienced higher levels of family coping than the group whose service members were deployed for a longer period of time. Spouses of service members deployed longer than six months had significantly lower scores on the family stress and quality of life measures meaning that their family stress levels were lower and that their quality of life was better than the group of spouses with service embers deployed for less than six months. This result was consistent with previous findings that indicated that as length of deployment for service members increased, their waiting spouses tended to become more adept at dealing with the daily stressors associated with long-term separations up to a certain point (Segal & Harris, 1993).

There were significant differences between the group of spouses of service members deployed longer than six months and the other deployed group on the psychological strains subscale of the wellbeing measure and sense of coherence subscales assessing manageability and comprehensibility. Significant differences between the two deployed groups suggested that disparities between the two deployed groups were important in terms of levels of appraisal within the model based on length of deployment. Better emotional wellbeing, along with a greater sense of manageability and comprehensibility, seemed to indicate that spouses of longer deployed personnel assessed their situations as more tolerable as the length of deployment increased beyond six months due to their adjustment to their respective situations. These findings seem to verify previous research acknowledging the importance of these appraisal factors and the impact these factors have on resiliency in families (McCubbin et al 1998). Spouses of non-deployed service members reported lower levels of parental stress and family stress, higher levels of personal and family coping, higher levels of wellbeing and sense of coherence, and lower overall distress. The spouses of non-deployed personnel experienced a better quality of life than their counterparts whose spouses were

79

deployed, with both groups of spouses of deployed personnel displaying group means above the clinical cut-off score of 30 on the Generalized Contentment Scale used to assess quality of life. Consistent with previous findings citing major life changes like long term separations as reducing quality of life (Christopher, 1999), both groups of spouses with deployed service members experienced significant amounts of distress associated with lower quality of life when compared with spouses of non-deployed personnel. The spouses of service members deployed longer than six months had less distress than their counterparts of the group deployed for less than six months. The cut-off score on this scale is thought to represent the presence of clinical depression and be indicative of a need for professional intervention (Nugent, 1994). The group of spouses of service members deployed for less than six months apparently had yet to adjust to their situations and experienced a great deal of distress as a result of the deployment.

These observations were consistent with previous findings illustrating adjustment to life demands over the course of longer military deployments (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992). Therefore, these findings were not surprising. Both groups of spouses of deployed personnel experienced similar levels of parental stress, family coping, and personal coping, yet they apparently perceived their family stress along with their ability to manage their respective situations differently. Segal and Harris (1993) suggested that over the course of deployments, spouses master skills and life tasks necessary for daily living, such as assuming both parental roles, meeting financial obligations, and household maintenance. Lower levels of emotional strain associated with wellbeing, plus a greater sense of manageability and comprehensibility, significantly reduced the impact of stressors and enhanced coping with this sub-sample during this deployment. As the length of deployment increased the spouses whose service members had been deployed the longest seemed able to manage their situations because of their perception of their stress and coping abilities, which improved their quality of life regardless of the amount of parental and family stress they experienced. The comparisons in this study go further than previous studies (Parker et al 1999; Schumm et al 1998), in that they explain specific wellbeing and sense of coherence factors that contribute to quality of life for spouses regardless of length of deployment and the amount of stress that spouses experienced whether or not their service members were deployed.

Research Questions The research questions were assessed using predictive analyses based upon regression procedures where regression coefficients were calculated for each path within each group�s model by the LISREL statistical package. These coefficients were calculated from covariance matrices produced for each group. The procedure measured per unit change in a variable of interest given per unit change in a variable thought to be predictive in the model and provided a path coefficient (β) for each equation in the model, which included a significance level. The analyses also yielded an explained variance (R2) for each of the models. Goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the data derived from analysis satisfactorily fit the model. The direct, indirect, and total effects of predictor variables on quality of life were also calculated for each group. The theoretical model proposed that there would be some direct effect for all of the variables in the model on quality of life, and certain indirect effects for exogenous variables would be observed. Briefly, the research questions were: can the observations for parental and

80

family stressors, family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence predict variability in the observed quality of life scores for each of the three groups being assessed? Predictive Analysis for Spouses of Non-deployed Service Members For the spouses of non-deployed service members, significant direct relationships were observed for parental stress, family stress, family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence on quality of life. Both stressor variables in the model significantly influenced the quality of life scores for this group. Wellbeing provided the greatest total influence on quality of life due to the lower emotional strains associated with having a service member in the household during a deployment. The sense of wellbeing created by a service member remaining in the home seemed to counter the total effects of parental stressors for this group. The stability provided by a two parent household in military settings during deployment has been discussed previously by McCubbin et al (1983), Segal (1986), and Segal and Harris (1993). Having a spouse in the household during a deployment enhanced family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence, and reduced the overall influence of parental stress within the model.

Family coping contributed significantly to wellbeing, sense of coherence, and quality of life. The better this group perceived their families to be coping the greater this factor apparently reduced the amount of distress that otherwise would have created lower physical and emotional wellbeing, sense of coherence and quality of life. It is clear from previous research that coping factors are a key component to an overall sense of wellbeing and ultimately quality of life (Hattie, Myers, & Sweeney, 2004). Of the appraisal or perception variables in the model, wellbeing exerted the greatest amount of influence on quality of life. The lower physical and emotional distress and better family coping helped buffer the influence of parental and family stressors, since this group was able to maintain more normal life patterns while the other two groups experienced the stressors associated with deployment.

This group was least distressed by the factors within this model. The variables in the model accounted for 70.1% of the explained variance in quality of life scores. While this group of spouses did experience stressors associated with the rigors of military life, such as relocation and training (Segal & Harris 1993; Orthner, 1980), they did not experience the stress associated with a family member being deployed and in harm�s way. In other words, the stress model based on deployment may have accounted for less variability within the model for the non-deployed group since they were apparently experiencing less stress due to deployment at the time than the other two groups.

Predictive Analysis for Spouses of Service Members Deployed < 6 Months It is interesting that for the spouses of service members deployed less than six months, parental stress was not related to quality of life. This was perhaps due to the utilization of support services found within both the military and civilian communities during the early phases of the deployment, as discussed previously by Segal and Harris (1993). However, parental stress was inversely related to sense of coherence possibly indicating that doing things with and for their children gave these spouses a sense of purpose and reason to remain strong. This may be related to a sense of duty that develops among spouses of service members. The development of a sense of duty among waiting spouses has been previously related to family functioning during deployments by

81

McCubbin and Dahl (1976), Segal (1986), and Blount et al (1992). Family coping, family stress, and wellbeing exerted the greatest total influence on quality of life. Reliance on social support networks and using family support were external factors thought to be evident of family coping. For this group of spouses, coping seemed to be heavily dependent on reframing, along with the acquisition of family and social support, which have been indicated as important components of family adaptation to military strains (Orthner, Brody, Hill, Pais, Orthner, & Covi, 1985).

Quality of life for the group of spouses whose service members were deployed for less than six months was also impacted by family stress due primarily to the separation of the adult spouses, the need to manage the household alone, and maintain stability for the other family members during the deployment. These factors are merely a part of the larger array of stressors and strains implicated as causing problems for military family members. (Kaslow, 1993). It must be considered that the impact of a hostile deployment influenced the assessment of all the variables within the model due to safety concerns for the deployed service member. Previous data have reflected the difficulties waiting spouses and their families experience during the deployment of a service member to hazardous duty and the impact has been generally viewed as negative (Milgram & Bar, 1993; Rosen et al 1994). Again the tendency to use external support networks may have been a factor predicting quality of life for this group. During the early phases of deployment, spousal participation in support groups is generally high and spouses tend to rely upon existing support networks or even return home to help cope with stressful situations (Albano, 1994). The variables in this model accounted for 73.9% of the explained variance in quality of life scores for this group of spouses.

Predictive Analysis for Spouses of Service Members Deployed > 6 Months For the spouses of service members deployed longer than six months, levels of parental stress, family stress, family coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence were found to be significantly related to quality of life. Parental stress and family stressors were inversely related to quality of life due to the difficulty associated with maintaining daily routines, assuming both parental roles, and receiving limited rewards for their experiences during the long term deployment of the service member, which is consistent with previous findings suggesting that stress factors have a significant impact on spouses of longer deployed personnel (Kelly, Hock, Bonney, Jarvis, Smith, & Gaffney, 2001). In term of specific family stressors, this group of spouses tended to experience strains from within their families rather than from those strains originating from outside sources. This was perhaps due to attempts to internalize the stressors they experienced. This tendency was consistent with previous findings indicating that managing family problems became more difficult for the waiting military spouses and they felt less reliant on others when a parent was absent from the household (Hunter & Nice, 1978; Rosen et al 1993b).

Family coping provided significant total influence on quality of life for this group of spouses of deployed service members. They were more likely to cope by attempting to reframe their situations or by seeking spiritual support, while the acquisition of social support was less of a factor. This combination of coping factors seemed to indicate that as a group they relied on inner resources rather than external support as the length of deployment increased. Historically, combat related deployments have been shown to be significantly more distressing for military families than peacekeeping missions (Ruger,

82

Wilson, & Waldrop, 2002). The tendency to employ reframing and spiritual resources may be an indication that this group of spouses dealt with the concern over the danger their loved ones faced during this deployment to Iraq by relying on a combination of prayer, positive thinking, and the support of a few well-chosen members of their friendship network. Previous studies have suggested that such coping factors were important in the relationship between stress reactions and quality of life for military families (Milgram & Bar, 1993).

Wellbeing and sense of coherence were also significantly related to quality of life for the group of spouses with service members deployed for longer than six months. McCubbin et al (2001) indicated the importance of this set of factors to the ability of families to adjust to and adapt to stressful situations. Although this group experienced tremendous amounts of stress, they seemed able to employ strategies that helped them cope with stress and appraise their situations as manageable. This was consistent with previous findings suggesting that there was a definite sense of personal attainment associated with managing household, family, and financial issues as deployments lengthen (Desivilya & Gal, 1996). The variables in this model accounted for 87.5% of the explained variance in quality of life scores for this group.

Related Findings There were several related findings of interest to this research. Analyses were performed on the three groups in terms of stressors experienced specific to the Iraqi Freedom deployment and other recent deployments, along with a breakdown of responses to the variables on a several of the more pertinent subscales. There were a number of reliable subscales that appeared to provide further information when rank ordered related to the stress, coping, wellbeing, and sense of coherence for the groups of spouses with deployed service members in this study. Summary tables of these results were previously presented in Tables 8 and 9 in Chapter 4. Comparison and Post-Hoc Procedures for Deployment Specific Stressors Consistent with previous data, the spouses of non-deployed personnel reported that they were less distressed by the deployment to Iraq than either of the two deployed groups due to not having a family member in harm�s way (Desylvia & Gal, 1996; Figley, 1993). There was no significant difference between the two groups of spouses of deployed personnel. In both cases they agreed that the deployment was stressful, as was previously noted by Rosen et al (1993b). These two groups of spouses also reported that they perceived their children to be more distressed by the deployment to Iraq than the spouses of non-deployed personnel. Regarding member security and safety during hostile deployments, it has been shown that length of deployment is less of a factor than the actual deployment (Rosen et al 1994). Based on previous findings, two factors likely contributed to this perception. The deployed groups very likely experienced the stress of separation and the concern over the safety of the deployed spouses. As for their perception of stress in their children, data from previous deployments have shown that spouses of deployed personnel also had to be concerned with what their children were experiencing during a hostile deployment adding to their own distress and perception of distress in their children (Rosen et al 1993a).

83

All three groups of spouses perceived their service members to be more satisfied with military life than they reported. Spouses of non-deployed service members were more satisfied and perceived their service members spouses to be more satisfied with military life than either of the two groups of spouses whose service members were deployed to Iraq. The spouses of service members deployed less than six months reported lower satisfaction levels for themselves and lower satisfaction levels for their spouses. Based on previous research (Schumm et al 1998), this question was an attempt to access information about the disparity in viewpoint between non-military and military family members. Deployments may precipitate dissatisfaction that is mediated by length of separation.

The spouses of service members deployed less than six months reported higher levels of stress due to finances and household issues than the spouses of non-deployed personnel and the spouses of personnel deployed longer than six months. During the first few months of the deployment the spouse who is left behind has to assume roles previously performed by the departing member of the household, such as paying bills, household maintenance, and doing the job of two parents (Segal & Harris, 1993). Longer deployments require a certain level of situational mastery not commonly found with shorter deployments, thus the group of spouses with service members deployed for longer than six months experienced less stress due to these factors than the group with service members deployed for less than six months.

As a group, the spouses of longer deployed personnel had financially adjusted to absence of a member from their household. The spouses of service members deployed less than six months were more likely to report the experience of stress as a result of these three factors because they had yet to make the necessary transition to performing the daily tasks concerning household and financial issues (McCubbin et al 1983). Length of deployment apparently did not serve as a factor in terms of how stressful parents who were spouses of deployed service members perceived their children�s behavior and the amount of discipline required to maintain their behavior. Rosen et al (1993a) and Segal (1986) found that having to function in both parental roles while being a single parent for a designated period of time was enough to create similar amounts of stress in both groups of spouses with deployed service members due to child discipline.

Discussion of Open-Ended Responses The open-ended responses in this survey consisted of several items asking participants to discuss what they told their children about deployments between peacetime and hostile action, how the length of deployment influenced their children and themselves, and anything else that they may wish to discuss. The major themes were presented, along with selected quotes illustrating those themes, in Chapter 4. The major themes were: lack of communication and accurate information through various support services on-post, displeasure with the changes in redeployment dates, amount of information given based upon the ages of their children, the belief that there was some greater purpose for what was occurring in their lives, and the better overall adjustment to the separation of deployment among those spouses who professed a belief that events would work-out for the best or a faith in God. These thematic issues seemed to verify, in large part, the information provided by the quantitative data, which suggested that their perception of their family member�s coping, the ability to reframe their problems, an idea

84

that things were comprehensible, and some sense of meaningfulness in their lives, all were factors that contributed to their successful coping and overall quality of life.

Theoretical Implications and Suggested Future Research

The data that resulted from this study add to the literature and the general body of knowledge in family stress theory by offering an application of this framework to the experience of military spouses during times of deployment. There were also implications for research and practice derived from these data. The following discussion has been provided for the purpose of sharing ideas for furthering the knowledge base for those who study and provide services to military families.

Implications for Theory There were several implications for family theory that resulted from this study. This study provided an example of the utility of Hill�s original ABC-X model of family stress. The utility of this model provided an easy fit for the path modeling used in the predictive analysis for this study. During the past twenty-five years as the original ABC-X model has undergone its morphogenesis into the family stress and resiliency model, an argument could be made for the over-complexity of the model with its four tiered levels of analysis and multiple family types along a continuum of balance (McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 2001). Such a large and complex model creates the need for much larger sample sizes in order to meet the requirements for minimal number of cases per path for causal modeling. This study provided a case for the continued use of this original model with its four factors of stress, coping, appraisal of stress and coping, and crisis.

Acquiring information from military spouses about their levels of stress and coping based on their interactions with others also provided new information about this group of spouses and these families. The impact of stressors and coping abilities on those around an individual influences the perception of stress and coping levels within that individual. These spouses seemed to do better in terms of their own coping if they perceived their family members to be coping well. Measuring these variables by asking the participants to assess both their personal and family situations helped improve understanding of the interactive processes among the perception of stress, coping, wellbeing, sense of coherence, and quality of life for the individuals this study.

Another interesting factor concerning family stress and resiliency theory is the impact associated with length of time that stressors are experienced by individuals and families. There are certainly upper limits to which spouses and family members can be apart and still maintain some level of connectedness, as discussed by Kelly et al (2001). At this time it is difficult to say whether this limit is a year, a year-and-a-half, or longer. There were spouses in this sample who were married soldiers who had been deployed for up to eleven months. This research established that spouses could, if required to do so, cope with lengthy deployments. The question of how much longer the group of spouses with service members deployed for longer than six months could have maintained their quality of life remains unanswered at this time. Further research of this nature with this population would be beneficial.

85

Implications for Research There were several implications for research derived from this study. This study

should provide a better understanding of the impact of stressors at the familial level as perceived by the individual. The interplay between these levels of analysis constitutes an interactive process that has been difficult to conceptualize and examine, yet it should provide a better understanding of family stress theory. By developing a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to the quality of life in Army spouses and their families, it was possible to make inferences about spouses within other branches of the military. Any study that compared the spouses of members of one branch of the armed forces with spouses of members of other branches would further our knowledge of stress, coping, and quality of life between these groups. Those spouses of service members who were located on hostile soil would almost be certainly expected to experience greater concern for their deployed service member than those spouses whose service members were on a naval vessel several hundred miles away from the military action. Recent studies with naval families during deployments suggest different experiences with regard to open-ended versus closed-ended deployments (Kelley, Hock, Bonney, Jarvis, Smith, & Gaffeney, 2001). There has been the common perception among spouses within all branches of service that the quality of life experienced by spouses of airmen and sailors is better than levels observed for their counterparts who are married to members of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps (Westhius, 1999). A comparison among the branches of military service using the variables in this model given their different duties within the various branches of service would provide greater understanding of the influence of deployments.

Another possible area for future research would be to develop studies that provided a better understanding of the influence of the impact of the deployment and reunions on the service members themselves. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen would be expected to differ with regard to their perception of stress and coping in terms of their reported quality of life. This study demonstrated that frequent deployments tend to have a detrimental influence on the spouses affected by these deployments, since a number of these participants were likely the spouses of soldiers who had returned from peacekeeping in the Balkans during the summer of 2002. A recent study of health related behaviors among members in all branches of the armed forces released late last year by the Department of Defense suggested that alcohol and tobacco use, mental health related problems, and stress at work and at home, all impacted the force readiness in all branches of the military (Bray, Hourani, Rae, Dever, Brown, Vincus, Pemberton, Marsden, Faulkner, Vandermas-Peeler, 2003). There is little question that the post-9/11 increase in the frequency and length of length deployments has impacted the service members in these families. Studying the military member of the couple using this model may help complete the picture.

Male military spouses would create yet another avenue for inquiry in terms of stress, coping, and quality of life. This group constitutes a small, but growing, minority of military spouses. Do they differ in the way they perceive stressful situations and the way they with cope these situations? Several of these male military spouses came for counseling at the foundation funding this study during this deployment and all seemed to experience a great deal of stress, yet seemed to utilize different emotional mechanisms to cope with their stress (e.g., recreation, leisure, and work). A study designed to be

86

qualitative in methodology may produce very interesting results in terms of the information yielded about military husbands.

Another possible path for future research may lie in the study of secondary stress and trauma as described by Figley (1998). It is understood that exposure to combat causes numerous after-effects for soldiers, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. It has been reported that up to 17% of all soldiers returning from service on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq may suffer some form of anxiety and depression as a result of close quarters combat (Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurk, Cotting, & Koffman, 2004). What researchers and clinicians may be observing in the near future is an ongoing secondary stress process that culminates in �burnout� among spouses and family members of soldiers over an extended period of time. This could contribute to the level of family stress, create more problems coping, and facilitate the break-up of families at a higher rate than generally observed (Ruger, Wilson, & Waldrop, 2002). Specifically, at what point do coping factors and sense of coherence fail to buffer the spouse from all the stressors and strains associated with the constant cycle of deployment, reunion, and relocation? A recent study for the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted by the Harvard University School of Government (2004) suggested that the rate of departures from the military may have more to do with the dissatisfaction expressed by the soldier�s spouse. The increased length and frequency of deployment since September 2001 may have greater impact on the service member�s decision not to remain in the military than any other factor. This factor has been presented previously in the literature by others studying career advancement in military officers based on their wives� satisfaction with military life (Gill & Haurin, 1998). Secondary stress and burn-out among the families of military personnel at all ranks may comprise a set of variables influencing this decision-making process.

Media reports have suggested that the recent call-up of National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units has impacted families, employers, and local communities. Previous articles have highlighted the disruptive nature of the activation and deployment of these reservists on their families and communities (Figley, 1997). Although these troops have generally been assigned to disaster assistance stateside or peacekeeping duties, ongoing hostilities in the Middle East have required that they be deployed to provide support for regular combat troops within a war zone. Contrary to the findings in a recent study highlighting the disparity between active duty and reserve service members, the higher satisfaction previously associated with service in the Army Reserves or National Guard may be eroding as these units enter active service in hostile environments that require lengthy separations from their families, jobs, and communities (Sanchez, Bray, Vincus, & Bann, 2004). Studying the demands of such dangerous deployments on the reservists themselves, many of whom are women and mothers, along with the unexpected and lengthy separation from their family and communities, would provide important new information on the difficulties associated with military service in any capacity as the interface between armed forces and society changes.

Implications for Practice There were several apparent implications for helping professionals suggested from the analysis of data in this study. The clinician engaged in counseling these families should be aware of the cyclical nature of their stressors. The study represents only one

87

aspect of the entire deployment and reunion cycle. Not only are the spouses influenced by the constant separations and reunion associated with military, but their children also must learn to cope and eventually adapt to a military lifestyle that requires them to adjust to constant deployments, reunions, and relocations every three to five years. These factors may cause other difficulties, including academic and social problems for children. Among other things, studying the social, behavioral, and emotional influence of deployments to hostile regions of the world on children in these families and how the members comprehend their service member�s situation would provide a means of better understanding this difficult population.

The model used in this study provides counselors and other helping professionals with a breakdown of the factors contributing to a lower quality of life for this population. There are currently few efforts made at diagnosing stress factors at the familial level, unless they relate to the individual in some way in terms of individuals symptoms such as depression or anxiety. There are few clinical rating scales for assessing family level stressors and coping (Olsen, 1993). Many of these families experienced emotional �ups and downs� during this war due to worrying about the safety of loved ones, balancing their family obligations, and facing the disappointment associated with the changes in return dates. Further studies using multiple measurements should be conducted over the course of deployments and reunions to assess the impact of deployments on the emotional state of the individuals in these families and to assist in the refinement of current clinical models explaining emotional problems associated with lengthy separations. Adaptation to stressful situations has been shown to be crucial in terms of helping military families cope with the stressors and strains of military life (Bowen, Mancini, Martin, Ware, & Nelson, 2003). Clinicians possessing a more thorough understanding of the stressors, coping, and appraisal mechanisms discussed within this study may be able to better help these families enhance these necessary skills to improve their quality of life during deployments.

Summary and Conclusions

In conclusion, the amount of stress experienced by spouses of service members seemed to be assuaged by their coping abilities and appraisal or perception of their situation. These factors resulted in a personal assessment of quality of life in which the individual experienced either personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their circumstances. Key to this relationship was the set of variables within the model assessing wellbeing and sense of coherence. Wellbeing measures provided an appraisal of emotional and physical factors the participants may have been experiencing, along with a sense of coherence that included the factors of manageability, meaningfulness, and comprehensibility in life. These factors were the intersecting points within the model between stress and coping levels, and perceived quality of life for the participants in this study. The two groups of spouses whose service members were deployed experienced the stress associated with deployment in different ways. The group with shorter deployed personnel experiencing better family coping and very little influence from parental stress over the short-term due in part to their reliance on social and family supports; whereas, the spouses of longer deployed personnel experienced more influence from parental and family stress, but employed reframing as a coping mechanism and appraised their situations as manageable, to produce better overall quality of life.

88

This study focused attention on a group of spouses who are asked to become single parents and heads of households for extended periods of time during their spouse�s military deployment. Within this process, these spouses adjust and eventually adapt to the situations in which they find themselves or they persuade their spouses to leave the military, as indicated be previous findings (Gill & Haurin, 1998; Henry & Robichaux, 1999). The military planners have realized that there must be more support for these heads of households before, during, and after deployments (Amen, Jellen, Merve, & Lee, 1988). Yet, for all of the lip service paid to quality of life issues within military families, there is still apparently limited understanding of the key components that most influence quality of life. There has been recent talk within the military of relocating families less and leaving them in place longer to help develop stronger community ties as a support system for these family members. These changes would be helpful, but may bring about another set of unforeseen consequences. They would certainly not alleviate all of the stressors within these families.

Several illuminating findings have been reported as a result of this research. The variables chosen for examination in this study were important in predicting the observed quality of life regardless of deployment status. There were also few significant differences in the nature and amount of stressors experienced by those spouses who participated in the study, yet the coping and appraisal responses differed significantly depending on length of deployment. Finally, sense of coherence and personal wellbeing seemed to have exerted the greatest amount of influence on the quality of life for the spouses in this study, regardless of length of deployment.

As these results were being summarized, the U.S. Army was involved in the ongoing military occupation of Iraq almost one year after the announced cessation of hostilities by the president. There was also a sizable number of troops still deployed to Afghanistan and even more activations of military reserve units. Of the approximately 485,000 members of the U.S. Army, over 150,000 were still serving in Iraq at the time these results were reported. Nearly all of the U.S. Army�s personnel will be expected to participate in a deployment to Iraq at some point during the next three years. While this report was being written, the troops of the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division were returning to Ft. Stewart from desert warfare training at Ft. Irwin, California in preparation for their return to Iraq in the winter of 2005. The U.S. military planners are preparing for longer deployments and more sizable troop detachments in more hostile settings during the next half-decade. These changes will no doubt further increase the extreme emotional burden on military families in the next few years. There have been calls for more intensive recruiting efforts of service members and more activation of reserve units as attrition due to retirement and end of commitment take their respective tolls on the available troop strength.

Military planners should take note of the information from this and other research on stress and coping being conducted with military families at this time. Recently, a Washington Post reporter quoted a young U.S. Army spouse as saying, �you get to the point that you can�t take any more � we�re to that point right now and when he returns he�s up for re-enlistment, but he won�t re-enlist � we won�t go through this again.� Military spouses harbor no delusions about living an easy life. Many of them share a sense of duty with other service member spouses and willingly make the commitment and sacrifices on a daily basis, as was evident from their responses to the open-ended

89

questions in this survey. It may be this sense of duty that ultimately makes their lives as military spouses more manageable and fosters resiliency during these times regardless of their circumstances.

90

APPENDIX A

SURVEY

91

Survey Instrument

Parenting and Family Stress In Army Families

Demographic Questions

1. Are you a member of the U.S. Army? Yes No Spouse (partner) of service member? Yes No 2. What is your age? ____ What is your spouse or significant other�s age? ____

3. What is your gender? Male Female

4. What is your racial/ethnic group? € African Am. € Asian American € Caucasian € Hispanic

€ Multi-ethnic € Native American € Pacific Islander € Other

5. Your current rank? E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 (enlisted)

(if applicable) E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 (non-commissioned)

W-1 CW-2 CW-3 CW-4 (warrant officer)

O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 Other (officer)

6. Spouse, or partner�s, current rank? E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 (enlisted)

E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 (non-commissioned)

W-1 CW-2 CW-3 CW-4 (warrant officer)

O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 Other (officer) 7. How long have you been in the military? ____ years ____ months. Spouse/partner? ____ years ____months 8. The number of times you (or service member) have been deployed since being placed on active duty? ____

9. Has the service member in the family been deployed during the past year? Yes No

If �yes�, are they currently deployed?** Yes No 10. How many months during the past year has your service member been deployed? ____ months 11. Indicate the number of times that you and your family have relocated since being placed on active duty? ____

12. What is your highest level of education? Some high school GED High school

Some college Bachelors Masters

Professional (MD, JD, etc.)

13. What is your current annual income? Below $20,000 $20,001 to $30,000

$30,001 to $40,000 $40,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $70,000

above $70,001

14. What is your family�s current income? Below $20,000 $20,001 to $30,000

$30,001 to $40,000 $40,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $70,000

$70,001 to $80,000 $80,001 to $90,000

$90,001 to $100,000 above $100,001

15. What is your present relationship status? Married Single Divorced

Live-in Other

16. If married or in a committed relationship, how many years have you been with your current partner? ____ years ____ months

17. Have you been married previously? Yes No If so, how many times? ____ Total length of time? ____

92

18. Are you a parent? Yes No Are you a step-parent? Yes No

19. How many biological children do you have? 0 1 2 3 4 more than 4 20. What is the total number of children living in your household?

____ Step-children ____ Biological ____ Adopted ____ Other children 21. How old are the children in the household (indicate number of children within each age range)? ___ 0 to 2 ___ 3 to 5 ___ 6 to 8 ___ 9 to 11 ___ 12 to 14 ___ 15 to 17 ___ 18 to 20 ___ 21 & over

22. If you are the spouse or partner of a service member, do you work outside the home? Yes No If so, indicate the total number of hours worked per week? ____

23. How much of the total household income does the spouse or significant other of the service member contribute?

less than 25% 26 to 50% 51 to 75% greater than 75%

24. How stressful was the recent Persian Gulf deployment for you? How stressful was it for your children?

not stressful at all not stressful at all

a little stressful a little stressful

moderately stressful moderately stressful

a good bit stressful a good bit stressful

very stressful very stressful 25. How stressful are the following elements of your life during deployments? Finances: Household management: Children�s discipline:

not stressful at all not stressful at all not stressful at all

a little stressful a little stressful a little stressful

moderately stressful moderately stressful moderately stressful

a good bit stressful a good bit stressful a good bit stressful

very stressful very stressful very stressful

26. How satisfied are you with military life? How satisfied is your spouse or partner with military life?

very unsatisfied very unsatisfied

unsatisfied unsatisfied

neither satisfied nor unsatisfied neither satisfied nor unsatisfied

satisfied satisfied

very satisfied very satisfied

Please tell us about your parenting experience by marking each item as it applies to you.

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=undecided 4=agree 5=strongly agree Choose the response that best fits your parenting

experience.

Strongly

disagree

Disagree

Un-

decided

Agree

Strongly

Agree

27. I am happy in my role as a parent. 1 2 3 4 5

28. There is little or nothing I wouldn�t do for my child(ren) if it was necessary.

1 2 3 4 5

29. Caring for my child(ren) sometimes takes more time and energy than I have to give.

1 2 3 4 5

30. I sometimes worry whether I am doing enough for my child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5

31. I feel close to my child(ren). 1 2 3 4 5

32. I enjoy spending time with my child(ren). 1 2 3 4 5

93

Choose the response that best fits your parenting experience. (cont.)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Un-decided

Agree

Strongly Agree

33. My child(ren) is/are an important source of affection for me.

1 2 3 4 5

34. Having a child(ren) gives me a more certain and optimistic view for the future.

1 2 3 4 5

35. The major source of stress in my life is my child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5

36. Having a child(ren) leaves little time and flexibility in my life.

1 2 3 4 5

37. Having a child(ren) has been a financial burden. 1 2 3 4 5

38. It is difficult to balance different responsibilities because of my child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5

39. The behavior of my child(ren) is often embarrassing or stressful to me.

1 2 3 4 5

40. If I had it to do over again, I might decide not to have child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5

41. I feel overwhelmed by the responsibility of being a parent.

1 2 3 4 5

42. Having a child has meant having too few choices and too little control over my life.

1 2 3 4 5

43. I am satisfied as a parent.

1 2 3 4 5

44. I find my child(ren) enjoyable.

1 2 3 4 5

For each of the following statements, indicate the level of stress experienced by your family in the last year.

None

Low

Mod.

High

45. Increase of husband/father�s time away from family.

1

2

3

4

46. Increase of wife/mother�s time away from family.

1

2

3

4

47. A member appeared to have emotional problems.

1

2

3

4

48. A member appeared to depend on alcohol or drugs.

1

2

3

4

49. Increase in conflict between husband and wife.

1

2

3

4

50. Increase in arguments between parent(s) and children.

1

2

3

3

51. Increase in conflict among children in the family.

1

2

3

4

52. Increased difficulty in managing teenage child(ren).

1

2

3

4

53. Increased difficulty in managing school-age child(ren) (6 - 12 years old).

1

2

3

4

94

For each of the following statements, indicate the level of stress experienced by your family in the last year (cont).

None

Low

Mod.

High

54. Increased difficulty in managing preschool child(ren) (2 ½ - 6 years old).

1

2

3

4

55. Increased difficulty in managing toddler(s) (1 � 2 ½ years old).

1

2

3

4

56. Increased difficulty in managing infant(s) (0 � 1 year old).

1

2

3

4

57. Increase in the amount of outside activities in which the child(ren) are

involved.

1

2

3

4

58. Increased disagreement about a member�s friends or activities.

1

2

3

4

59. Increase in number of problems or issues which don�t get resolved.

1

2

3

4

60. Increase in number of tasks or chores which don�t get done.

1

2

3

4

61. Increased conflict with in-laws or relatives.

1

2

3

4

62. Spouse/parent was separated or divorced.

1

2

3

4

63. Spouse/parent had an affair.

1

2

3

4

64. Increase difficulty resolving issues with a �former� or separated spouse.

1

2

3

4

65. Increased difficulty with sexual relationship between husband and wife.

1

2

3

4

66. A family member had an unwanted or difficult pregnancy.

1

2

3

4

67. An unmarried member became pregnant.

1

2

3

4

68. A member had an abortion.

1

2

3

4

69. A member gave birth to or adopted a child.

1

2

3

4

70. Took out a loan or refinanced a loan to cover increased expenses.

1

2

3

4

71. Went on welfare.

1

2

3

4

72. Changes in conditions (economic, political, etc.) which hurt the family

business.

1

2

3

4

73. Changes in stock markets or land values which hurt family

investments/income.

1

2

3

4

74. A member started a new business.

1

2

3

4

95

For each of the following statements, indicate the level of stress experienced by your family in the last year (cont).

None

Low

Mod.

High

75. Purchased or built a new home.

1

2

3

4

76. A member purchased a car or other major item.

1

2

3

4

77. Increased financial debts due to overuse of credit cards.

1

2

3

4

78. Increased strain on family money for medical or dental expenses.

1

2

3

4

79. Increased strain family money for food, clothing, energy, or home care.

1

2

3

4

80. Increased strain on family money for child(ren)�s education.

1

2

3

4

81. Delay in receiving child support or alimony payments.

1

2

3

4

82. A member changed to a new job/career.

1

2

3

4

83. A member lost or quit a job.

1

2

3

4

84. A member retired from work.

1

2

3

4

85. A member started or returned to work.

1

2

3

4

86. A member stopped working for an extended period (laid-off, leave of

absence).

1

2

3

4

87. Decrease in satisfaction with job or career.

1

2

3

4

88. A member had increased difficulty with people at work.

1

2

3

4

89. A member was promoted at work or given more responsibilities.

1

2

3

4

90. Family moved to a new home or apartment.

1

2

3

4

91. A child or adolescent member changed to a new school.

1

2

3

4

92. Parent or spouse became serious ill or injured.

1

2

3

4

93. Child became seriously ill or injured.

1

2

3

4

94. Close relative or friend of the family became seriously ill.

1

2

3

4

95. A member became physically disabled or chronically ill.

1

2

3

4

96. Increased difficulty in managing a chronically ill or disabled member.

1

2

3

4

96

For each of the following statements, indicate the level of stress experienced by your family in the last year (cont).

None

Low

Mod.

High

97. Member or close relative was committed to an institution or nursing home.

1

2

3

4

98. Increased responsibility to provide direct care or financial help to

husband�s and/or wife�s parents.

1

2

3

4

99. Experienced difficulty in arranging for satisfactory childcare.

1

2

3

4

100. A parent/spouse died.

1

2

3

4

101. A child member died.

1

2

3

4

102. Death of a husband�s or wife�s parents or close relative.

1

2

3

4

103. Close friend of the family died.

1

2

3

4

104. Married son or daughter was divorced or separated.

1

2

3

4

105. A member �broke-up� a relationship with a close friend.

1

2

3

4

106. A member was married.

1

2

3

4

107. Young adult member left home.

1

2

3

4

108. A young adult member began college (or post high school training).

1

2

3

4

109. A member moved back home or a new person moved into the household.

1

2

3

4

110. A parent or spouse started back to school (or training program) after being

away from school for a long time.

1

2

3

4

111. A member went to jail or juvenile detention.

1

2

3

4

112. A member was picked up or arrested by the police.

1

2

3

4

113. Physical or sexual abuse or violence in the home.

1

2

3

4

114. A member ran away from home.

1

2

3

4

115. A member dropped out of school or was suspended from school.

1

2

3

4

97

How well does each statement below describe your attitudes and behaviors in response to family problems or difficulties? Please mark accordingly as each statement applies to you.

1=Strongly Disagree (SD) 2=Moderately Disagree (MD) 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree (N) 4=Moderately Agree (MA) 5=Strongly Agree (SA)

When facing problems/difficulties in the family, we respond by:

SD

MD

N

MA

SA

116. Sharing our difficulties with relatives.

1 2 3 4 5

117. Seeking encouragement and support from friends.

1 2 3 4 5

118. Knowing we have the power to solve major problems.

1 2 3 4 5

119. Seeking information and advice from persons in other families who have faced the same or similar problems.

1 2 3 4 5

120. Seeking advice from relatives (grandparents, etc.).**

1 2 3 4 5

121. Seeking assistance from community agencies and programs designed to help families in our situation.

1 2 3 4 5

122. Knowing that we have the strength within our own family to solve our problems.

1 2 3 4 5

123. Receiving gifts and favors from neighbors (e. g., food, taking in mail).

1 2 3 4 5

124. Seeking information and advice from the family doctor.

1 2 3 4 5

125. Asking neighbors for favors or assistance.

1 2 3 4 5

126. Facing the problems head-on and trying to get a solution right away.

1 2 3 4 5

127. Watching television.**

1 2 3 4 5

128. Showing that we are strong.

1 2 3 4 5

129. Attending church services.

1 2 3 4 5

130. Accepting stressful events as a fact of life.

1 2 3 4 5

131. Sharing concerns with close friends. 1 2 3 4 5

132. Knowing luck plays a big part of how well we are able to solve family problems.**

1 2 3 4 5

133. Exercising with friends to stay fit and reduce tension.

1 2 3 4 5

134. Accepting that difficulties occur expectedly.

1 2 3 4 5

135. Doing things with relatives (get togethers, dinners, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

136. Seeking professional counseling and help for family difficulties.

1 2 3 4 5

137. Believing we can handle our own problems.

1 2 3 4 5

138. Participating in church activities.

1 2 3 4 5

139. Defining the family problem in more positive way so that we so that we do not become discouraged.

1 2 3 4 5

140. Asking relatives how they feel about the problems we face.

1 2 3 4 5

141. Feeling that matter what we do to prepare, we will have difficulty handling problems.

1 2 3 4 5

98

142. Seeking advice from a minister.

1 2 3 4 5

143. Believing if we wait long enough, the problem will go away.

1 2 3 4 5

144. Sharing problems with neighbors.

1 2 3 4 5

145. Having faith in God.

1 2 3 4 5

Please indicate the things you do to deal with your personal concerns or worries by marking each statement that

applies to you.

1=Doesn�t apply or don�t do it 2=Used very little 3=Used sometimes 4=Used often 5=Used a great deal

Circle the number that applies to you from the choices given: DNA

Very little

Some times

Used often

Great deal

146. Play sports.

1 2 3 4 5

147. Talk to others and give each other support.

1 2 3 4 5

148. Put effort into my work.

1 2 3 4 5

149. Pray for help and guidance so that everything will be all right.

1 2 3 4 5

150. I get sick (headache, stomach ache, etc.)**

1 2 3 4 5

151. Work on my self-image.

1 2 3 4 5

152. Look on the bright side of things and think of all that is good.

1 2 3 4 5

153. Develop a plan of action.**

1 2 3 4 5

154. Try to be funny.

1 2 3 4 5

155. Find a way to let off steam; for example cry, scream, drink, take drugs.

1 2 3 4 5

156. Improve my relationship with others.

1 2 3 4 5

157. Go to meetings that look at the problem.

1 2 3 4 5

158. Daydream about how things will turn out well.

1 2 3 4 5

159. Blame myself.

1 2 3 4 5

160. Don�t let others know how I�m feeling.

1 2 3 4 5

161. Consciously �block out� the problem.

1 2 3 4 5

162. Ask a professional for help.

1 2 3 4 5

99

163. Worry about what will happen to me.

1 2 3 4 5

164. Make time for leisure activities.

1 2 3 4 5

All people feel some amount of stress in their lives, from very much to very little. The following statements are about the stress you might be feeling.

Response Choices 1 = rarely or never true 2 = occasionally true 3 = often true 4 = usually true 5 = true most of the time

Choose the response that best fits you.

Rarely

Occasio-nally

Often

Usually

Mostly

165. Lately, I have been depressed.

1 2 3 4 5

166. Lately, I�ve been feeling anxious.

1 2 3 4 5

167. I�ve been happy lately.

1 2 3 4 5

168. So many thoughts run through my head at night that I have trouble falling asleep.

1 2 3 4 5

169. Lately, I respond badly in situations that normally wouldn�t bother me.

1 2 3 4 5

170. I find myself complaining about little things.

1 2 3 4 5

171. Lately, I�ve been worrying.

1 2 3 4 5

172. I have a good sense of humor.

1 2 3 4 5

173. Things are going about as they should.

1 2 3 4 5

174. I have unplanned weight changes.

1 2 3 4 5

175. My eating habits are not regular.

1 2 3 4 5

176. I find myself drinking a lot lately.

1 2 3 4 5

177. Lately, I�ve been tired.

1 2 3 4 5

178. I have been feeling tense.

1 2 3 4 5

179. I have trouble falling and staying asleep.

1 2 3 4 5

180. I have aches and pains I cannot explain.

1 2 3 4 5

181. I have aches and pains I cannot explain.

1 2 3 4 5

182. I eat the wrong foods.

1 2 3 4 5

183. I feel like �I just don�t care.�

1 2 3 4 5

184. I feel like I can�t �get going.�

1 2 3 4 5

100

The following statements relate to various aspects of our lives. Please read each statement carefully. For each statement, circle the number that fits you best.

Response Choices Rarely

True

Occasionally

Often True

Usually True

Mostly True

185. I have the feeling that I don�t really care about what goes on around me.

1 2 3 4 5

186. In the past I have been surprised by the behavior of people whom I thought I knew well.

1 2 3 4 5

187. People whom I�ve counted on have disappointed me.

1 2 3 4 5

Response Choices Rarely True

Occasionally

Often True

Usually True

Mostly True

188. Until now my life has had very clear goals and purposes.

1 2 3 4 5

189. I have the feeling that I�m being treated unfairly.

1 2 3 4 5

190. I have the feeling that I am in an unfamiliar situation and don�t know what to do.

1 2 3 4 5

191. I have very mixed feelings and ideas.

1 2 3 4 5

192. Doing the things I do everyday is a source of pleasure and satisfaction.

1 2 3 4 5

193. I have feelings inside that I would rather not feel .

1 2 3 4 5

194. Many people � even those with strong character � sometimes feel like losers in certain situations. I�ve felt like a �loser� in certain situations.

1 2 3 4 5

195. When something happens, I have generally found that I overestimate its importance.

1 2 3 4 5

196. I have the feeling that there�s little meaning in the things I do in my daily life.

1 2 3 4 5

197. I have feelings that I�m not sure I can keep under control.

1 2 3 4 5

Please tell us about the degree of contentment you feel about your life and surroundings, as well as the satisfaction you have in your relationship with those intimate people around you.

1 = Rarely or none of the time 2 = A little of the time 3 = Some of the time 4 = A good part of the time 5 = Most or all of the time

Please choose the response that best fits your degree of contentment and satisfaction with life.

Rarely or none

of time

A little of the

time

Some of the

time

Good part of

time

Most or all

time

198. I feel powerless to do anything about my life.

1

2

3

4

5

199. I feel blue.

1

2

3

4

5

101

200. I am restless and can�t keep still.

1 2 3 4 5

201. I have crying spells.

1

2

3

4

5

202. It is easy for me to relax.

1

2

3

4

5

203. I have a hard time getting stated on things that I need to

do.

1

2

3

4

5

204. I do not sleep well at night.

1

2

3

4

5

Please choose the response that best fits your degree of

contentment and satisfaction with life.

Rarely

or none

A little

of the time

Some

of the time

Good

part of time

Most

or all time

205. When the going gets tough, I feel that there�s always

someone I can turn to.

1

2

3

4

5

206. I feel that the future looks bright for me.

1

2

3

4

5

207. I feel downhearted.

1

2

3

4

5

208. I feel that I am needed.

1

2

3

4

5

209. I feel that I am appreciated by others.

1

2

3

4

5

210. I enjoy being active and busy.

1

2

3

4

5

211. I feel that others would be better off without me.

1

2

3

4

5

212. I enjoy being with other people.

1

2

3

4

5

213. I feel it is easy for me to make decisions.

1

2

3

4

5

214. I feel downtrodden.

1

2

3

4

5

215. I am irritable.

1

2

3

4

5

216. I get upset easily.

1

2

3

4

5

217. I feel that I don�t deserve to have a good time.

1

2

3

4

5

218. I have a full life.

1

2

3

4

5

219. I feel that people really care about me.

1

2

3

4

5

220. I have a great deal of fun.

1

2

3

4

5

221. I feel great in the morning.

1

2

3

4

5

102

222. I feel that my situation is hopeless.

1

2

3

4

5

Open ended questions:

223. Is there anything that you would be interested in telling us about your experience with or in the U.S. Army during

times of deployment or military action?

224. How does the length of deployment influence you and your children?

225. What do you tell your children about deployment during hostile action or peacetime?

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided, or return it to the person who gave you the survey.

103

APPENDIX B

IRB Form and Human Subjects Approval

104

105

106

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT

107

The Mary Lou Fraser Foundation For Families, Inc.

203 Mary Lou Drive � Hinesville, Georgia 31313

June 24, 2003 Dear Participant, We would like to take a moment to say that we understand how stressful life can be for those in the U.S. Army and for the families of military personnel deployed to various regions of the world. Many times those who are forgotten are the spouses and loved ones left behind as our troops are on the move. We honor your commitment to your family and our nation during these difficult times. We would like to offer our prayers and support in any way possible. We also need your help.

The Mary Lou Fraser Foundation for Families is a local organization dedicated to promoting emotional and spiritual well-being in individuals and families in our local community. To improve the services we provide to the military families in our area, we are seeking your help through your participation in a study designed by researchers from Florida State University. This research will help us better understand the daily stress that you and your family members may experience in addition to the coping strategies that you use to deal with stress. We are interested in your appraisal of the quality of life you experience during these lengthy separations and how we may design better programs to assist the families of U.S. Army personnel in the near future.

We would like to thank you in advance for taking a few moments out of your day

to assist us with this survey. You have our assurance that your responses will be kept confidential and that you will in no way be identified as a participant in this survey. We wish you well and hope the information that you provide will be beneficial to you and to many others within our local community. With you, we look forward to the safe return of our troops. Sincerely, _______________________________ ______________________________ Dr. Alan N. Baroody, Executive Director Mrs. Helen E. Stanford, President The Fraser Counseling Center The Mary Lou Fraser Foundation

108

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

I freely and voluntarily, without force or coercion, consent to be a participant in the research project entitled �Quality of Life Among Army Spouses: Parenting and Family Stress During Deployment.� This research is being conducted by Dr. Carol A. Darling, who is a Professor of Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University and Mr. R. Blaine Everson who is a doctoral student in that program. I understand that the purpose of this research is to better understand the effects of parenting and family stress on quality of life in Army spouses of deployed soldiers. I understand that by participating in this research that I will be asked personal questions about my daily life and the stress I experience as a result of family separations due to deployments. I understand that I will be asked to complete a pencil and paper questionnaire that will take approximately 30 to 40 minutes of my time. For my participation I may attend a free morning-long wellness seminar sponsored by the Fraser Center for Families or receive other incentives from the YMCA in Hinesville, GA. I understand that my answers to these questions will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law and that my name will not appear on any of the results. No individual responses will be reported in the research. Only group responses will be reported. I understand that there will be minimal risk to me during this project. I may feel some mild distress as I reflect upon my feelings and answer these questions, due to the circumstances that my family and I may be experiencing at this time. If I feel too uncomfortable I may stop my

participation at anytime I wish. I understand that the results from this project may benefit others in my situation in the future as behavioral health professionals, family researchers, and military policy-makers plan for improved family support during deployments. I may also experience benefits in terms of better understanding my own stress, coping, and quality of life. I understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time without prejudice, penalty, or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled. I have been given the right to ask and have had any questions answered concerning this study. Those questions, if any, have been answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that I may contact Mr. Blaine Everson at The Fraser Center for Families at

912-369-7777 or Dr. Carol Darling at The Department of Family and Child Sciences at

Florida State University at 850-644-3217, for answers to about this research or my rights as

a participant. Further information about this project may be obtained from the Florida

State University Institutional Review Board HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE at 2035

E. Paul Dirac Drive, Box 15100 - Sliger Building, Innovation Park - Tallahassee, FL 32310-

2763.

I have read and understand this consent form.

Participant Date

109

APPENDIX D

LETTERS OF PERMISSION

110

111

112

113

114

APPENDIX E

Variable Names and Scale Reliabilities

115

STRESS, COPING, AND QUALITY OF LIFE: ARMY FAMILY STUDY SCALES, SUBSCALES, VARIABLE NAMES, AND RELIABILITIES

PARENTAL STRESS SCALE (PSS) � Items 27-44 PARSTRSS (r=.8559) Four (4) subscales: Parental Rewards: #27,31,32,33,34,44 (r=.8158) Parental Stressors: #29,35,36,37,38,42 (r=.8161) Lack of Control: #40,41,42 (r=.7815) Parental Satisfaction: #39,43,44 (r=.5230) *Reverse coded items: #27,28,31,32,33,34,43,44 **Items should be summed and totaled for a scale score. FAMILY INVENTORY OF LIFE EVENTS (FILE) � Items 45-115 FILEVENT (r=.8320) Nine (9) subscales: Intra-family Strains: #45-61 (r=.8155) Marital Strains: #62-65 (r=.3848) Pregnancy & Childbearing Strains: #66-69 (r=.4622) Finance & Business Strains: #70-81 (r=.4870) Work/Family Transitions & Strains: #82-91 (r=.3468) Illness & Family Care Strains: #92-99 (r=.4624) Losses: #100-105 (r=.1843) Transitions In & Out: #106-110 (r=.4642) Family Legal Violations: #111-115 (r=.8579) Family Stressors Index:69,85,86,89,90,92,95,102,104,109 (r=.2773) Family Strains Index:49,50,51,53,59,60,61,78,87,96 (r=.7642) *No reverse coding. **1�s should be read as 0�s, 2�s as 1�s, 3�s as 2�s, and 4�s as 3�s scoring. FAMILY CRISIS ORIENTED PERSONAL EVALUATION (F-COPES) � Items 116-145 FCOPES (r=.8155) Five (5) subscales: Acquiring Social Support: #116,117,120,123,125,131,135,140,144 (r=.7877) Reframing: #118,122,126,128,130,134,137,139 (r=.8067) Seeking Spiritual Support: #129,138,142,130 (r=.7561) Mobilizing Family: #119,121,124,136 (r=.4807) Passive Appraisal: #127,132,141,143 (r=.5426) *Reverse coded items: #127,132,141,143 **Item #133 is excluded from total F-COPES score due low factor loading. COPING SCALE FOR ADULTS � SHORT FORM (CSA-SF) � Items 146-164 ADUCOPE (r=.6538) Four (4) subscales:

116

Dealing w/ Problem: #146,148,151,153,154,156,164 (r=.8048) Non-Productive Coping: #149,152,157,164 (r=.4494) Optimism: #150,155,158,159,160,161,163 (r=.8512) Sharing: #147,157,160,162 (r=.3320) *No reverse coding. **Items #146,148, 151,153,154,156,164 are summed and x3 Items #149,152,157,164 are summed and x5 Items #150,155,158,159,160,161,163 are summed and x3 Items #147,157,160,162 are summed, then #160 is subtracted and x10 ***Summing the 19 items yields a total score. OCCUPATIONAL STRESS INVENTORY (OSI) � Items 165-184 OSTRESS (r=.9599) Two (2) subscales: Psychological Strains: #165-174 (r=.9424) Physiological Strains: #175-184 (r=.9064) *Reverse coded items: #167,172,173 **Items are summed for a total score for each scale. ORIENTATION TO LIFE SCALE (OLS) � Items 185-197 ORILIFE (r=.9162) Three (3) subscales: Comprehensibility: #186,189,192,195 (r=.8002) Manageability: #187,190,193,197 (r=.8427) Meaningfulness: #185,188,191,194,196 (r=.6857) *Reverse coded items: #192 **Items are summed and totaled for scale score. GENERALIZED CONTENTMENT SCALE (GCS) � Items 198-222 LIFEQUAL (r=.9696) No subscales. *Reverse coded items: #203,205,206,208,209,210,212,213,218,219,220,221 **Items are added and noted items reverse coded, then # of scale items (25) is subtracted to obtain total score.

117

REFERENCES

Adler, C. M. & Hillhouse, J. J. (1996). Stress, health, and immunity: A review of the

literature. In T. W. Miller (Ed.) Theory and assessment of stressful life events (pp. 109-

138). Madison, WI: International Universities Press. Albano, S. (1994). Military recognition of family concerns: Revolutionary War to 1993.

Armed Forces and Society, 20, 283-302. Amen, D. G., Jellen, L., Merve, E. & Lee, R. E. (1988). Minimizing the impact of deployment

separation on military children: Stages, current prevention efforts, and system recommendations. Military Medicine, 153, 441-446.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Belsky, J. & Hsieh, K. H. (1998). Patterns of marital change during the early childhood years:

Parent personality, co-parenting, and division-of-labor correlates. Journal of Family

Psychology, 12, 511-528. Belsky, J. & Rovine, M. J. (1990). Patterns in marital change across the transition to

parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

52, 5-19. Berry, J. O. & Jones, W. H. (1995). The Parental Stress Scale: Initial psychometric evidence.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 463-472. Berry, J. O. & Rao, J. M. (1997). Balancing employment and fatherhood. Journal of Family

Issues, 18, 386-402. Black, W. G. (1993). Military induced family separation: A stress reduction intervention.

Social Work, 38, 273-280. Blount, W., Curry, A., & Lubin, G. I. (1992). Family separation in the military. Military

Medicine, 157, 76-80. Boss, P. (2001). Family stress management: A contextual approach (2

nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage. Bowen, G. L. & Neenan, P. (1989). Organizational attitude toward families and satisfaction

with the military as a way of life: Perceptions of civilian spouses of U.S. Army members. Family Perspective, 23, 3-13.

118

Bowen, G., Mancini, J., Martin, J., Ware, W., Nelson, J. (2003). Promoting the adaptation of military families: An empirical test of a community practice model. Family Relations, 52, 33-52.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. H. R. (2000). Research on the nature and

determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 62, 964-980. Bradt, J. O. (1988). Becoming parents: Families with young children. In B. Carter & M.

McGoldrick (Eds.) The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (2nd

ed.), (pp. 237-253). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bray, R. M., Hourani, L. L., Rae, K. L., Dever, J. A., Brown, J. M., Vincus, A. A.,

Pemberton, M. R., Marsden, M. E., & Faulkner, D. L., Vandermas-Peeler, R. (2003). 2002Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors Among Military

Personnel: Fnial Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Brewer, J. K. (1996). Introductory statistics for researchers (6

th ed.). Edina, MN: Burgess.

Carter, B. & McGoldrick, M. (1988). The changing family life cycle: A framework for family

therapy (2nd

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chapman, A. H. & Chapman-Santana, M. (1997). The handbook of problem oriented

psychotherapy. London: Jason Aronson. Christopher, J. C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of

its theory and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 141-152. Cohler, B. J. (2001). New directions in the study of personal narratives: Discussion of articles

studying narratives of close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships,18, 731-743. Critelli, J. W. & Ee, J. S. (1996). Stress and physical illness: Development of an integrative

model. In T. W. Miller (Ed.) Theory and assessment of stressful life events (pp. 139-159). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.

Daley, J. G. (1999). Understanding the military as an ethnic identity. In J. Daley (Ed.) Social

work practice in the military (pp.291-303). New York: Hawthorne. Darling, C. A. & McCoy-Smith, Y. M. (1993). Understanding hysterectomies: Sexual

satisfaction and quality of life. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 324-335. Davis, E. C. & Friel, L. V. (2001). Adolescent sexuality: Disentangling the effects of family

structure and family context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 669-681. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

119

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self esteem.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663. Dixon, W. A. & Reid, J. K. (2000). Positive life events as a moderator of stress-related

depressive symptoms. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 343-347. Desivilya, H. S. & Gal, R. (1996). Coping with stress in families of servicemen: Searching for

�win-win� solutions to conflict between the family and the military organization. Family

Process, 35, 211-225. Drummet, A. R., Coleman, M., & Cable, S. (2003). Military families under stress:

Implications for family life education. Family Relations, 52, 279-291. Ellis, L. (1998). Research methods for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Emmons, R. A. & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings vs. burdens: An

experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389. Endler, N. S., Corace, K. M., Summerfeldt, L. J., Johnson, J. M., & Rothbart, P. (2003).

Coping with chronic pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 323-346. Figley, C. R. (1993). Coping with stressors on the home front. Journal of Social Issues, 40,

51-71. Figley, C. R. (1993). Weathering the storm at home: War related family stress and coping. In

F. W. Kaslow (Ed.) The military family in pace and war (pp. 173-190). New York: Springer.

Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Figley, C. R. (1997). The health and mental health implications of the Gulf War on military

reservist families. Family Systems Medicine, 7,1, 56-59. Figley, C. R. (1998). Burnout as systemic traumatic stress: A model for helping traumatized

family members. In C. R. Figley (Ed.) Burnout in families: The systemic costs of caring. New York: CRC Press.

Flowers, J. V. & Booraem, C. D. (1995). The cost of client transfer. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 73, 564-566. Frydenderg, E. & Lewis, R. (1994). Coping with difference concerns: Consistency and

variation in coping strategies used by adults. Australian Psychologist, 29, 45-48.

120

Frydenberg, E. & Lewis, R. (1997). Coping scale for adults: Administrator�s manual. Melbourne: ACER.

George, L. K., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & McCullough, M. E. (2000). Spirituality and

health: What we know, what we need to know. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 19, 102-116. Gill, H. L. & Haurin, D. R. (1998). Wherever he may go: How wives affect their husband�s

career decisions. Social Science Research, 27, 264-279. Grote, N. K. & Frieze, I. H. (1998). Remembrance of things past: Perceptions of marital love

from its beginning to the present. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 921-109.

Han, W. J., Waldfogel, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2001). The effects of early maternal

employment on later cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 63, 336-354. Haring, M., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2003). Perfectionism, coping, and quality of intimate

relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 143-158. Harrell, M. C. (2001). Army officer spouses: Have the white gloves been mothballed? Armed

Forces and Society, 28, 55-75. Hattie, J. A., Meyers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (2004). A factor of wellness: Theory,

assessment, analysis, and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 354-364. Heckman, T. G. (2003). The chronic illness quality of life model (CIQOL) model: Explaining

life satisfaction in people living with HIV disease. Journal of Health Psychology, 22, 140-147.

Henry, R. & Robichaux, R. J. (1999). Understanding life in the army: Military life from a

service member and family member perspective. In J. Daley (Ed.) Social work practice in

the military (pp.217-233). New York: Hawthorne. Hermon, D. A. & Hazler, R. J. (1999). Adherence to a wellness model and perceptions of

psychological well-being. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77,339-343. Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to the crises of war separation and

reunion. New York: Harper and Row. Hill, R. (1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 49, 139-150. Hill, R. (1970). Family development in three generations. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

121

Hilton, J. M. & Desrochers, S. (2003). Children�s behavior problems in single-parent and re-married parent families: Development of a predictive model. Journal of Divorce and

Remarriage, 37, 13-36. Hobfoll, S., Spielbereger, C., Beeznitz, A., Figley, C., Folkman, S., Lepper-Green, B., & van

der Kolk, B. (1991). War-related stress: Addressing the stress of war and other traumatic events. American Psychologist, 46, 848-855.

Hoge, C., Castro, C., Messer, S., McGurk, D., Cotting, D., & Koffman, R. (2004). Combat

duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. The New

England Journal of Medicine, 351, 13-22.

Hudson, W. W. (1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Homewood, IL:

Dorsey. Hunter, E. J. & Nice, D. S. (1976). Military families: Adaptation to change. New York:

Praeger. Hunter, E. J. & Nice, D. S. (1978). Children of military families: A part and yet apart.

Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Hutri, M. & Lindeman, M. (2002). The role of stress and negative emotions in an

occupational crisis. Journal of Career Development, 29, 19-36. William J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). Harvard University Military Families Study.

Cambridge, MA: ICR. Karney, B. & Bradbury, T. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A

review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. Kaslow, F. W. (Ed.) (1993). The military family in peace and war. New York: Springer

Press. Kelly, M. (1994). The effects of military induced separation on family factors and child

behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 103-111. Kelly, M., Hock, E., Bonney, J., Jarvis, M., Smith, K., & Gaffney, M. (2003). Navy mothers

experiencing and not experiencing deployment: Reasons for staying in or leaving the military. Military Psychology, 13, 55-71.

Kerr, M. (1981). Family systems theory and therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern

(Eds.), Handbook of Family Therapy, Vol. I (pp. 226-264). New York: Brunner-Mazel. Kirkland, F. R. & Katz, P. (1989). Combat readiness and the army family. Military Review,

69, 64-74.

122

Kitamura, T., Aoki, M., Fujino, M., Ura, C., Watanbe, M., Watanbe, K., & Fujihara, S. (1998). Sex differences in marital and social adjustment. Journal of Social Psychology,

138, 26-32. Klein, D. M. & White, J. M. (1996). Family Theories: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kosek, R. B. (1996). The quest for a perfect spouse: Spousal ratings and marital satisfaction.

Psychological Reports, 79, 731-735. Kurdek, L. A. (1998). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital quality

over the first four years of marriage for first-married husbands and wives. Journal of

Family Psychology, 12, 494-510. Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A. & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family structure matter?

A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single mother, step-father, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 840-851.

Larsson, G., Michel, P. O., Lundin, T. (2000). Systematic assessment of mental health

following various types of post-trauma support. Military Psychology, 12, 121-135. Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H. I., Patterson, J. M. (1985). The double ABC-X model of family

stress and adaptation: A empirical test by analysis of structural equations with latent variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 811-825.

Lederer, W. J. & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: W.W. Norton. Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., Cooney, N. L., & Kabela, E. (2003). Coping skills and treatment

outcomes in cognitive-behavioral and interactional group therapy for alcoholism. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 118-128. Levine, J. A., Pollack, H., & Comfort, M. E. (2001). Academic and behavioral outcomes

among children of young mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 355-369. McCubbin, H. I. (1998). African-American military families: Military families in foreign

environments. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), Resiliency in African-American families (pp. 67-97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCubbin, H. I. & Dahl, B. B. (1976). Prolonged family separation in the military: A

longitudinal study. In H. I. McCubbin, B. B. Dahl, & E. J. Hunter (Eds.), Families in the

military system(pp. 112-144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCubbin, H. I., Hunter, E. J., & Dahl, B. B. (1975). Residuals of war: Families of prisoners

of war and servicemen missing in action. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 95-109.

123

McCubbin, H. I. & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crisis. In H. I. McCubbin, A. Cauble, & J. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping, and social support (pp.26-47). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

McCubbin, H. I. & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABC-X

model of adjustment and adaptation. In M. Sussman, H. I. McCubbin, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and the family: Advances and developments in family stress theory and research. Marriage and Family Review, Vol. 6. New York: Hawthorne.

McCubbin, H. I., Patterson, J. M., & Wilson, L. (1983). Family inventory of life events and

changes (FILE). In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment

inventories for research and practice (pp. 195-207). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

McCubbin, M. A. & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Family stress theory and assessment. In H. I.

McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and

practice (pp. 3-35). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McCubbin, M. A. & McCubbin, H. I. (1989). Theoretical orientations to family stress and

coping. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Treating stress in families (pp. 3-43). New York: Brunner-Mazel.

McCubbin, H.I. & Patterson, J. M. (1987a). FILE: Family inventory of life events and

changes. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for

research and practice (pp. 81-98). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McCubbin, H. I., Larsen, A. S. , & Olson, D. H. (1991). F-COPES: Family crisis oriented

personal evaluation scales. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family

assessment inventories for research and practice (2nd ed, pp. 203-216). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D. H., & Larsen, A. S. (1987b). Family crisis oriented personal

evaluation scales (F-COPES). In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family

assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 195-207). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (2001). Family measures: Stress,

coping, and resiliency: Inventories for research and practice. Honolulu: Kamehameha. McDaniel, J. S. (1996). Stressful life events and psychoneuroimmunology. In T. W. Miller

(Ed.) Theory and assessment of stressful life events (pp. 3-36). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.

McGoldrick, M., Heiman, M., & Carter, B. (1993). The changing family life cycle: A

perspective on normalcy. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd

ed.). (pp. 405-443). New York: Guilford.

124

McGoldrick, M. & Walsh, F. (1999). Death and the family life cycle. In B. Carter and M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The Expanded Family Life Cycle: Individual, Family, and Social

Perspectives (pp. 185-201). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Manning, W. & Smock, P. (2000). �Swapping� families: Serial parenting and economic

support for children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 111-122. Medway, F., David, K., Cafferty, T., & Chappell, K. (1995). Family disruption and adult

attachment correlates of spouse and child reaction to separation and reunion during operation Desert Storm. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 97-118.

Milram, N. A. & Bar, K. (1993). Stress on wives due to husbands� hazardous duty or absence.

Military Psychology,5, 21-28.

Miller, T. W. & Kraus, R. F. (1996). Theoretical models of stress adaptation. In T. W. Miller

(Ed.) Theory and assessment of stressful life events (pp.93-108). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.

Milton, S. (1986). A sample size formula for multiple regression studies. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 50, 112-118. Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to

LISREL and EQS. New York: Springer. Napier, A. A. (1988). The fragile bond. New York: Harper & Row. Nugent, W. R. (1994). An investigation of the dependability of clinical cutting scores using

generalizability theory. Journal of Social Service Research, 18, 89-117. Nye, F. I. & Berardo, F. M. (1966). Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis. New

York: MacMillan. Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Assessing family

functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd

ed.). (pp. 405-443). New York: Guilford.

Orthner, D. K. (1980). Families in blue: A study of married and single parents of families in

the U.S. Air Force. Greensboro, NC: Family Research and Analysis. Orthner, D. K., Brody, G., Hill, W., Pais, J., Orthner, B. & Covi, R. (1985). Families in green

at Ft. Benning. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Osipow, S. & Spokane, A. (1987). Occupational stress inventory. Lutz, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

125

Parker, M. W., Call, V. R. A., & Barko, W. F. (1999). Soldier and family wellness across the life course: A developing role for social workers. In J. Daley (Ed.), Social Work Practice

in the Military (pp. 217-233). New York: Hawthorne. Parry, G. (1990). Coping with crisis. London: British Psychological Society and Routledge. Peebles-Kleiger, M. J. & Kleiger, J. H. (1994). Re-integration stress for Desert Storm

families: Wartime deployments and family trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 173-194.

Post, R. M., Weiss, S. R., Smith, M. A., & Leverich, G. S. (1996). Impact of psychosocial

stress on gene expression: Implications for PTSD and recurrent affective disorder. In T. W. Miller (Ed.) Theory and assessment of stressful life events (pp. 37-91). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.

Quinn, W. H., & Odell, M. (1998). Predictors of marital adjustment during the first two years.

Marriage and Family Review, 27, 113-130. Raghavan, C., Lee, H. N., Berenbaum, H. (2002). Predicting dysphoria and hostility using the

diathesis-stress model of sociotropy and autonomy in a contextualized stress setting. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 231-244.

Raschmann, J., Patterson, J., Schofield, G. (1990). A retrospective study of marital discord in

pilots: The USAFSAM experience. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 61,

537-546. Rea, L. M. & Parker, R. A. (1997). Designing and conducting survey research: A

comprehensive guide (2nd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rolland, J. S. (1993). Mastering family challenges in serious illness and disability. In F.

Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd

ed.). (pp. 444-473). New York: Guilford. Rosen, L. N., Durand D. A., Westhius, D. J., & Teitelbaum, J. M. (1995). Marital adjustment

of Army spouses one year after Operation Desert Storm. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 25, 677-692. Rosen, L.N., Moghadam, L. Z., & Vaitkus, M. A. (1989). The military families influence of

soldiers� personal morale: A path analytic model. Military Psychology, 1, 201-213. Rosen, L. N., Teitelbaum, J. M. & Westhius, D. J. (1993a). Children�s reaction to Desert

Storm Deployment: Initial findings from a survey of Army families. Military Medicine,

158, 465-469. Rosen, L. N., Teitelbaum, J. M. & Westhius, D. J. (1993b). Stressor, stress mediators, and

emotional well-being among spouses of soldiers deployed to the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm/Shield. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1587-1593.

126

Rosen, L. N., Westhius, D. J., & Teitelbaum, J. M. (1994). Patterns of adaptation among Army wives during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Military Medicine, 159, 43-47.

Rotter, J. C. & Boveja, M. E. (1999). Counseling military families. Family Journal �

Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 7, 379-382. Ruger, W., Wilson, S. E., & Waldrop, S. L. (2002). Warfare and welfare: Military service,

combat, and marital dissolution. Armed Forces and Society, 29, 85-107. Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and general happiness of newlywed couples:

Relationships across time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 470-489. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Sanchez, R. P., Bray, R. M., Vincus, A. A., & Bann, C. M. (2004). Predictors of job

satisfaction among active duty and reserve/guard personnel in the U.S. military. Military

Psychology, 16, 19-35. Sapolsky, R. M. (1994). Why zebras don�t get ulcers: A guide to stress, stress-related

diseases, and coping. New York: Freeman. Schachar, R. (1991). His and her marital satisfaction: The double standard. Sex Roles, 25,

451-467. Schwartz, J. B., Wood, L., & Griffith, J. (1991). The impact of military life of spouses labor

force outcomes. Armed Forces and Society, 17, 385-407. Schwarzer, R. & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeider

& N. Endler (Eds.) Handbook of Coping (pp. 107-132). New York: Wiley. Schumm, W. R., Resnick, G., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1998). Gender effects and

marital satisfaction: A brief report from a sample of dual military couples from the 1992 Department of Defense Worldwide Survey of Members and Spouses. Psychological

Reports, 82, 161-162. Schumm, W. R., Webb, F. J., & Bollman, S. R. (1998). Gender and marital satisfaction: Data

from the national survey of families and households. Psychological Reports, 83, 319-327. Segal, D. R., Segal, M. W., & Eyre, D. P. (1992). The social construction of peacekeeping in

America. Sociological Forum, 7, 121-136. Segal, M. W. (1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces and

Society, 13, 9-38.

127

Segal, M. W. & Harris, J. J. (1993). What we know about Army families (ARI Special Report

21). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, U.S. Department of Defense.

Shapiro, A. F., Gottman, J. M., & Carrere, S. (2000). The baby and the marriage: Identifying

factors that buffer against decline in the marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 59-70.

Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (2

nd ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon. Skerrett, K. (2003). Couple dialogues with illness: Expanding the �we�. Families, Systems,

and Health, 21, 69-80. Soederfeldt, M., Soederfeldt, B., Olson, C. G., Theorell, T., & Jones, I. (2000). The impact of

sense of coherence and high-demand/low-demand job environment on self-reported health, burnout, and psycho-physiological stress indicators. Work and Stress, 14, 1-15.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of

marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28. Tate, R. (1998). An introduction to modeling outcomes in the behavioral and social sciences

(2nd

ed.). Edina, MN: Burgess. Thabes, V. (1997). Survey analysis of women�s long-term, post divorce adjustment. Journal

of Divorce and Remarriage, 27, 163-175. Treas, J. & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual fidelity among married and cohabiting Americans.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48-60. Utsey, S. O., Ponterotto, J. G., Reynolds, A. L., & Cancelli, A. A. (2000). Racial

discrimination, coping, life satisfaction, and self-esteem among African Americans. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 72-80.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, and

applications. New York: George Braziller. Wall, T. N. & Hayes, J. A. (2000). Depressed clients� attributions of responsibility for the

causes of and solutions to their problems. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 81-86.

Walsh, F. (1993). Conceptualization of normal family processes. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal

family processes (2nd

ed.). (pp. 3-69). New York: Guilford. Watanbe, H. K., Jensen, P. S., Rosen, L. N., & Newby, J. (1995). Soldier functioning under

chronic stress: Effects of family member illness. Military Medicine, 160, 457-461.

128

Westhius, D. J. (1999). Working with military families during deployments. In J. Daley (Ed.) Social work practice in the military (pp.217-233). New York: Hawthorne.

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine.

Scientific American, 179, 14-18. Woody, D. J. & Green, R. (2001). The influence of race/ethnicity and gender on

psychological and social well-being. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social

Work, 9, 151-166. Younkin, S. L. & Betz, N. E. (1996). Psychological hardiness: A re-conceptualization and

measurement. In T. W. Miller (Ed.) Theory and assessment of stressful life events (pp. 139-159). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.

Zhang, J. P., Vitaliano, P. P., Lutgendorf, S. K., Scanlan, J. M., & Savage, M. V. (2001).

Sense of coherence buffers relationships of chronic stress with fasting glucose levels.Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 33-35.

129

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ronald Blaine Everson was raised on a farm in the small town of Colquitt, Georgia. He graduated from Miller County High School in 1984 and attended Valdosta State College, where was active in ROTC, along with various social clubs and fraternal organizations. He later developed an interest in contemporary popular music, grew his hair long, and played guitar in several touring bands in the late 1980�s. He graduated with a bachelor�s degree in 1988 and a master�s degree from Valdosta State in 1990. He was awarded a certificate in marriage and family therapy in 1994, after which he received his license to practice marriage and family therapy in 1995 from the State of Georgia. After finishing college he moved back to his birthplace to practice marriage and family therapy in Bainbridge, Georgia. He was active in the state family therapy organization and held several board positions in GAMFT during the 1990�s. He was the director of county mental health services in Donalsonville, Georgia and Pelham, Georgia prior to pursuing doctoral studies in the Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University in 1999. He has held several part-time faculty positions at colleges in South Georgia. He was a teaching assistant at Florida State University from 1999 through 2001. He is currently in private practice on the coast of Georgia, where he resides with his wife, their daughter, a funny looking dog, and two very well-fed cats.