Upload
leanne-k-simpson
View
117
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
[email protected]; [email protected]
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)