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)