1.
By
child
of
CDF.
Father
is
represented
as
being
on
the
aeroplane,
PCA
Score
7.
By
child
of
PDF,
father
is
large
image
in
middle
mother
is
far
le>
half
of
the
page,
PCA
Score
6.
By
child
of
NDF,
family
is
represented
in
height
order,
PCA
Score
1.
Children’s
Sample
Drawings
Introduc8on
Ø A
serving
soldier’s
family
may
be
the
most
valuable
resource
in
terms
of
the
well-­‐being
of
the
soldier:
posiHve
family
funcHoning
boosts
their
morale,
retenHon
and
work
abiliHes
(Shinsek,
2003).
Ø Five
stages
of
deployment
have
been
idenHfied
each
characterised
by
specific
challenges
which
must
be
dealt
with
and
mastered,
failure
to
adequately
negoHate
these
challenges
can
lead
to
problemaHc
family
funcHoning
(Pincus,
House,
Christenson
&
Adler,
2007).
Ø The
evidence
that
deployments
harm
military
marriages
is
limited:
research
indicates
military
marriages
have
an
unexpected
resilience
(Karney
&
Crown,
2007).
Ø Contact
with
home,
and
military
personnel's
ability
to
communicate
and
maintain
a
relaHonship
with
their
children
is
parHcularly
important
(Greene,
Buckman,
Dandeker,
&
Greenberg,
2010).
Ø The
psychological
well-­‐being
of
military
children
is
associated
with
posiHve
relaHonships
with
parents
and
beXer
overall
family
adjustment
(Kelly,
1994).
Ø Parent-­‐Child
Alliance
(PCA)
occurs
when
a
parent
turns
to
the
child
for
support,
and
typically
occurs
within
families
with
problemaHc
family
funcHoning
(Leon
et
al.,
2007).
This
study
inves8gated
the
effects
of
opera8onal
deployment
on
the
func8oning
of
Bri8sh
military
families.
Method
Par8cipants
34
non-­‐military
families
and
78
BriHsh
military
families
were
recruited:
Ø 39
were
non-­‐deployed
families
(NDF),
who
had
not
undertaken
a
tour
of
Afghanistan
in
last
12
months.
Ø 29
were
post-­‐deployed
families
(PDF),
who’s
husbands
had
returned
from
a
tour
of
Afghanistan
in
last
12
months
(Op
Herrick
13),
Ø 10
were
currently
deployed
families
(CDF),
who’s
husbands
were
currently
on
a
tour
of
Afghanistan
(Op
Herrick
14).
Measures
Kansas
Marital
Sa,sfac,on
(KMS)
scale
A
brief
3-­‐item
7
point
scale
(7=
Extremely
Sa,sfied;
1=
Extremely
Dissa,sfied).
Family
Func,oning
The
Family
AdaptaHon
and
Cohesion
EvaluaHon
Scale
IV
(FACES
IV)
measured
family
cohesion
and
family
flexibility
using
six
subscales
and
the
addiHonal
scales
of
Family
CommunicaHon
and
Family
SaHsfacHon:
Ø Cohesion
Ø Flexibility
Ø Disengaged
Ø Enmeshed
Ø Rigid
Ø ChaoHc
Family
communicaHon
addresses
many
of
the
most
important
aspects
of
communicaHon
in
a
family
system
while
family
saHsfacHon
assesses
the
saHsfacHon
of
family
members
in
regard
to
family
cohesion,
flexibility
and
communicaHon
(Olson,
2011).
Children’s
Drawings
Drawings
were
coded
using
a
7
point
Parent-­‐Child
Alliance
scale
(1=
Very
Low;
7=
Very
High)
Results
Ø Significant
deployment
group
differences
on
marital
saHsfacHon,
(F(3,108)=9.69,
p=<.001),
with
NDF
having
the
highest
marital
saHsfacHon
(see
Fig.
1).
Ø Significant
effect
of
deployment
stage
on
the
combined
(balanced
and
unbalanced)
scales
of
cohesion
and
flexibility
(F(3,108)=9.57,
p=<.001)
(see
Fig.
2).
Ø Significant
effect
of
deployment
stage
on
saHsfacHon
with
family
communicaHon
(F(3,108)=53.62,
p<.
001,
R2=
.598).
Ø Significant
effect
of
deployment
stage
on
reports
of
overall
family
saHsfacHon
(F(3,108)=35.1,
p=<.
0001,
R2=.49).
Ø Significant
effect
of
deployment
stage
on
level
of
PCA
scored
in
drawings
(F(3,108)=98.27,
p=<.001,
R2=.732),
with
PDF
and
CDF
scoring
highly
(see
Fig.
3).
References
Greene,
T.,
Buckman,
J.,
Dandeker,
C.,
&
Greenberg,
N.
(2010).
Military
Medicine,
175(10),
745-­‐749.
Karney,
B.
R.,
&
Crown,
J.
S.
(2011).
In
Mac
Dermid
Wadsworth,
S.,
&
Riggs,
D.
(Eds.),
Risk
and
Resilience
in
U.S.
Military
Families.
(pp.
23-­‐45),
Springer
Science:
CA.
Kelly,
M.
L.
(1994).
Military
Psychology
6(3),
163-­‐176.
Leon,
K.,
Wallace,
T.,
&
Rudy,
D.
(2007).
Social
Development,
16(3),
440-­‐459.
Olson,
D.
H.
(2011).
Journal
of
Marital
&
Family
Therapy,
3(1),
64-­‐80.
Pincus,
S.
H.,
House,
R.,
Christenson,
J.,
&
Adler,
L.
E.
(2007).
Retrieved
April
5,
2010,
from
qqhXp://hooah4health.com/deployment/familymaXers/emoHonalcycle.htm
Shinsek,
E.
K.
(2003).
The
Army
Family
(White
Paper).
hXp://www.whs.mil/library/Dig/AR-­‐M620U_20080912.pdf
Born
into
the
Military:
Deployment
stage
affects
wife
and
child
percep8ons
of
family
func8oning
Mrs
Leanne
K.
Simpson
1,2
and
Dr
Rachel
E.
Pye
1
1
University
of
Winchester,
UK;
2
King’s
College
London,
UK
leanne.simpson@kcl.ac.uk;
rachel.pye@winchester.ac.uk
Acknowledgements
This
project
was
Leanne
Simpson’s
undergraduate
dissertaHon,
supervised
by
Dr
Rachel
Pye,
at
the
University
of
Winchester.
With
thanks
to
the
Second
Royal
Tank
Regiment
and
Lieutenant
Colonel
Marcus
Evans,
Lieutenant
Colonel
Nicholas
Cowey
MBE
and
Captain
David
HenreXy.
Figure
1:
Marital
saHsfacHon
scores
by
deployment
group
Figure
3:
Parent-­‐child
alliance
(PCA)
scores
by
deployment
group
Figure
2:
Family
AdaptaHon
and
Cohesion
Scale
IV
subscale
scores.
Discussion
Ø Marital
Sa8sfac8on
–
No
military
family
group
had
significantly
different
marital
saHsfacHon
scores
from
non-­‐military
families,
but
families
of
non-­‐deployed
personnel
had
significantly
higher
marital
saHsfacHon
than
those
who
were
currently-­‐
or
post-­‐deployed.
This
contradicts
Karney
&
Crown’s
(2011)
results.
Ø FACES
IV
–
Currently-­‐deployed
families
had
the
lowest
FACES
IV
balanced
and
the
highest
FACES
IV
unbalanced
scores,
indicaHng
poorest
family
funcHoning.
All
military
families
had
‘spikes’
in
rigidity,
regardless
of
deployment
status.
Ø Family
communica8on
–
CommunicaHon
does
facilitate
family
saHsfacHon,
with
CDF
reporHng
many
concerns
this
may
be
due
to
the
restricHve
nature
of
communicaHng
with
a
deployed
husband.
Ø Overall
Family
Sa8sfac8on
–
Deployment
significantly
affects
military
families’
overall
family
saHsfacHon,
with
PDF
and
CDF
being
least
saHsfied
while
NDF
and
NMF
were
most
saHsfied.
Findings
highlight
the
importance
of
the
unit
welfare
office
and
its
role
in
supporHng
families
during
periods
of
operaHonal
deployment.
Ø PCA
–
PDF
and
CDF
groups
were
rated
significantly
higher
than
NDF
and
NMF
for
PCA.
CDF
drawings
depicted
the
physical
separaHon
they
were
experiencing
while
PDF
drew
fathers
larger
and
in
more
detail
than
other
family
members
(see
examples
below).
NDF
and
NMF
drawings
showed
no
preferenHal
alliance
associated
with
healthy
family
funcHoning.
Significant
correlaHons
between
high
family
saHsfacHon
and
low
PCA
support
these
findings.
Conclusion
This
research
demonstrates
that
military
families
are
affected
by
periods
of
operaHonal
deployment,
with
families
of
currently-­‐deployed
personnel
affected
the
most
adversely,
and
post-­‐deployed
families
also
affected.
Uniquely,
the
effects
on
children
as
well
as
spouses
were
invesHgated.
II
Balanced
scales
(high
scores
=
good-­‐funcHoning
family
relaHonships)
Unbalanced
scales
(high
scores
=
poor-­‐funcHoning
family
relaHonships)