CRITICAL NEEDS AND LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY SPOUSE:  
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND  
ACTIVE ARMY DURING THE IRAQ WAR  
 
 
Except where reference is made to the works of others, the work described in this 
dissertation is my own and done in collaboration with my advisory committee.  
This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information 
 
 
______________Cynthia Nikki Vasilas______________ 
Cynthia Nikki Vasilas 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
 
             
Suhyun P. Suh      Jamie S. Carney, Chair 
Associate Professor     Professor 
Special Education, Rehabilitation,    Special Education, Rehabilitation, 
Counseling and School Psychology   Counseling and School Psychology 
 
 
 
 
             
Chippewa M. Thomas     George T. Flowers 
Assistant Professor     Dean 
Special Education, Rehabilitation,   Graduate School  
Counseling and School Psychology    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CRITICAL NEEDS AND LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY SPOUSE: A 
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND  
ACTIVE ARMY DURING THE IRAQ WAR 
 
 
 
Cynthia Nikki Vasilas 
 
 
 
 
A Dissertation 
 
Submitted to  
 
the Graduate Faculty of 
 
Auburn University  
 
in Partial Fulfillment of the  
 
Requirements for the 
 
Degree of 
 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 
 
 
 
Auburn Alabama 
August 10, 2009 
iii 
CRITICAL NEEDS AND LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY SPOUSE: 
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND  
ACTIVE ARMY DURING THE IRAQ WAR 
 
 
 
  
Cynthia Nikki Vasilas 
 
 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its 
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.  
The author reserves all publication rights 
 
 
 
 
              
      Signature of Author 
 
 
 
 
              
      Date of Graduation  
iv 
VITA 
 
 Cynthia Nikki Vasilas, daughter of Philip Andrew Vasilas and Sally Long 
Vasilas, was born January 20, 1979 in Anderson, South Carolina. She graduated from 
Oakwood Christian School in Anderson, South Carolina, in 1997. After graduating from 
Anderson College in 2002 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology, she earned a 
Master of Education degree in Community Agency Counseling from Clemson University 
in Clemson, South Carolina in 2004. She is a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), 
and National Certified Counselor (NCC). In 2006, Nikki enrolled in the Counselor 
Education and Supervision doctoral program at Auburn University and received her 
doctorate in Counselor Education and Supervision in 2009. 
 
v 
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT 
CRITICAL NEEDS AND LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY SPOUSE: 
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND  
ACTIVE ARMY DURING THE IRAQ WAR 
 
Cynthia Nikki Vasilas 
 
Doctor of Philosophy, August 10, 2009 
(M.Ed., Clemson University, 2004) 
(B.A., Anderson College, 2002) 
 
124 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by Jamie Carney 
 
 National Guard units have been asked to serve in ways never before experienced 
since the beginning of the Iraq War and throughout the continued war on terror. Multiple 
deployments, frequent long-term separations from families, communities, and jobs may 
have far reaching implications. Family Readiness Groups and a climate of support shown 
by military leadership can have a significant impact on family adjustment. The purpose of 
this study is to determine what critical needs, issues, and support the families of a 
National Guard Unit experienced during a deployment, and what their experiences have 
been with their local Family Readiness Group; as compared to the needs, issues, and 
support provided to the families of an Active Army Unit. Data was collected by means of 
participant survey completion. A total of 206 military spouses participated, 117 of the 
vi 
participants were the spouse of an Active Army soldier and 89 were the spouse of a 
National Guard solider.  
The current study utilized the Family Index of Coherence (FIC; McCubbin & 
Patterson, 1982), Social Support Index (SSI; McCubbin, Patterson, & Glynn, 1982), and 
Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) along 
with a researcher developed family deployment survey of demographic information, to 
explore the needs and level of support experienced by the military spouses. The results of 
this study found that the Active Army spouse scored higher than the National Guard 
spouses on all scales. The most noteworthy finding in the current study was that both 
Active Army and National Guard spouses, when asked to describe their experiences in 
their own words, experienced the same difficulties with lack of social support and 
adjustment during the deployment of a family member.  
 
vii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Phillip and Sally Vasilas, whose 
guidance, love and support encouraged me to pursue my dreams and never give up. In 
addition to my parents, I would like to dedicate this dissertation and thank my husband 
and best friend, Chad Sorrow, whose support, encouragement and selfless sacrifices made 
all of this possible. 
I would also like to thank Dr. Jamie Carney, my advisor, committee chair, mentor, 
colleague, and friend who has guided and supported me throughout this process. 
Additional appreciation is given to Dr. Chippewa Thomas, Dr. Suhyn Suh, and Dr. 
Margaret Ross whose mentorship, encouragement and guidance provided the insight and 
motivation I needed to succeed beyond my personal expectations. I will be forever 
grateful to you all! 
 
 
viii 
Style manual or journal used: Publications Manual of the American Psychological 
Association, 5
th
 editon          
Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2007 and the Statistical Package for the 
Social Sciences (SPSS), 16.0 (2008)         
 
ix 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi 
 
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 
 
 Rationale ..................................................................................................................1 
 Significance of the Study .........................................................................................4 
 Purpose of the Present Study ...................................................................................5 
 Research Questions ..................................................................................................6 
 Operational Definitions ............................................................................................6 
 Summary ..................................................................................................................8 
 
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................................10 
 
 Introduction ............................................................................................................10 
 United States Armed Forces ..................................................................................10 
 
  Emotional Cycle of Deployment and Coping ............................................13 
  ABC-X and Family Stress Theory .............................................................19 
  Social Support ............................................................................................22 
 
 Theories of Social Support .....................................................................................35 
 Summary ................................................................................................................40 
 
III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................42 
   
 Introduction ............................................................................................................42 
 Research Questions ................................................................................................42 
 Participants .............................................................................................................42 
 Procedure ...............................................................................................................43 
 Measures ................................................................................................................45 
 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................47 
 Summary ................................................................................................................48 
 
x 
IV. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................49 
  
 Introduction ............................................................................................................49 
 Demographics ........................................................................................................51 
 Reliabilities ............................................................................................................53 
 Research Question One ..........................................................................................54 
 Research Question Two .........................................................................................57 
 
  Limited Support .........................................................................................58 
  Unsupportive Climate of Military Community..........................................60 
  Unaware of Support ...................................................................................61 
 
 Summary ................................................................................................................61 
 
V. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................63 
 
 Introduction ............................................................................................................63 
 Discussion of Findings ...........................................................................................64 
 Limitations of Study ..............................................................................................67 
 Implications for Counseling Professionals ............................................................68 
 Implications for Military Support Service Providers .............................................69 
 Summary ................................................................................................................70 
 
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................72 
 
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................89 
 
 Appendix A: Family Deployment Survey ...........................................................90 
 Appendix B:    Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale  
                             (CES-D) .........................................................................................98 
 Appendix C: Family Index of Coherence (FIC) ..................................................99 
 Appendix D: Social Support Index (SSI) ..........................................................100 
 Appendix E: Information Sheet  ........................................................................102 
 Appendix F:  Department of the Army Consent to Use Data ............................104 
 
 
xi 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 1 Participant Demographic Information .............................................................51 
Table 2 Reliability Analysis ..........................................................................................54 
 
Table 3 ANOVA: Family Index of Coherence (FIC) ...................................................55 
 
Table 4 ANOVA: Social Support Index (SSI) ..............................................................56 
 
Table 5 ANOVA: Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression .........................57 
 
Table 6 Group Means and Standard Deviations for the  
 Dependent Variable: CES-D ............................................................................57 
 
1 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
This study explored the effects of deployment and the perceptions of support 
services by the families of the National Guard and Active Army during Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom also known as the Iraq War. The purpose was 
to investigate whether differences existed between the National Guard and Active Army 
in the needs and issues experienced during deployment, as well as their knowledge of and 
access to the supportive services available during and after a deployment was 
experienced.  
 
Rationale 
Military deployments almost always ask families to adjust to situations for which 
they are not prepared. As of October 15, 2008, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
indicated that there were 2,638,616 total combined armed forces serving our country; of 
this total, the number of casualties (i.e., injured or dead) from both Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom was estimated to be 43,000 (DOD, 2008). 
Since the beginning of the Iraq War and throughout the continued war on terror, the 
decrease in total active forces has led to an increased commitment and reliance upon the 
reserve components. As a result, the Reserve Units have been asked to serve in ways 
2 
never before experienced. Of the 2 million military personnel, the National Guard Units 
represented nearly a half of the soldiers in combat (DOD, 2005).  
When an individual commits to serving their country one may be aware that there 
is a possibility for separation from their families. The separations experienced may 
include short-term or long-term separations during times of peace or times of war. 
Deployments are often a complex and overwhelming process, however there is a series of 
stages that individuals go through with each deployment (Legan, 1987). The National 
Military Family Association (2006) stressed in its report of family experiences during the 
cycle(s) of deployment, that we should not view these experiences as cyclical but as an 
experience that has many twists and never returns back to the place it began. 
Nevertheless, the concept of the cycle provides a foundation for understanding the 
emotional impact experienced by deployments. Knowledge of this cycle is also critical 
for those individuals responsible for creating the programs and services to assist 
individuals and families during this time of separation; as the research suggests that 
meaningful supportive relationships can have a significant impact on coping during a 
time of adjustment (Armstrong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, Kaniasty, & Ungar, 2005; Kaniasty, 
& Norris, 1993; Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997; Pearson, 1986). However, 
in their review of the literature, Rosen and Moghadam (1990) found that social support 
can only be effective in decreasing the effects of stress if the support matches the stress 
experienced. If the individual does not perceive that they are being supported, then the 
support, though it may be done with good intentions, can have a negative effect on the 
individual.  
3 
The active military has had an established community of support during times of 
separation, whereas the families of the National Guard are often separated from local 
units, bases, and each other. The impact of the latest deployments may have far reaching 
implications when considering multiple deployments, frequent long-term separations 
from their families, communities, jobs, and homes. When providing supportive services 
to National Guardsmen and their families, the providers of supportive services must be 
aware of the needs, their accessibility, knowledge, and involvement in social networks. It 
is also important for support providers to keep in mind that the research suggests that 
these individuals and families tend to be less integrated within the military community. 
These limitations could be due to the fact that National Guardsmen and their families 
tend to live greater distances from military bases and military service providers. Other 
factors could also include a lack of knowledge, an inability to identify or express a need, 
or fear that the request, need, or use of a supportive service could potentially impact their 
family member?s career in the military in a negative way (Burrell et al., 2003).  
Some studies have suggested that the accessibility of support systems for the 
National Guard give them an advantage that active military do not, in that family support 
is readily available and accessible when needed (Doyle & Peterson, 2005). The difference 
in the support systems is that the active military supports often consist of individuals that 
are not related, and they are often asked to move away from their homes and families of 
origin. To date, there has only been one study conducted by the National Military Family 
Association (2006) on the experiences of the military family as they encounter multiple 
deployments, longer work hours and the challenges experienced during the cycle of 
4 
deployment from mobilization to reunion. However the level of support and services the 
families of the National Guard may need and have access has not been explored in depth.  
 The effects of the continued war on terror can no longer be assigned only to those 
individuals who live on military bases. According to Hoshmand and Hoshmand (2007), it 
has long been assumed that the civilian community should not worry about or provide 
services to the families and soldiers of the military, because the military would care for 
their own. However, the military community cannot be left alone in their attempts to 
address the issues that many of our soldiers and families will face, as a greater number of 
soldiers and families impacted by the war are living in civilian communities and in our 
neighborhoods. The extension of supportive services needs to take into account the 
importance of military and family culture, and a clear definition and understanding of 
what is meant by the term ?social support.?  
 
Significance of the Study 
There is a paucity of research conducted on the needs and issues the families of 
deployed soldiers deal with during a deployment, as well as the services available for 
support. Families and soldiers of the Active Army and National Guard will continue to be 
asked to adjust to situations for which they are not prepared as the war on terrorism 
continues. The families left behind are often asked to deal with the emotional, financial, 
social, and physical impacts of a deployment alone. The unique situation of these families 
will likely be compounded by the fact that many of the soldiers are asked to deploy on 
more than one occasion, and with little advance notice. The impact that these 
deployments will cause have yet to be determined. What is currently known about the 
5 
families of the National Guard is that they tend to live farther away from military units, 
bases, and each other. The families may not have access to a Family Support Group nor 
even have friends within the military community, thus making it difficult to establish 
networks of support. However, it is also likely that the Active Army families, though they 
live on or near a military base, still face the same significant challenges as the National 
Guard families with regards to social support networks.  
 
Purpose of the Present Study 
The purpose of this study was to determine the needs and level of support of the 
military families, particular the spouses of a National Guard Unit and an Active Army 
Unit, have related to the deployment of a family member. The potential value of this 
study includes providing information to guide the creation of a more supportive climate 
within the Army and National Guard Units as well as the communities in which the 
families live. The awareness of these issues can also lead to additional service delivery 
and implementation of support services by the Family Readiness Group, military or local 
community agencies. Local community mental health practitioners will more than likely 
encounter families or soldiers that have been impacted by the recent war.  The amount of 
time the mental health practitioner will have to work with the individuals will be 
significantly affected by the terms of the insurance policy. The information obtained from 
this study will benefit these mental health practitioners by providing them with a basic 
understanding of the issues National Guard and Active Army soldiers and their family 
members face. In addition, the results of the study will provide information to Family 
Readiness Group leaders and unit commanders that could lead to the improvement of 
6 
services currently offered, as well as empirically supported ideas for adding any 
additional services to meet the unmet needs of the families. The results of this study will 
also provide the counseling community with information in regards to the gap in 
supportive services between the military and local community providers. Understanding 
family support needs will likely provide a foundation for the counseling community to 
increase awareness, which could lead to the development of better quality of family 
support services. 
 
Research Questions 
Due to the paucity of available research, this study hoped to answer the following 
questions. 
1. What deployment adjustment differences exist between spouses of the 
National Guard and Active Army across measures: a) Family Index of Coherence; b.) 
Social Support Index; c.) Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale.   
2. What are the perceptions and experiences with supportive services of the 
National Guard and Active Army spouse? 
 
Operational Definitions 
For the purposes of this study the following terms have been defined: 
Active Army: considered to be those soldiers who have a full-time career 
dedicated to military service (DOD, 2005).  
7 
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D): a 20-item self-
report instrument designed as a primary screening device to measure the degree of 
depressive symptoms an individual experiences (Radloff, 1977).  
Deployment during War: an armed conflict in which there is a potential for 
imminent danger due to large-scale prolonged conflict (United Nations, 2007) 
Family Deployment Survey:  a survey instrument created by the author to elicit 
demographic data such as age, gender, race, number of children in the home, number of 
deployments experienced, as well as services accessed. 
Family Index of Coherence (FIC): a 17-item instrument developed to record the 
degree to which families feel committed to the military lifestyle and mission, as well as 
how much they feel they can count on the military in times of need. (McCubbin & 
Patterson, 1982).  
Family Readiness Groups (FRG):  groups set up by the unit commanders to assist 
the families and the soldiers with special issues and needs connected to military service. 
These groups provide information and referral services as needed. 
National Guard: considered part-time civilian military personnel. They are not 
career military personnel. The National Guardsmen take time off during the year from 
their civilian employment to participate in training experiences at least one weekend a 
month and two weeks during the year. The National Guard is only one of the seven 
components of the Reserves, and is the focus of this study (DOD, 2005).  
Peacekeeping Deployment: a deployment in which the solider or peacekeeper is 
not engaged in combat. The purpose is to continue and further peace, once established, in 
8 
a worn torn area by providing aid to the community and government during times of 
reform (United Nations, 2007). 
Reserves: consists of the Ready Reserves, Standby Reserves, and Retired 
Reserves. The Ready Reserves are those members that train throughout the year and 
participate annually in Active Duty training exercises. The seven components of the 
Selected Ready Reserve are as follows: Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy 
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard; Air Force Reserve, and Coast 
Guard Reserve (DOD, 2005).  
Social Support Index (SSI): a 17 item survey developed to record the degree to 
which families are integrated into the community, view the community as a source of 
support and feel that the community can provide emotional, esteem, and network support 
(McCubbin, Patterson, & Glyn, 1982).  
Supportive Services: refers to the resources provided to the families to meet a 
specific need by the military or Family Readiness Group. Supportive services may 
include but are not limited to financial assistance, legal, health, occupational, mental, 
emotional, and educational services.  
 
Summary  
 This chapter provides an overview of the current study. The concepts of the 
deployment cycle and social support are introduced and briefly defined. Social Exchange 
Theory (Homans, 1958) and ABC-X theory of family stress (Hill, 1949) are presented 
and provide the foundation for this study. Social support, if perceived effective, can be 
vital in decreasing the stress experienced during a deployment. These concepts will be 
9 
discussed in depth and explored in relation to military families and deployments. The 
purpose of this study, the significance of the study, measures used and definitions of 
terms are also discussed.  
 
10 
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
 
Introduction 
 This chapter describes the differences between the National Guard and Active 
Army in terms of their role and services within the United States Armed Forces during 
times of deployment and peace; as well as the support services available to the soldiers 
and their families in efforts to decrease the impact of stress during times of separation. In 
addition, a review of the literature describes the relevant theories that may assist the 
counseling profession in expanding their awareness and understanding of the critical 
needs and issues faced by the military and their families. 
 
United States Armed Forces 
According to the Department of Defense (2008), the total number of United States 
military personnel is over 3.5 million. The Active Duty Military personnel comprises 
(38.5%) of the total force, followed by the National Guard at (31.2%). The Department of 
Defense (2008) reports that the National Guard is the oldest component of the United 
States Armed Forces, which is comprised of ?citizen-soldiers? who serve their country on 
a part-time basis. A previous publication released by the National Guard Bureau (2007) 
indicated that the Army National Guard represented more than half of the troops sent to 
11 
Iraq in 2005. According to this report this was the National Guards largest combat 
mission since World War II.  
Today?s active army has declined 32.3 % since 1990. With the decline of Active 
Army personnel, the reliance on the National Guard during times of war has increased. 
Since September 11, 2001 the total number of National Guardsmen and Active Army 
soldiers mobilized was 824,202, of this total National Guard represented 383,606 
(46.5%). Of the 383,606 soldiers mobilized, 276,214 were deployed at least once, 
whereas 104,392 experienced multiple deployments (DOD, 2008). 
The dynamics of the military have changed significantly from that of a 
predominately male force to include the largest number of women, dual military career 
families as well as single parents; which suggests that over half of the Active Army 
(60.0%) and National Guard (57.7%) have family responsibilities of a spouse and/or 
children (DOD, 2005). Consequently, the stress experienced from multiple deployments 
and frequent separations from their families and communities is greater than ever before.    
When comparing the National Guard to the Active Army (i.e. Army, Navy, 
Marine Corps and the Air Force) one clear distinction is the location of the solider and 
family residents. Unlike the Active Army who resides on a base or close to one, the 
National Guard and their families tend to live in civilian communities that are much 
farther away from the military base and community. The Active Army soldiers and their 
families also have access to a community and support services that are aware of 
deployment needs, and can provide the necessary resources to assist the families with 
adjustment during times of separation. National Guardsmen and their families tend to 
reside in civilian communities, hold full-time civilian jobs, are less integrated into the 
12 
military community, and may not have the same supportive resources available to them 
(Knox & Price, 1999). Though there are several significant factors that clearly distinguish 
the National Guard from the Active Army, one factor that crosses both divides is the 
culture of the military and the commitment to serving their country.  
In a study of military culture conducted by Murray (1999), it was determined that 
a dominant culture does exist within the military community. This culture is often that of 
a hierarchical and authoritative nature. Though this dominant culture was present, it was 
evident that there is an existence of several diverse sub-cultures within the community. 
The culture within the military is often influenced strongly by the senior leader and 
traditions.  Military families are directed by this influence, which may limit their use of 
supportive services that they perceive potentially harmful to their family members? 
military career. This culture of the military becomes compounded for National 
Guardsmen and their families when you consider the impact of their culture beyond the 
military and its social structure (Knox & Price, 1999).  
The distinctions between the two components of the military may be vast, but the 
stresses each individual family experiences during a deployment have a common theme. 
These families are faced each day with the uncertainty of the health and well-being of 
their soldier. The daily fear of death or injury is constantly reinforced by the media. The 
support provided by the military community becomes increasingly important, but only if 
the families perceive their unit commanders and unit as supportive (Burrell, Durand, & 
Fortado, 2003). According to a study conducted by Lawrence (2006), the perception one 
has on the availability of social support is important in helping an individual cope with 
stress and the conflict one may have with ones choice of work and commitment to their 
13 
families. Burrell et al. (2003) noted that the National Guard, who were less integrated 
into the military community, were also less likely to seek help or support from their unit 
or Army if they needed assistance. This gap in supportive services was initially realized 
during the Gulf War. It was during this time that the Department of Defense implemented 
the National Guard Family Programs, which was to provide family support and assistance 
to all families not located near or on a military base (Knox & Price, 1999). However, 
Hoshmand and Hoshmand, (2007) found that the issue of stigma becomes a significant 
factor when families of both Active Army and National Guard consider seeking 
supportive services. 
Emotional Cycle of Deployment and Coping  
Studies conducted on the effects of military deployments frequently make 
reference to the emotional cycle of deployment (Cozza, Chun, & Polo, 2005; Doyle & 
Peterson, 2005; Figley, 1993; Newby et al., 2005; Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994; 
Wexler, & McGrath, 1991). The pre-deployment, deployment and post-deployment 
stages of the emotional cycle of deployment provide a critical framework for 
understanding the needs families may face during separation.  
In 1987, a navy spouse, Kathleen Vestal-Legan introduced the concept of the 
deployment cycle. When describing the emotional cycle of deployment (ECOD), she 
states that it is important to separate military families from civilian families, as the 
culture and traditions of each cannot be compared. The emotional cycle of deployment is 
a way to conceptualize the deployment experiences of each individual. The seven stages 
of navy-wife adjustment during a peacekeeping mission she identified include: (a) 
anticipation of loss, (b) detachment and withdrawal, (c) emotional disorganization, (d) 
14 
recovery and stabilization, (e) anticipation of homecoming, (f) renegotiation of the 
marriage contract, and (g) reintegration and stabilization (Legan, 1987, p. 45).  
According to Legan and her emotional cycle of deployment (1987), the 
Anticipation and Loss of a pending deployment identifies stage one of the cycle. 
However, it was stressed that the anticipation and loss begins long before the solider 
leaves for their mission. During this stage there is a sense of loss as the family begins 
making preparations for the impending deployment. The spouse may experience 
confusion, anger, and fear. As the actual date for the deployment approaches the 
individual will enter stage two, and begin to withdraw emotionally. Stage two is 
identified by Legan as detachment and withdrawal. During this time many of the wives 
had intense feelings of being overwhelmed, angry, empty, or lonely even though their 
spouse was still with them. These feelings often shift from anger to guilt when it is time 
to say goodbye. In stage three, emotional disorganization is brought on by the initial 
shock of the departure. Many of the wives will begin to worry or withdraw. Often, the 
routines these women had are disrupted and there is a sense of restlessness. However, as 
the separation continues, many of the wives will began to adjust to the deployment and 
experience feelings of calmness. Stage four, recovery and stabilization, is often noted 
when the spouse begins to enjoy and finds comforts in the new routines and sources of 
support they have established.  
As the families prepare for the return of their solider, the expectation and 
anticipation of this reunion bring about excitement, fear, and worry. Stage five of the 
emotional cycle of deployment, according to Legan (1987), is when the wives began to 
anticipate the homecoming of their solider. When the soldier returns home there is initial 
15 
excitement; however, it is not long before each individual in the family must readjust 
again to the changing dynamics within the family, and renegotiation of the marriage 
contract begins. This time of renegotiation can be stressful and difficult for both, as both 
individuals have changed in different ways. Finally, in the seventh and final stage of the 
deployment cycle, reintegration and stabilization, and the new routines of the family have 
been established and individuals will once again experience calmness and comfort 
(Legan, 1987). 
 Since 1987, the emotional cycle of deployment has been adopted by other military 
service units and condensed to three stages (anticipation, separation, reunion), or more 
simply stated: pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment (Kelley, Herzag-
Simmer, & Harris, 1994; Norwood, Fullerton, & Hagen, 1996; Rotter, & Boveja, 1999). 
When considering the emotional cycle of deployment one must consider the changes in 
the cycle experienced as a result of a combat related separation. The National Military 
Family Association (2006) states that this cycle should be thought of in terms of a spiral 
with many twists and turns never returning to the same place it began.  
One important distinction to make in reviewing the emotional cycle of 
deployment is separation due to peacekeeping efforts as compared to separations of war. 
The United Nations (2007) report that peacekeeping efforts help countries torn by 
conflict monitor and enforce previously established peace agreements, whereas war 
suggests that there is potential for imminent danger due to large-scale prolonged conflict. 
The Emotional Cycle of Deployment does an excellent job providing a portrait of the 
distinct challenges faced by military personnel and their families. Though each family 
will progress through each stage in a unique way, there will be some differences between 
16 
families experiencing a separation of deployment for war as compared to peacekeeping 
missions.  
 Peacekeeping missions are to aid countries struggling with conflict in establishing 
the foundations for peaceful conditions, whereas war is a state of hostile conflict (UN, 
2008). Deployments during times of war increase the likelihood that a solider could 
experience physical harm or death. Families left behind remain in a constant state of fear 
for the well-being and safety of the solider (Black, 1993; Hunter, 1982; Norwood & 
Ursano, 1996; Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994). Peacekeeping and wartime deployments 
can differ in their duration and intensity. Deployments during war generally extend 
beyond the six month peacekeeping mission (Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994). 
McCubbin and Patterson (1983a) note that the longer families are separated during times 
of war there becomes a greater risk of stress reactions and experiences due to the 
potential of misinformation, or lack of information. The spouses of military personnel 
deployed during times of war report greater levels of anxiety, depression, aggression, and 
worry than when deployed for peacekeeping missions (Boss, McCubbin, & Lester, 1979; 
Jensen, Lewis & Xenakis, 1986; Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994; Stuart & Halverson, 
1997). Families want to know the location and environment their loved one is in. When 
the information is not readily available, the media serves as a source of information. The 
access to twenty four hour news and information can expose the family to rumors and 
misinformation, leading many to be overwhelmed and traumatized (Figley, 1993, 2005; 
Hogancamp & Figley, 1983). In addition, a deployment into a hostile environment 
creates distress among the families left behind on multiple levels causing what Schumm 
et al. (1994) refer to as a family crisis.  
17 
It has been noted that the effects of a wartime separation could be considered a 
traumatic experience for the families that the soldier has left behind (Dow-Holloway, 
2004; Drummet, Coleman & Cable, 2003; Peebles-Kleiger, & Kleiger, 1994). In their 
2007 report, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics state that the Walter Reed Institute had been following the reports and rates 
of post-traumatic stress disorder of soldiers returning from a combat deployment in Iraq, 
and found that between 15?30% of soldiers suffered some level of post-traumatic stress. 
Additionally, the Walter Reed Institute also noted that of the soldiers returning from 
deployments, the National Guardsmen tend to report higher rates of concern about their 
mental health than the Active Army. Though there is no evidence that the National Guard 
soldiers are less mentally sound than that of the Active Army the discrepancy in the 
reports is said to be due to several reasons which include the following: 
? Active component soldiers continue to work full time with their units, whereas 
reserve soldiers demobilize and lose the day-to-day support from unit peers. 
? Active component soldiers have steady access to the Army?s health facilities, 
while reserve component personnel often live far from Veterans 
Administration facilities, and may face legal barriers to receiving care if they 
fail to report problems soon after return from active service. 
? Reserve component soldiers face other stressors, such as sudden change after 
long deployment back to a full time civilian job. (p. 14) 
The emotional cycle and the needs of the families change in significant ways when 
separations are due to war. Just as Legan (1987) had identified seven stages to the cycle 
of deployment, Peebles-Kleiger and Kleiger (1994) outlined a seven phase emotional 
18 
cycle of deployment (ECOD) as it pertained to the effects of a wartime separation. The 
phases are identified with similar terminology: Phase 1: Initial shock; Phase 2: Departure; 
Phase 3: Emotional disorganization; Phase 4: Recovery and stabilization; Phase 5: 
Anticipation of homecoming; Phase 6: Reunion; Phase 7: Reintegration and stabilization. 
However, the experiences of the individual are more intense, and often filled with the fear 
of a family member?s safety and risk for death, constant misinformation and negative 
feedback from the media, uncertainty of the length of separation, the number of times a 
family member may be deployed and the interval of time between each deployment 
(Neubauer Lombard & Neubauer Lombard, 1997; Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994).  
During wartime separation, the rate of and time between recurring deployments 
and duration of the deployment has been suggested as having a significant impact on the 
families? ability to adjust. In a review of resilience theory literature conducted by Van 
Breda (2001), it was suggested that deployments under a month or over six months 
placed the most significant amount of stress on the family unit. The stress experienced 
during a deployment that was under one month was due to the inadequate amount of time 
to cope with the absence of the family member, whereas a deployment beyond six 
months left the individual too much time to cope with the absence of the family member. 
In a study conducted by Schumm, Knott, Bell, and Rice (1996) on the perceived effect of 
stressors on marital satisfaction among civilian wives of enlisted soldiers deployed to 
Somalia for Operation Restore Hope, it was suggested that deployments between two to 
four months provided families with an adequate amount of time to adjust to the situation 
and still feel a sense of family coherence. The authors suggested this timeline after 
reviewing the responses made by the wives on a pre and post-deployment survey in 
19 
regards to the impact the deployments had on their material satisfaction. Overall, it has 
been suggested that the personal stress and difficult family circumstances of those left 
behind during deployments are more intense during wartime than in peace (Kelly, 1994a; 
Kelly 1994b). 
ABC-X and Family Stress Theory 
 The amount of time a family has to adjust to the separation is only one factor that 
contributes to the successful adaptation of the individual and family. Another important 
factor that may have an impact on the individual and families ability to cope successfully 
with the stress of a wartime deployment may be the social support the individual or 
family has access too. Family stress and the ability to adapt in situations of crisis have 
been studied extensively since the Great Depression. The initial theory of family stress 
and coping was introduced in 1949 when Reuben Hill devised his ABC-X theory. The 
Great Depression left many families in extreme states of poverty; however there were 
many families that were able to survive the horrific circumstances. Hill was interested in 
those factors that contributed to the survival of these families as compared to the families 
who did not. In his initial study he identified two distinct and multifaceted variables that 
provided a buffering effect during times of crisis. The variables (B & C) provided the 
foundation for his ABC-X theory of family stress (Hill, 1949; McCubbin, et al., 1980; 
Patterson & McCubbin, 1984).  
In his ABC-X Theory, Hill (1949) identified the ?A? as the stress inducing event 
or adversity experienced. The ?A? interacts with the ?B? variable, which is the social 
support and connectedness of the family as a unit and within its community, as well as 
the resources available. Individuals and families that are able to develop and maintain the 
20 
complex supportive connected relationships both within the family and their community 
increase their ability to minimize the effects of the stressors experienced. As ?A? and ?B? 
interact, ?C? simultaneously intermingles with both. The ?C? variable is how the family 
defines or perceives the stressor. The family that perceives their circumstance as 
unmanageable or catastrophic decreases their ability to adapt and make the necessary 
adjustments in order to successfully survive a crisis. Finally, the interaction of the ?A?, 
?B?, and ?C? produce what Hill identified as the outcome or crisis (X) (Hill, 1949; 
McCubbin, Joy, Cauble, Comeau, Patterson, & Needle, 1980; Patterson & McCubbin, 
1984). 
The theory behind the ABC-X model is that an individual will have a propensity 
to search for support from their identified networks of assistance if they perceive their 
situation to be taxing. The exchange of the resources, whether internal or external to the 
individual, will in turn reduce or assist the individual in coping with the negative effects 
of the stressor. However, the search for and use of the supportive resources will only 
occur if the individual is aware of and certain that they can access and benefit from the 
support (Gore, 1985; Lawrence, 2006; Moelker & Van Der Klot, 2006). In addition, the 
research has suggested that many individual seeking supportive services will do so only 
to the extent for which they perceive themselves as similar to the support provider 
(Cohen & McKay, 1984; Gore, 1985; Lawrence, 2006; Thotis, 1986).   
The family stress theory of Hill (1949) has been extensively supplemented with 
the research of McCubbin and Patterson (1982). Their research has lead to the 
development of the double ABC-X model. This model adds to the basic and simplistic 
model of Hill (1949) by taking into account the multiple issues, resources and perceptions 
21 
that amass an individual during a stressful event. The logical quality the double ABC-X 
provides in understanding family stress and coping, has lead to its use within military 
research. During times of war there is a propensity to explore and understand the types of 
stressors families experience as a result of the frequent long-term deployments and 
separations. The stress related research among civilian females indicates that a period of 
separation from a loved one was considered significantly stressful. When placed on a 
ranking scale of other significant stressful events, this separation was the third most 
stressful event experienced by these females. Ahead of the separation was the death of a 
significant other or divorce (Homes & Rahe, 1967; Moelker, Andres, & Poot, 2006; 
Rosen & Moghadam, 2002; Rosenberg, 1989).  
The research conducted on the experience of stress and the separation of military 
wives from their spouses, indicates that there are high levels of anxiety during the 
absence of the solider. The anxiety increases when deployments extend beyond the time 
planned. Moelker et al. (2006) found that spouses of soldiers connected to the 
Implementation Force in Bosnia and Hercegovina (IFOR) reported that the length of 
deployment, which exceeded 12 months, was their primary source of anxiety; whereas 
the spouses of soldiers not deployed for extended periods of time were primarily 
concerned about the soldier?s safety (Bartone & Bartone, 1997). Though the stress of 
separation is common in military families, Eastman, Archer and Ball (1990) found that 
military wives cope better than civilian wives. In addition to the research conducted by 
Eastman et al., Moelker, Andres, and Poot (2006) concluded that the spouses of military 
were clear in the types of support they expect and wanted from the military. The most 
important source of support was the need for accurate information and the ability to 
22 
communicate with their loved one. When asked about the emotional support, the spouses 
were more likely to respond by stating that they prefer the support of family or friends. 
However, when asked if the community should provide informal or formal supports, the 
spouses agreed that this should be done but with no expectations of receiving anything in 
return (McCubbin et al., 1973; Moelker et al., 2006). The finding of this and other studies 
indicate that leadership, social support and networks are important factors that contribute 
to the healthy coping and decreased stress among families of the military (Blount, Curry, 
& Lubin, 1992; Pittman, Kerpelman, & McFadyen, 2004; Rosen, Teitelbaum, & 
Westhuis,1993).  
Social Support  
In times of stress and uncertainty, individuals are inclined to seek the 
encouragement and assistance of individuals they believe can provide them with physical 
or emotional comfort. Research has called attention to the potential moderating effects an 
individual may receive when they access social support resources. It is widely recognized 
that social relationships and connections have significant outcomes on the physical and 
mental health of an individual. When an individual decides to draw upon internal or 
external sources of support, their ability to handle the stress or cope is made stronger 
(Boss et.al., 1979; Figley, 1993; Figley, 2005; Jensen, Martin & Watanabe, 1996; 
Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997; McCubbin, 1979; McCubbin, Boss, Wilson 
& Lester, 1980; McCubbin, et.al, 1980). However, there is a notable difference in the 
definition of social support as identified by those who have researched it.  
In its most basic form, social support was defined in terms of an interaction, 
relationship or exchange among individuals (McCubbin, 1979; McCubbin, Boss, Wilson 
23 
& Lester, 1980; McCubbin, et al, 1980; Turner & Avison, 1985; Veiel & Baumann 
1992). This interaction is said to be reciprocal, in that both the provider and recipient will 
receive benefits of the exchange (Cohen & Syme, 1985; House, 1981; Langford et al., 
1997; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984; Tilden & Weinert, 1987). 
Throughout the years there have been multiple definitions of social support and 
what constitutes an effective positive exchange. Though the definitions appear to be 
different, there remain common themes among them all. In the early 1970s social support 
was looked at in terms of a resilience factor among families. Resilience, according to 
Walsh (2003), ?is the ability to withstand and rebound from disruptive life challenges? 
(p.2). Much of the early research on resilience focused on the individual, however the 
resilience of the family is not only impacted by each individual?s personal resilience 
factors, but how the individuals in the family function as a unit to create the resilience of 
the family (Walsh, 2003). Part of being a resilient family means that each individual and 
the unit as a whole must be able to access and use resources for support (Lee, et.al, 2004).   
In an attempt to provide an all encompassing definition of social support, Cohen, 
Mermelstein, Karmarck, and Hoberman (1985) concluded that ?social support is when 
another person provides another individual with resources? (p.15). In 1988 Cooke, 
Rossmann, McCubbin, and Patterson examined the meaning of social support further as 
they attempted to redefine and clarify its meaning. From the interviews they conducted, 
they were able to identify five categories and definitions that emerged from the research. 
Emotional Support: Information which leads you to believe that you are cared for 
and loved as a person; Esteem Support: Information which leads you to believe 
that you are valued and respected for who and what you are and what you do; 
24 
Network Support: Information which leads you to believe that you receive a sense 
of trust and security for belonging to a group to whom you are also obligated; 
Appraisal Support: Information which provides you with feedback about how you 
are doing and ideas for resolving difficulties; Altruistic Support: Information 
which leads you to believe that you are worthwhile because of what you have 
done with and for others. (p. 213) 
Years later, in a thorough review of the social support literature provided by Hupcey 
(1998) the findings of Cooke et al. (1988) were echoed by stating that the definition of 
social support cannot easily be established without considering the definition in terms of 
the five categories of social support classification. In efforts to expand the original 
thoughts of Cooke et al. (1988), the five categories took into account (a) the type of social 
support provided, (b) the recipients? perception of the support received, (c) the intentions 
or behavior of the person providing the support, (d) reciprocal support, and (e) social 
networks. It is important to note that social support and social networks differ in that 
social networks is the foundation for which the social support (i.e., purpose or task) that 
is provided during the reciprocal process (Berkman, 1984; Gottlieb, 1983; Hogue, 1985; 
Kahn, 1979; Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Langford et al., 1997). The social networks may 
operate through at least five primary pathways: (a) provision of social support, (b) social 
influence, (c) social engagement, (d) person-to-person contact, and (e) access to resources 
and material goods. These social networks are joined by one or more specific kinds of 
mutually dependent factors such as values, ideas, financial exchange, or friendship. 
Research in a number of academic fields has shown that social networks function on 
many levels, from families up to the interactions and daily operations of nations. The 
25 
social networks that are operating at these various levels play a vital role in determining 
the way problems are approached and answered, the ways in which organizations are 
operated, and the extent to which individuals accomplish their goals successfully 
(Albrecht & Adelman, 1987; Barnes, 1954; Bernard, Killworth, McCarty, Shelley, & 
Robinson, 1990; Burt, 1987; Cobb, 1976; Cronenwett, 1985a, 1985b; Cross, Parker, 
Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001; House, 1981; Kim & Stiff, 1991; Krause, 1986; Milardo, 
Johnson, & Huston, 1983; Uehara, 1990; Wellman, & Wortley, 1990). Despite the 
various definitions and conceptualizations of social support, one thing that many 
researchers do agree upon is that social support and the supportive relationships provided 
by the interactions offer a valuable alternative resource for coping and adjustment (Cohen 
et al.,1985; Hupcey, 1998; Pearson, 1986; Pilisuk, & Froland, 1978). 
During times of separation, social support is vital to the adjustment of individuals. 
During the Gulf War when commanders became aware that many of their soldiers and the 
soldier?s families did not have the basic knowledge of resources available to them, the 
Unit Family Readiness Group (formally known as the Family Support Group) became a 
mandatory requirement to address the needs of families (Mancini, 2006; Nola, 2008). 
During the Gulf War the families of soldiers deployed faced many significant stressors 
including rumors circulated by the increased media coverage. The commanding officer of 
the military unit and the FRG had the responsibility and duty to provide assistance to 
establish and preserve the readiness of the individual and families within the unit as well 
as clarify the rumors. However, in a study conducted by Schumm, Bell and Knott (2001) 
though the leaders of the military were significant factors in decreasing rumors, the 
family support groups had a tendency to continue the spread of rumors.  
26 
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2008), readiness is defined 
as being ?prepared mentally or physically for some experience or action.? The Family 
Readiness Group (FRG) helps to create a climate of mutual support within the unit and 
community. Basic FRG goals include supporting the military mission through provision 
of support, outreach, and information to family members. Though the FRG?s play an 
integral part in the Family and Soldier Readiness and consists of families and volunteers, 
it does not follow the same procedures and organization of the military (Nola, 2008).  
These groups provide a network of communication between the families, the unit 
Commanders, and their community. Individual Family Readiness supports vary; 
however, all FRG have a main goal of building a strong bond of support (Mancini, 2006). 
This support is critical for the families of Active Army and National Guard units as the 
psychological impact and the ramifications of multiple deployments to combat zones by a 
member of a family are yet to be seen. 
 Wexler and McGrath (1991) conducted an exploratory study of stress reactions 
experienced by military wives who were separated from their husband during the Persian 
Gulf War. The research suggested that certain subgroups of individuals were at greater 
risk for developing significant stress symptoms, and even though a few individuals had 
adequate support, a majority of the participants still felt there was a greater need for 
additional support services and support groups. Black (1993) concluded that many wives 
will not seek formal services due to stigma, and would prefer self-help or support groups 
as these allow spouses a means to express feelings, and discuss problems while receiving 
support. In addition, Rosen, Durand, and Martin (2000) identified three categories of 
27 
stressors individuals experienced during Operation Desert Storm. The three categories 
included: 
(1) Emotional, which includes the apprehension and worry over the safety of a 
solider as well as grieving the absence of a loved one.  
(2) Deployment Related, which includes the pressures of finances and other 
legal formalities such as Power of Attorney. 
(3) General Life Events, which include the care and discipline of children or 
the adjustment after a move to a new military installation or home. (p. 
148) 
The community of support and services offered to aid in family adjustment 
became an important factor after September 11, 2001. During this time, Burrell, Durand, 
and Fortado (2003) conducted a study that looked at the differences between the Active 
Army and Reserve components of the military in regards to the psychosocial issues and 
the contribution of support services. When the surveys were completed, the results 
concluded that the Reserve families were less integrated in the military community than 
those of the Active Army. However, it was noted that there was not a significant 
difference in community integration, which could have been a result of surveys 
completed by families of non-deployed soldiers. The authors commented that families of 
deployed soldiers will often seek information on the well-being of the solider that could 
only be obtained from the Unit, thus integrating them into the community. This study also 
revealed that only one-half of the National Guard units have a Family Support Group, 
and of the Active Army families that have access to a FSG only one-third utilized the 
supportive services provided. When asked about other support networks, it was noted that 
28 
nearly half of the Reserve families reported having no friends within their soldiers? unit. 
In contrast, families of the Active Army report having the support of friends within their 
community. Similarly, a survey conducted by Pittman et al. (2004) asked individuals to 
rate their level of personal and family adaptation as well as their use of and satisfaction 
with unit and community based services. The study concluded that a supportive unit 
culture and leadership were considered important links in family adaptation. 
Additionally, Moelker, Andres, and Poot (2006) found that 64% of family members 
perceived the support of family, friends or neighbors more useful than the family support 
the army made available. Furthermore, 39% of the individuals surveyed felt that the 
family support group meetings would be useful; however, 63% of them admitted to never 
attending leading the researchers to believe that the individuals consider the family 
support groups to be more beneficial to others.      
The military is aware of the significance of families. If the solider is not fully 
confident that his family is protected and well cared for, then the impact on the soldiers? 
performance and the safety of the other soldiers within the unit could have significant 
implications when deployed (Amen et al., 1988; Pittman, Kerpelman, & McFadyen, 
2004; Van Vranken et al., 1984). The deployment of a family member places the loved 
ones left behind under large amounts of stress (Miles, 2004). Since the beginning of the 
War on Terror in 2001, active army, reserve and National Guard soldiers have been 
deployed on multiple occasions, thus cause greater stress within the families. According 
to Lamberg (2008), child maltreatment was 42% greater in families during deployment. 
Another significant factor that has been said to contribute to the levels of stress within 
families of the military is the circulation of rumors. Rumors are the misinformation 
29 
family members receive about the deployment or the safety of the solider. The rumors 
become more of a contributing factor of stress, when the families left behind have had 
difficulty communicating and receiving information from their solider. During Desert 
Storm the spread of rumors and the subsequent control of the misinformation was a 
continuous challenge for the military and unit leaders. The more time a solider spent 
away from the family on deployment, the more rumor control was needed (Black, 1993; 
Figley, 1993; Schumm, Bell & Knot, 2001). Families that found the military and its 
leaders to be supportive were less likely to rely on rumors to fulfill their need for more 
information about the well-being of their solider; indicating that the unit leaders play an 
important role in rumor control. The more a unit?s leadership is perceived positively and 
supportive, the more likely it is that families and military community adjust positively in 
difficult situations (Bliese & Britt, 2001; Bliese & Halverson, 1998). 
In addition to the support of the unit leaders, Rosen and Moghadam (1988) found 
that the perceptions held by the wives of soldiers of the availability and support of other 
wives in the unit was significant in reducing stress reactions to the separation of 
deployment (Darwin, 2006; Lawrence, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pisarski, Bohle, 
& Callan, 2002; Pisarski, Lawrence, Bohle, Gallois, & Watson, 2005; Wortman & 
Dunkel-Schetter, 1987). The more the wives were connected with other spouses, the 
more likely they were to participate in the family support groups (Rosen & Moghadam, 
1990). Though the military has offered the families of career military personnel basic 
informal and formal supports, the Army Personnel Survey Office (2001) reported that 
most military families would not seek the supportive assistance from the unit of other 
formal programs even when available. However, after many years had passed and 
30 
multiple deployments experienced, the National Military Family Association (2006) 
found that individuals were aware of and more likely to seek the supportive services even 
though the stigma of receiving mental health serviced existed.  
The informal supports most often used by families of deployed soldiers were 
chaplains, family support groups, and rear detachment personnel (soldiers? not deployed 
with the unit for the purpose of assisting family members with issues or concerns related 
to the deployment of their solider). The services that are provided by these supports 
include pre-deployment briefings, newsletters, telephone communication trees and 
scheduled family social events (USASMA, 2003). The more formal military agencies 
such as Military Police, Inspector General?s Office, Judge Advocate?s Office, the post 
finance office, post school system, post community services and the American Red Cross 
are less likely to be used by the family members (Van Vranken et al., 1984). The 
implications from these studies suggest that a greater alliance between family support 
services and leadership is critical to solider and family coping during deployments.  
In a study conducted by Apellaniz (1998) related to the coping of Puerto Rican 
National Guard spouses during wartime, the wives felt the military did not provide the 
support or information they expected. In addition to the lack of support, the wives 
reported that the rumors circulated within the support groups in combination with the 
information they were receiving from the media and the military only contributed to the 
intensity of the stress experienced.  
Many of the studies conducted on deployment and the National Guard indicate 
that there is a gap in providing services to the soldiers and their families when they return 
home from war. Doyle et al. (2005) note that many communities and families will often 
31 
end up with the responsibility of providing care to the Reserve soldiers once they return 
home. The communities often carry this burden because military healthcare is not 
available in their communities, and once a Reservist is no longer on active military duty, 
their military care is suspended (APA, 2007; Hoshmond & Hoshmond, 2007; Lamberg, 
2008). The results of many of the studies conducted on family separation and military 
deployments indicate that family support services and a climate of support shown by 
military leadership is critical for the successful adjustment of families during the 
deployment process, and more needs to be done to strengthen supportive services offered 
to the families and soldiers of the Reserve units (Knox & Price, 1999).  
 Meaningful supportive relationships can have a significant impact on coping 
during a time of adjustment (Armstrong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, Kaniasty, & Ungar, 2005; 
Kaniasty, & Norris, 1993; Langford et al. 1997; Pearson, 1986). However, in their review 
of the literature, Rosen and Moghadam (1990) found that social support can only be 
effective in decreasing the effects of stress if the support matches the stress experienced. 
In addition that act of providing support can increase coping skills for the individual 
providing the supports, while the perceptions of the support can actually enhance (i.e., 
making more productive) or inhibit (i.e., decrease) the use of a positive coping skill 
(Lakey & Cohen, 2000; Pearson, 1986). In sum, if the individual does not perceive that 
they are being supported then the support, though it may be done with good intentions, 
can have a negative effect on the individual (Armstrong et al., 2005; Langford et al., 
1997; Pearson, 1986). 
  In an effort to synthesize the multiple definitions and numerous impressions of 
social support, Hupcey (1998) identified five themes that emerged throughout the 
32 
literature. The first theme that emerged was described as the type of support provided. 
She noted that Cobb?s 1976 definition of social support was the most concrete and 
applicable to this theme in that it explained social support in terms of communication that 
leads an individual to feel as if they are valued and a part of a social network or 
community. Decker (1978) surveyed 108 navy wives who experienced periods of 
separation from their spouse as a result of a deployment to sea. In the investigation it was 
determined that the wives would first attempt to cope with the stress of the separation by 
utilizing internal resources. If the internal resource was not sufficient to decrease the 
stress of the separation, then the individual would communicate and seek the assistance 
of her family, friends or neighbors.  
The second theme that emerged addressed the perceptions of those who received 
the support. In the study conducted by Rosen and Moghadam (1990) the perceptions of 
support, if positive, were effective in decreasing the stress of military wives who were 
separated from their husbands due to a military deployment. This study found that the 
perception of availability of social support was an important factor. The perception found 
to be most beneficial to these wives was the availability of social support from other 
military wives in the unit. Other sources of support were not found to be as effective. In 
similar studies, perceptions of the military community and unit commander were found to 
be effective in decreasing stress if they were seen as caring and supportive (Lawrence, 
2006; Pittman, Kerpelman, & McFadyen, 2004). This study specifically noted that this 
perception had a significant impact on the soldier?s ability to perform their job 
confidently and effectively. A positive perception of social support has been found to 
decrease emotional distress, and other mental and emotional disorders, especially if the 
33 
perceived support matches the stressor (Lakey & Cohen, 2000; Lakey & Scoboria, 2005). 
Other components that will have an impact on the perception of the support provided 
includes the timing of the support provided, awareness of the actual need, the ability to 
match the support to that need, the providers experience and knowledge of the stressor 
and need of the individual, as well as the expectations of the recipient (Hupcey, 1998; 
Kaniasty & Norris, 1993). 
 The third theme that emerged in Hupcey?s (1998) literature review of social 
support was the intentions and/or behaviors of the individual providing support. This 
theme has been identified as an interaction between two individuals for which the 
exchange of supportive resources is intended to enhance well-being (Armstrong et al., 
2005; Connell & D?Augelli, 1988). This interaction can become negative if the individual 
is not ready or able to receive the support. However, if an individual is ready and the 
provider?s intention was not to provide support or there is an imbalance in this 
relationship where one individual gives or takes more than they are giving, this reciprocal 
relationship can become negative if not harmful. Though the interaction is not the focus 
of the third theme, it was identified as a fourth theme: the mutual give and take of support 
is reciprocal between the provider and receiver (Armstrong et al., 2005; Connell & 
D?Augelli, 1988; Hupcey, 1998). The specific action of give and take in this sense was 
seen as the social support.  
 The final theme found in the literature on social support defines social support as 
the actual connection one has to their community and other individuals within that 
community (Armstrong et al., 2005; Hupcey, 1998; Pearson, 1986). In a review of the 
literature, McCubbin, and colleagues (1980) stress that social networks and communities, 
34 
though effective, can be inaccessible to individuals based on money, transportation, and 
other social factors. Likewise, Langford et al. (1997) caution individuals in assuming that 
a vast amount of support will be provided simply because there is a presence of a large 
network. When considering an individual?s social network one must include their 
neighborhood, families, friends, churches, support groups, etc. (McCubbin et al., 1980).  
When providing supportive services to National Guardsmen and their families, 
the providers of supportive services must also be aware of the needs, their accessibility, 
knowledge, and involvement in social networks. It is also important for support providers 
to keep in mind that the research suggests that these individuals and families tend to be 
less integrated within the military community. These limitations could be due to the fact 
that National Guardsmen and their families tend to live greater distances from military 
bases and military service providers. Other factors could also include a lack of 
knowledge, an inability to identify or express a need, or fear that the request, need, or use 
of a supportive service could potentially impact their family member?s career in the 
military in a negative way (Burrell et al., 2003).  
 Each of the multiple and diverse terms used to define social support provides a 
unique perspective. The ways in which one could define social support continues to be an 
issue today. Though this diversity exists, it would be beneficial to consider social support 
from a multidimensional perspective. However, the one concept that should always be 
included no matter how one chooses to define this concept would be the intentions of 
contributing to the well-being of others. The intentions to contribute to the well-being of 
others will inevitably mean that one must take the culture of the individual into account.  
35 
 Defining social support is a complex process that must be viewed from a 
multidimensional perspective. Social support has been defined in multiple ways and each 
provides a unique perspective. Though social support may be described as verbal or 
nonverbal information, tangible aid, action or presence that enhances the well-being of 
another individual; it would be beneficial to take into account that this term we all define 
differently has and continues to be a fundamental, reciprocal component of our 
development.  
 The effects of the continued war on terror can no longer be assigned to those 
individuals who live on military bases. According to Hoshmand and Hoshmand (2007), it 
has long been assumed that the civilian community should not worry about or provide 
services to this population because the military would care for their own. However, the 
military community cannot be left alone in their attempts to address the issues that many 
of our soldiers and families will face, as a greater number of soldiers and families 
impacted by the war are living in civilian communities and in our neighborhoods.  
 There are multiple counseling and therapeutic theories that may us understand 
what support services are most useful to the military and its families and why. It is 
important to consider these theories when discussing the impact of deployment and the 
mediating effects of support services.  
 
Theories of Social Support 
 The social exchange theory explains how we feel about a relationship with 
another person. The beliefs, values, and relationship orientations an individual associates 
with types of relationships in which an exchange occurs determines the level of trust and 
36 
commitment one has with the other individuals in that relationship (Homans, 1958; Haar, 
2006). The more trust and commitment one feels towards what they have with others in a 
relationship of exchange, the more likely they are to seek this supportive relationship and 
work to equally maintain balance in exchange. In a study conducted by Edwards, 
Hershberger, Russell, and Market (2001) it was determined that social support can be 
perceived negative even if the intention of the individual providing the support was 
positive, if there is an unhelpful or disappointing interaction and exchange of the support. 
Thus a positive social climate of support and assistance is needed in order for a positive 
exchange to occur (Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997). To further expand on 
the need for a positive social climate, the provider of the support must be aware that a 
need exists (Hupcey, 1998). Once a need is identified, Langford et al. (1997) state that 
social support can be assigned to one of four categories which include emotional, 
instrumental, informational and appraisal. Each allows for a balanced exchange to occur 
among the provider and recipient of the support. 
 In efforts to describe the categories for which social support can be assigned, 
Langford et al. (1997) suggested that the emotional aspect of support is the expressions of 
caring, love, trust, and belonging. It is the emotional aspects of support that are often 
considered the most influential and beneficial in a relationship, as it suggests that a 
person is valued and respected. For many, the giving of aid is their attempt at conveying 
love or support for another individual. However, according to Langford et al. (1997), the 
instrumental and emotional support can be distinguished by the fact that instrumental 
support is the tangible aid provided to an individual that suggests they are cared for. In 
continuing with their description of the categories of support, Langford et al. (1997) 
37 
attempted to describe informational support as the problem-solving communication of 
information and the appraisal support as simply affirmation that leads another towards 
further self-evaluation and problem solving. From a theoretical perspective, it would 
seem that the most beneficial explanation and use of the social support theory would be 
to reduce the effects of stressful events in one?s life through the belief that support is 
available or through the actual actions and receiving of the support. In order for the 
exchange of social support to be effective, the individuals involved in the exchange must 
know what the other means when the term ?support? is used.  
All relationships have a give and take, but sometimes this relationship is not 
always balanced and equal. The beliefs, values, and relationship orientations an 
individual associates with types of relationships in which an exchange occurs determines 
the level of trust and commitment one has with the other individuals in that relationship 
(Homans, 1958; Haar, 2006). The more trust and commitment one feels they have with 
others in a relationship of exchange, the more likely they are to seek this supportive 
relationship and work to equally maintain balance in exchange. In a study conducted by 
Edwards, Hershberger, Russell, and Market (2001) it was determined that social support 
can be negative, even if the intention was positive, if there is a negative exchange. Thus a 
positive social climate of support and assistance is needed in order for a positive 
exchange to occur (Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997). To further expand on 
the need for a positive social climate, the provider of the support must be aware that a 
need exists (Hupcey, 1998). Once a need is identified, Langford et al. (1997) state that 
social support can be assigned to one of four categories which include emotional, 
38 
instrumental, informational and appraisal. Each allows for a balanced exchange to occur 
among the provider and recipient of the support. 
 During times of separation, social support is vital to the adjustment of individuals. 
During the Gulf War when commanders became aware that many of their soldiers and the 
soldier?s families did not have the basic knowledge of resources available to them, the 
Unit Family Readiness Group (formally known as the Family Support Group) became a 
mandatory requirement to address the needs of families (Mancini, 2006). The Family 
Readiness Group (FRG) helps create a climate of mutual support within the unit and 
community. Basic FRG goals include supporting the military mission through provision 
of support, outreach, and information to family members. FRG play an integral part in the 
Family and Soldier Readiness and consists of families and volunteers. These groups 
provide a network of communication between the families, the unit Commanders, and 
their community. Individual Family Readiness supports vary; however, all FRGs have a 
main goal of building a strong bond of support (Mancini, 2006). This support is critical 
for the families of the National Guard as the psychological impact and the ramifications 
of multiple deployments to combat zones by a member of a family are yet to be seen.  
 As social beings, individuals face many challenges on a day to day basis that 
require them to work with others. The socio-cultural learning theory of Vygotsky and the 
social learning theory of Bandura both make the distinction between the individual 
working alone to effect change, and the collective community, where people work 
together in making changes or progress. In 2001, Bandura, who was the keynote speaker 
at the American Psychological Society, was quoted as stating, ?Social support is not a 
39 
self-forming entity waiting around to buffer us. We have to go out and find supportive 
relationships, maintain them. It requires social efficacy to do so? (Kester, 2001).  
 Bandura believed that the environment, the individual, and their behavior are 
simultaneously influencing the other. This concept was termed reciprocal determinism 
(Gredler, 2005). What was important about this theory was his belief that a person?s 
cognitive abilities, personality, beliefs, and values all influence behavior and 
environment. However, he also believed that a person?s behavior can affect their feelings 
about themselves and attitude towards others and their environment. Likewise, much of 
what a person is aware of cognitively comes from environmental factors such as 
television, internet, newspapers, and peers. What a person observes can have a powerful 
influence on their behavior. A study conducted by Bliese and Britt (2001) on the social 
context of stress and social support determined that an individual?s reactions to stress was 
influenced by their social environment. The positive social environments that lead to 
decreased stress all provided a sense of social identity and various forms of support. 
There was a strong interaction of personal beliefs, environment, and behavior. This study 
can be applied to the social-cognitive learning theory of Bandura in that his theory 
emphasized the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and 
emotional reactions of others.  
 The work of Bandura is complementary to the work of Vygotsky on socio-cultural 
learning. In his work, Vygotsky emphasized community, culture, common experiences, 
and networks of mutual support. It is not uncommon for individuals to seek community 
in times of distress. This theory describes learning as an interconnected process of 
communication, history, and culture. It was Vygotsky who suggested that it was the 
40 
culture that teaches an individual what to think and how to think. In order to for an 
individual to reach their full cognitive development, social interaction must occur 
(Renshaw, 2003).  
 The social-cognitive and socio-cultural learning theories can be tied to a social 
constructivist perspective when thinking of social support. Individuals who perceive and 
believe that their social supports are positive will be more likely to think about and 
interpret the behaviors of others and their environments as being supportive. The 
individual?s perceptions, behaviors and their environment all have a reciprocal effect in 
social support and well-being (Lakey & Cohen, 2000).  
 Vygotsky?s theory of socio-cultural learning asserts that culture is a prime 
determinant of individual development. Understanding the culture of an individual 
becomes important when attempting to provide any type of supportive service. This 
factor becomes even more significant when attempting to define a need and provide 
support to the families of National Guardsmen or other military personnel.  
 
Summary 
The theories of social support provide a better understanding of what factors need 
to be considered in the development of support services for families of deployed 
individuals. The implications from the military and deployment related studies suggest 
that a greater alliance between family support services and leadership is critical to solider 
and family coping during deployments. Providers support should be aware that 
separations experienced by the National Guard have a tendency to have a greater impact 
among these families, as these branches of the military do not see themselves as part of 
41 
the military community (Dunning, 1996). In addition, the families of the National Guard 
and Reserve do not live near military bases nor do they have immediate access to 
supportive services. Many of the studies conducted on deployment and the National 
Guard indicate that there is a gap in providing services to the soldiers and their families 
when they return home from war. Doyle et al. (2005) note that many communities and 
families will often end up with the responsibility of providing care to the Reserve soldiers 
once they return home. The communities often carry this burden because military 
healthcare is not available in their communities, and once a National Guard solider is no 
longer on active military duty, their military care is suspended. However, what is clear 
from the research previously reviewed is that most services being provided are focused 
on the individual and not the families. This greatly underestimates two important 
considerations: the importance of the family in helping the deployed individual transition 
and deal with their deployment and the significant social, psychological and emotional 
impact of deployment on families. Moreover, there have been suggestions that support 
services differ significantly for the Active Army and the military bases to the National 
Guard and the diverse communities in which they reside. Therefore, it is critical to 
examine whether these differences exist and the perception of these differences.  
 
42 
III. METHOD AND PROCEDURES 
 
Introduction 
 This study was interested in identifying if differences exist in deployment 
adjustment between the spouses of the National Guard and Active Army when evaluated 
on family coping, emotional health and social support. In addition, the study was 
interested in identifying the perceptions and experiences with supportive services of the 
National Guard and Active Army spouse. 
 
Research Questions 
1. What deployment adjustment differences exist between spouses of the 
National Guard and Active Army across measures a) Family Index of Coherence? b) 
Social Support Index? and c) Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale?  
2. What are the perceptions and experiences with supportive services of the 
National Guard and Active Army spouses? 
 
Participants 
 The participants of this study consisted of spouses of military personnel who were 
full-time Active Army or part-time National Guard. The spouses of the National Guard 
were from an Army Air Defense Artillery located in South Carolina, and the Active 
43 
Army families were from a military base in Georgia. The sample consisted of 200 
spouses who had been separated due to combat missions and/or non-combat missions 
(peacekeeping) at the time of this study or in the past. While participants of this study 
were selected as a convenience sample, they have been considered to be representative of 
other units across the country in regards to number and types of deployments experienced 
since September 11, 2001, as they have either been sent directly into combat or on 
deployments in support of the combat missions.  
 
Procedure 
This study was performed in combination with the work responsibilities of a 
Research Fellowship with the Army Research Institute, and the volunteer tasks for both 
the Family Readiness Groups of the National Guard and Active Army. Information about 
the research project was provided to thirty members of the National Guard and Active 
Army Family Readiness Group during a regularly scheduled monthly meeting. A brief 
presentation on the research topic was presented to the individuals present during this 
meeting. Handouts (Appendix C) with the same information from the presentation along 
with the online web address for the survey was provided for distribution. In efforts to 
encourage the 46,000 soldiers and family members of the Active Army military base in 
Georgia and 1,500 families and soldiers of the National Guard unit in South Carolina 
(Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, 2005) to participate in the survey, 
announcements were posted at the local command posts and the Family Readiness 
Leaders and other individuals affiliated with the military sent mass emails to all 
44 
individuals served by their unit or other individuals they knew personally had 
experienced a deployment.  
This study was set up so that participation was voluntary and anonymous such 
that neither the researcher nor military personnel will know if an individual opts not to 
participate. The participants were also informed that all the responses were kept 
confidential and could not be linked to them or their family member. 
The online survey was developed and posted on a secure site. The site chosen to 
develop this survey was surveymonkey.com. Survey monkey was chosen because of the 
security and confidentiality it offers participants. The website employs multiple layers of 
security to make sure that data remains private and secure. When family members 
accessed the web-based survey, they were initially provided with a consent document 
(Appendix B). The online survey provided families with an informed consent describing 
the purpose of the study, the demographic questionnaire, Family Index of Coherence 
(FIC), Social Support Index (SSI), and the Center for Epidemiological Studies 
Depression Scale (CES-D). Spouses were asked to participate in order to assess family 
coping, social support, individual and family needs, as well as overall satisfaction and 
awareness of support services offered by the military and Family Readiness Group. 
Having read the informed consent document, the participants providing assent continued 
the survey by continuing to the next page. There was no official deadline to have surveys 
completed. The survey and data collection remained active from beginning to end for one 
year. This was decided so that communication could be circulated throughout the units 
and by email to encourage as many individuals to participate. After receipt of approval of 
45 
the Auburn University Institutional Review Board (Appendix A) data analysis was 
conducted. 
 
Measures 
 Data collection measures include a Family Deployment Survey, Family Index of 
Coherence (FIC), Social Support Index (SSI), and the Center for Epidemiological Studies 
Depression Scale (CES-D). The Family Deployment Survey (Appendix D), created by 
the author, consists of 40 items that intends to elicit demographic data such as age, 
gender, race, number of children in the home, number of deployments experienced, as 
well as services accessed. This survey also provides open-ended questions to address 
additional information or concerns the respondent may have with regards to services 
and/or stressors experienced during deployments. 
 The Family Index of Coherence (FIC Appendix E) is a 17-item self-report 
measure developed by McCubbin and Patterson (1982) as a valid and reliable instrument 
with a Cronbach?s alpha at .85 establishing internal consistency, and a test-retest 
Pearson?s correlation coefficient of .86. In addition to the reliability measures, the Index 
was found to have both content and construct validity (McCubbin, Thompson, Pirner, & 
McCubbin, 1988; McCubbin, Patterson, & Lavee, 1983; McCubbin, Patterson, Cooke, & 
Rossman, 1983). The measure attempts to examine the degree to which families feel 
committed to the military lifestyle and mission, as well as how much they feel they can 
count on the military in times of need. Participants can respond to items by using a 
Likert-type scale with potential responses (0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = 
Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree). To score the FIC, items are summed (0 = Strongly Disagree, 
46 
1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Agree). However, reversal of items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
10, 16 are needed to ensure all items are scored in the same positive direction (3 = 
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Agree, 0 = Strongly Agree). 
 The Social Support Index (SSI Appendix F) developed by McCubbin, Patterson, 
and Glynn (1982), is a measure that consists of 17 items selected to record the degree to 
which families are integrated into the community. Additionally, the scale measures the 
degree to which the families view the community as a source of support and feel that the 
community can provide emotional, esteem, and network support. In further studies that 
utilized the Social Support Index with families, a Pearson?s correlation coefficient of .82 
established test-retest reliability; a Cronbach?s alpha at .82 established internal 
consistency as well as construct and content validity (McCubbin, & Thompson, 1992; 
McCubbin et al., 1994; Patterson, Jernell, Leonard, & Titus, 1994; Thompson, 
McCubbin, Thompson, & Elver, 1995).  
To score the SSI, items are summed (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = 
Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). However, reversal of items 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 
are needed to ensure all items are scored in the same positive direction (5 = Strongly 
Disagree, 4 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Agree, 1 = Strongly Agree). 
 The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Appendix G), 
developed by Radloff (1977), is a 20-item ordinal scale self-report instrument designed as 
a primary screening for clinical purposes and research on individuals in the general 
population who are considered to be at-risk for depression. The 20 items do not serve as a 
diagnostic instrument, but as a screening device to measure the degree of depressive 
symptoms individuals? experience. Reliability and validity scores from the scale have 
47 
been tested in general and clinical populations, yielding very good internal consistency 
with a Cronbach?s alpha of 0.85 for the general population and 0.90 for the psychiatric 
population. Clinical and self-report measures helped establish concurrent and construct 
validity of the measure (Radloff, 1977; Roberts, Vernon, & Rhoades, 1989). 
The survey consists of items measured on a 4-point ordinal scale addressing four 
factors (depressive affect, somatic symptoms, positive effect, and interpersonal relations). 
The items selected for this survey were chosen based on their past use and validation in 
previous depression scales (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961; Gardner, 
1968; Radloff, 1977; Raskin, Schulterbrandt, Reatig, & McKeon, 1969; Zung, 1965). 
Scores are obtained from the sum of the 20 items: 0 = Rarely or none of the time (less 
than 1 day), 1 = Some or little of the time (1?2 days), 2 = Occasionally or a moderate 
amount of time (3?4 days), and 3 = Most or all of the time (5?7 days). Scores range from 
0?60 and are not valid if answers to more than four items are missing. If the score is valid 
and higher than the cut-off of 16, the individual has indicated a high level of depressive 
symptoms (Radloff, 1977). 
 
Data Analysis 
 Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Services (SPSS) 
computer software. A descriptive analysis among samples was used to determine the 
significance of the research questions. The quantitative analysis used was an ANOVA to 
compare the two group?s differences, as well as the report of means and standard 
deviations. The qualitative information was obtained from open-ended questions. 
Utilizing grounded theory, a method of open and selective coding was utilized. Each line 
48 
of the participant responses to the open-ended questions were read in search of the 
answer that emerged to the repeated question ?what is this about?? Once this question 
was answered, a code or label was provided. This process was done informally through 
the use of selective coding in which one category was chosen to be the core category. All 
other categories that emerged as similar were placed under this one main category 
relating all other categories to that category. This was done in order to develop a single 
storyline or theme. In addition, the frequencies of the responses were categorized in rank 
order of what the participants reported to be most to least critical. The open-ended 
questions provided an opportunity for the participants to elaborate on how the military 
enforced separations impacted them, their children, and family.    
 
Summary 
 The research design and methodology chapter provided an overview of the direction 
and intent of this research study. Procedure methods were discussed as were the collection of 
data using the Family Index of Coherence (FIC), Social Support Index (SSI), and the 
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and demographic 
questionnaire. The protocol of this study is situational in nature and is not intended to be 
comprehensive. However, its intent is to explore the needs, issues and level of social support 
experienced by a few National Guard and Active Army spouses.  
49 
IV. RESULTS 
 
Introduction 
 The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the critical needs and 
issues the spouses of a National Guard unit and an Active Army unit have related to the 
deployment of a family member. In addition, the purpose of the present study was to 
examine the experiences of each spouse with the Family Support Services provided by 
their unit. The research questions examined were: 
1.  What deployment adjustment differences exist between families of the 
National Guard and Active Army across measures: a) Family Index of Coherence? b) 
Social Support Index? and c) Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale? 
2. What are the spouses? perceptions and experiences with supportive 
services of the National Guard and Active Army families? 
 To collect the research data, the Family Index of Coherence (FIC; McCubbin & 
Patterson, 1982), Social Support Index (SSI; McCubbin, Patterson, & Glynn, 1982), and 
Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) were 
used along with a researcher-developed family deployment survey of demographic 
information. The demographic Family Deployment Survey was based on the research of 
Jumper et al. (2005), Johnson et al. (2007), Burrell et al., (2003), and Hoshmand and 
Hoshmand (2007) which identified the challenges faced by families during a military 
50 
deployment (Appendix E). The demographic survey also included questions related to 
support services.  
 The FIC evaluated the degree to which families feel committed to the military 
lifestyle and mission, as well as how much they feel they can count on the military in 
times of need. This assessment instrument was selected based on the construct it was 
designed to measure and the strength of its reliability and validity. The current study 
expected to find differences in the level of family coherence reported between the 
National Guard spouses and Active Army. It was assumed that the National Guard 
spouses would have a lower level of family coherence as compared to the Active Army 
spouses. Similarly, the SSI was selected for the study based on the construct it was 
designed to measure as well as its strength of reliability and validity. The SSI evaluated 
the degree to which families are integrated into the community, view the community as a 
source of support and feel that the community can provide emotional, esteem, and 
network support. The study also expected to find differences in level of social support 
reported between the National Guard spouses and Active Army. It was assumed that the 
National Guard spouses would have a lower level of social support as compared to the 
Active Army spouses. Finally, the CES-D was selected based on its construct and its 
ability to screen for and measure the degree of depressive symptoms an individual 
experiences. As with the other constructs, it was assumed that the National Guard would 
score higher on levels of depression than the Active Army spouses. Information related to 
the demographics, the methodologies used, and the results of the statistical analysis are 
presented in this chapter.  
51 
Demographics 
 There were 206 spouses of National Guard and Active Army soldiers that 
participated in this study. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the demographic 
information of all 206 participants. These data are reported in Table 1. 
 
Table 1 
Demographic Information of All Participants  
Demographic Category N % 
Branch of Service 
 Active Army     117 56.8 
 National Guard    89 43.2 
Age 
 19-25      23 11.2 
 26-35      120 58.3 
 36-45      54 26.2 
 46-55      6  3.0 
 56-65      3 2.0 
Gender 
 Female      156 75.7 
 Male      50 24.3 
(table continues) 
 
52 
Table 1 (continued) 
Demographic Category N % 
Ethnicity  
 Caucasian 140 68.0 
 African American 50 24.3 
 Hispanic 7 3.4 
 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 0.5 
 Multi-Racial  8 4.0 
 
 
 The sample consisted of 206 participants who currently or had previously 
experienced a separation due to a military deployment. Participation in this study was 
restricted to individuals who self-identified as a spouse of a National Guard or Active 
Army soldier. The participants of this study were predominately female spouses (19 years 
or older) of National Guard and Active Army soldiers. Of the 206 participants, 117 
(56.8%) indicated that they were the spouse of an Active Army soldier, 89 (43.2%) were 
the spouse of a National Guard solider. The participants were asked to indicate their 
gender, age and ethnicity. Of the 206 participants 156 (75.7%) were female, and 50 
(24.3%) were male. The ages of the participants spanned from 19 years old to 65; 23 
(11.2%) were between the ages of 19 and 25; 120 (58.3%) between the ages of 26 and 35; 
54 (26.2%) between the ages of 36 and 45; 6 (3.0%) between the ages of 46 and 55; and 4 
(2.0%) were between 56 and 65. Regarding ethnicity, 140 (68.0%) were Caucasian; 50 
53 
(24.3%) were African American; 7 (3.4%) were Hispanic; 1 (0.5%) was Asian or Pacific 
Islander; and 8(4.0%) were Multi-racial. 
 
Reliabilities  
 Using a test-retest reliability measure McCubbin and Patterson (1982) reported a 
correlation coefficient at .85 (p < .0001) for the Family Index of Coherence indicating a 
high degree of reliability. The results of the current study support McCubbin and 
Patterson?s study. The results indicated a full scale internal consistency reliability 
estimate of .86 (p < .0001), supporting a high degree of internal consistency reliability 
(Table 2).   
The test-retest reliability measure McCubbin, Patterson and Glynn (1982) 
reported for the social support index was a Pearson?s correlation coefficient at .82. The 
results of the current study established an internal consistency reliability estimate with a 
Cronbach?s alpha of .87.  
Finally, the test-test reliability measure Radloff (1977) reported for the Center for 
Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale was a correlation coefficient at .85, 
indicating a high degree reliability. The results of this study support the Radloff study. 
Results indicate a full scale internal consistency reliability estimate of .96, supporting a 
high degree of internal consistency (Table 2). 
Table 2 provides the reliability estimates of the measures used for this study. The 
sample specific (National Guard and Active Army) were combined to obtain a full scale 
total reliability estimate for the measures used.  
 
54 
Table 2 
Reliability Analysis  
 
 # Items Mean (SD) Reliability 
Family Index of Coherence (FIC) 
Full Scale 17 25.49 (5.97) .86 
Social Support Index (SSI) 
Full Scale  17 42.54 (7.76) .87 
Center for Epidemiological Studies 
 of Depression (CES-D) 
 Full Scale  20  17.39 (11.04) .96 
 
 
Research Question One 
 Research question one examined whether there were differences between the 
spouses of National Guard and Active Army across measures: a) Family Index of 
Coherence, b) Social Support Index, and c) Center for Epidemiological Studies of 
Depression Scale.  
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the total survey 
score (the sum of all 17 items) of the Family Index of Coherence (FIC) to determine 
whether differences existed between groups (National Guard and Active Army) on this 
variable. The Family Index of Coherence acted as the independent variable in the analysis 
and the branch of service (National Guard and Active Army) as the dependent variable. 
Using an alpha level of .05, Levene?s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity 
55 
of variances was not violated, F(1,204) = .22, p = .64. The ANOVA was statistically 
significant, F(1,204) = 21.54, p < .001, with the mean for the Army Spouses being higher 
than the mean for the National Guard. See Table 3 for group means and standard 
deviations on the dependent variable. Additionally the effect size was medium to large, 
??= .09. The ANOVA results as well as the effect size suggest that differences do exist in 
scores on the Family Index of Coherence between branches of service.  
 
Table 3 
ANOVA: Family Index of Coherence (FIC) 
Source SS DF MS F 
Branch of Service 724.089 1 724.089 21.537 
Error 6858.712 204 33.621 
  
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the total survey 
score (the sum of all 17 items) of the Social Support Index  (SSI) to determine whether 
differences existed between groups (National Guard and Active Army) on this variable. 
The Social Support Index acted as the independent variable in the analysis and the branch 
of service (National Guard and Active Army) as the dependent variable. Using an alpha 
level of .05, Levene?s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was 
not violated, F(1,204) = .27, p = .60. The ANOVA was statistically significant, F(1,204) 
= 11.48, p = .001, with the mean for the Army spouses being higher than the mean for the 
National Guard (Table 4). Additionally the effect size was moderate, ??= .05. The 
56 
ANOVA results as well as the effect size suggest that differences do exist in scores on the 
social support index between branches of service.  
 
Table 4 
 
ANOVA: Social Support Index (SSI) 
Source SS DF MS F 
Branch of Service 626.735 1 626.735 11.474 
Error 11141.867 204 54.617  
            
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the total survey 
score (the sum of all 20 items) of the Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression 
Scale (CES-D) to determine if differences existed between groups (National Guard and 
Active Army) on this variable. The Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression 
Scale acted as the independent variable in the analysis and the branch of service (National 
Guard and Active Army) as the dependent variable. Using an alpha level of .05, Levene?s 
test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not violated, F(1,204) 
= 2.22, p = .14. Furthermore, the ANOVA was not statistically significant, F(1,204) = 
1.10, p = .30 (Table 5). However, the mean for the Army Spouses was lower than the 
mean for the National Guard. See Table 6 for group means and standard deviations on the 
dependent variable. Additionally the effect size was small, ??= .005. The ANOVA results 
as well as the effect size suggest that differences did not exist in scores on the Center for 
Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale between branches of service.  
 
57 
Table 5 
ANOVA: Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression (CES-D) 
Source SS DF MS F 
Branch of Service 136.428 1 136.428 1.107 
Error 25138.761 204 123.229  
 
Table 6 
Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Dependent Variable: CES-D  
Branch of Service M SD 
Army 16.83 11.4 
National Guard 18.47 10.7 
 
Question 2 
 
Research question two examined the perceptions and experiences the spouses of 
the Active Army and National Guard had with supportive services during or after a 
deployment. To examine these experiences a grounded theory approach with a method of 
open and selective coding was utilized. According to Borgatti (1997), open coding 
requires the researcher to read each line of participant responses and determine its 
meaning. Therefore, each line of the participant responses to the open-ended questions 
were read in search of the answer that emerged to the repeated question ?what is this 
about?? Once this question was answered a code or label was provided. This process was 
done informally through the use of selective coding in which one category was chosen to 
58 
be the core category. All other categories that emerged as similar were placed under this 
one main category relating all other categories to that category. This was done in order to 
develop a single storyline or theme. In addition, the frequencies of the responses were 
categorized in rank order of what the participants reported to be most to least critical. The 
open-ended questions provided an opportunity for the participants to elaborate on how 
the military enforced separations impacted them, their children, and family.    
As part of the survey the participants accessed via the web, 2 open-ended 
questions were asked to examine the experience with and perception of military and 
civilian support services. The questions were divided into a military support service 
category and civilian support service category. The questions included:  
? If you utilized military support services during the deployment of your spouse, 
were you satisfied with the support and service you received? If not satisfied 
with the support and service you received, please explain why? 
? If you utilized civilian support services during the deployment of your spouse, 
were you satisfied with the support and service you received? If not satisfied 
with the support and service you received, please explain why? 
 The results of both the military and civilian support service open-ended questions 
were reviewed and analyzed. The analyses lead to emergence of three major themes 
based on the significant statements: a) limited support, b) unsupportive climate of 
military community, and c) unaware of support. 
Limited Support 
 The responses provided by the spouses described the expectation that they would 
receive adequate support during a deployment, regardless of satisfaction. The statements 
59 
such as ?I thought the military would be more prepared and would be far more 
supportive.? and ?I was not sure what to expect before my husband was deployed, but I 
had hoped to receive some preparation and support throughout the deployment and when 
he returned home. The support that was available was often not what we needed.? 
Additionally, comments such as ?Based on the limited resources that the military seems 
to have available to the National Guard and its families, we didn?t expect much? seem to 
suggest that the expectations of support services provided by the military during and after 
a deployment were not fully met.  
To further expand upon the main theme of limited support the subcategories of no 
support available; low quality and not practical, were included as the respondents focused 
on the lack of support available to the family both in community and on the military 
bases. Statements such as ?My family and I do not live near a military base and we live 
too far from the unit, so we do not have any support available.? and ?When I tried to find 
out what services were available to me and my family while my husband was deployed, 
no one knew what they were or where we could get the answer.? seem to suggest that the 
support and service sought were not available or easily accessed. Statements such as, 
?The last deployment my husband experienced he was injured. It was a nightmare getting 
him the medical assistance he needed, plus getting any information from the military. 
Because of the lack of communication and information, my husband was made 
responsible for many of the medical bills he should not have been. There was also a lack 
of follow up on the behalf of the military to clear up any financial problems. Because of 
this, many bills were late and the harassment we received from medical bill collectors 
was consistent. There was no support made available to us during this time. We felt we 
60 
were left alone to deal with all of the issues related to the deployment and injury.? seem 
to suggest that the respondents feel that the support provided is not helpful and has not 
met their expectations of what they feel should have been provided. 
Unsupportive Climate of Military Community 
 Following the main theme of limited support, the responses described a feeling 
that the services and support received were not helpful. Two participants stated, ?The 
assistance was terrible and often late. Many of the people we had to deal with were 
unfriendly and made my husband and I feel like we were not important? and ?Many of the 
services we received were too little too late. It was almost as if the people assisting in the 
offices were always too busy and unconcerned with your problems.? Similar themes 
emerged in other responses as they described seeking support and not receiving the type 
of support expected, nor the treatment and respect they felt that they and their solider 
deserved for the sacrifices that were made. 
  In addition to not being beneficial, the respondents reported a feeling of 
uncertainty and fear of seeking services, as demonstrated by such responses as, ?My 
husband is currently deployed but when he returns I am worried how or if he will be the 
same. I am also not sure who we will turn to for help. If we go to the military I am afraid 
he will lose his benefits or career, and if we go somewhere that is not a part of the 
military how will we afford it. I am also not sure that many people will understand what 
we have been through.? The unsupportive experiences and the perception that a military 
career will be jeopardized indicates that families feel both military and civilian support 
services are not accommodating and may result in a negative and unnecessary encounter.  
61 
Unaware of Support  
In this cluster, respondents focused on the lack of military leadership, civilian 
community and personal awareness of support services available to assist the family with 
a deployment. The respondents indicate that there is an expectation that military 
leadership should be prepared and knowledgeable of what services are available and how 
to access them. There is a feeling that the lack of preparation and personal unawareness 
of supportive services had to do with the lack of training and preparation soldiers and 
families were given before deployments. Examples of statements that the theme emerged 
from include, ?The FRG I thought was supposed to help support families with concerns 
of deployment, but this has not been my experience. I have trouble getting someone to 
call me back and when I do get someone on the phone they cannot find the answer.? and 
?Not sure I would be able to identify the support services that are available without 
further research and I do not think there is anyone that could assist me with this. This 
would be a good suggestion for improvement within the FRG. There needs to be a better 
awareness of supportive services available.? The participant explanations of being 
unaware of support services during and after deployment indicate that the families feel 
unsupported and unprepared to deal with the challenges experienced as a result of a 
deployment.  
 
Summary  
 This research focused on the needs, issues and level of support experienced by the 
spouses of a National Guard Unit and an Active Army Unit during the Iraq War. The 
62 
participants in this consisted of 117 Active Army military spouses and 89 National Guard 
spouses.  
The current study utilized the Family Index of Coherence (FIC; McCubbin & 
Patterson, 1982), Social Support Index (SSI; McCubbin, Patterson, & Glynn, 1982), and 
Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) along 
with a researcher developed family deployment survey of demographic information, to 
explore the needs and level of support experienced by the military spouses. The results of 
this study found that the Active Army spouse scored higher than the National Guard 
spouses on all scales, indicating that they were more committed to the military lifestyle 
and mission, felt that they could count on the military in times of and found their 
communities to be more supportive. The Active Army spouses also indicated that they 
experienced less depression symptoms when scored on the Center for Epidemiological 
Studies of Depression Scale (CES-D). However, the most noteworthy finding in the 
current study was that both Active Army and National Guard spouses, when asked to 
describe their experiences in their own words, experienced the same difficulties with lack 
of social support and adjustment during the deployment of a family member. It was clear 
that there was a consensus of perceived lack of social support assessed by this research, 
which presents significant implications for the ways in which the civilian community as 
well as the military community respond to and provide supportive services to families 
and spouses of a deployed solider.  
63 
V. DISCUSSION 
 
Introduction 
 Research related to the military family and its experiences and adjustment to a 
deployment has gained much recognition over the last eight years. The purpose of this 
study was to explore the needs and support families of Active Army and National Guard 
soldiers experience during and after a deployment. More specifically, the purpose of the 
present study was to examine the adjustment of the spouses and families left behind 
during a deployment based on their responses to the Family Index of Coherence (FIC), 
Social Support Index (SSI), and the Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression 
Scale (CES-D). It was hypothesized that there would be differences between the National 
Guard spouses and Active Army spouses across scales and in their self-reported 
experiences and perceptions of the support received during a deployment.  
Data was collected by means of participant survey completion. A total of 206 
military spouses participated, 117 of the participants were the spouse of an Active Army 
soldier and 89 were the spouse of a National Guard solider. In this final chapter the 
findings will be explored, the limitations of the study will be examined, recommendations 
for future research will be presented, and implications for the counseling and military 
community will be examined.  
64 
Discussion 
 The responses of participants to the research questions indicate that there are 
differences among the National Guard and Active Army spouses with regards to their 
adjustment and experiences with support services during a deployment. The participant 
responses to the Family Index of Coherence (FIC), which was developed to assess the 
degree to which a family can count on the military in times of need as well as their degree 
of commitment to the military lifestyle (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982), indicated that the 
Active Army spouses were more committed to the military lifestyle and felt that they 
could count on the military during times of need, such as deployment, than the spouses of 
the National Guard. Additionally, the Active Army scores on the Social Support Index 
(SSI) indicated that the spouses found their community to be a greater source of support 
during a deployment and experienced less symptoms of depression (CES-D) whereas the 
spouses of the National Guard found their community to be less of support and reported 
higher symptoms of depression (CES-D).   
The distinctions between the two components of the military may be substantial; 
however the pressures each individual experiences during a deployment have a common 
theme. The findings of previous research indicate that individuals, when faced with the 
deployment of a family member, are all concerned for the health and well-being of their 
soldier. The daily fear of death or injury is constantly reinforced by the media. Therefore, 
the support provided by the military community becomes increasingly important, but 
only if the families perceive their unit commanders and unit as supportive (Burrell, 
Durand, & Fortado, 2003). Furthermore, the study conducted by Sandra Lawrence (2006) 
suggested that the perception one has on the availability of social support is important in 
65 
helping an individual cope with stress and the conflict one may have with one?s choice of 
work and commitment to their families. Burrell et al. (2003) noted that the National 
Guard, who were less integrated into the military community, were also less likely to 
seek help or support from their unit or Army if they needed assistance. Hoshmand and 
Hoshmand (2007) found that the issue of stigma becomes a significant factor when 
families of both Active Army and National Guard consider seeking supportive services. 
The first research question of this study examined whether any deployment 
adjustment differences existed between spouses of the National Guard and Active Army 
across measures a) Family Index of Coherence, b) Social Support Index, and c) Center 
for Epidemiological Studies of Depression Scale. The findings for all three measures 
were significant and suggested that there were differences. However, when the second 
research question was reviewed and the themes of the open-ended responses emerged, it 
would suggest that the differences may not be that significant, and that the Active Army 
experiences the same difficulties with lack of social support and adjustment as do the 
National Guard. A number of possibilities exist for the decrease in significance when the 
participant responses were reviewed.  
First, some studies have suggested that the National Guard have an advantage that 
active military do not, in that family support is readily available and accessible when 
needed (Doyle & Peterson, 2005). The difference in the support systems is that the active 
military supports often consist of individuals that are not related, and they are often asked 
to move away from their homes and families of origin.  
Many studies have been conducted on the military spouse and the adjustment 
during times of separation (Cozza, Chun, & Polo, 2005; Doyle & Peterson, 2005; Figley, 
66 
1993; Legan, 1987; Newby et al., 2005; Peebles-Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994; Wexler, & 
McGrath, 1991). In addition to the adjustment of an individual during a deployment, 
previous research on social support suggests that an individual will only search for 
support from their identified networks of assistance if the individual is aware of and 
certain that they can access and benefit from the support (Gore, 1985; Lawrence, 2006; 
Moelker & Van Der Klot, 2006). Moreover, the research has suggested that many 
individuals seeking supportive services will do so only to the extent for which they 
perceive the support provider as trusting and similar to themselves (Cohen & McKay, 
1984; Gore, 1985; Lawrence, 2006; Thotis, 1986). The individual responses of both the 
Active Army and National Guard suggested that the social support from the military and 
community providers was not what they expected, nor did it meet their needs. 
Additionally, many of the respondents made reference to the uninviting and unsupportive 
climate of the military community, stating that any weakness or problem faced by the 
individuals could result in the loss of military benefits or career.  The military however 
was not the only provider of support that was described as ineffective and unsupportive. 
The second research question asked the respondents to describe their experiences with 
both the community and military support services. The local communities of both the 
National Guard and Active Army spouses were said to be indifferent and unaware of the 
challenges and needs of military families, suggesting that there is a greater need for 
continued research and education on the needs of the military family. 
 
67 
Limitations of the Study 
 One of the primary limitations of this study was the potentially reduced reliability 
of the results based on the relatively small number of participants. While the reliability of 
the present results meet the requirements for statistical significance, an increased number 
of both Active Army and National Guard participants would have helped to confirm the 
results. Potential participants were selected from two primary locations which included a 
large Active Army base, and a large National Guard unit; it was thought that a large 
number of participants would be available, and of those a significant number would 
volunteer to participate. It was also thought that the unit commanders and leaders of the 
Family Support Groups would follow through and provide the families with the 
information to participate since they had agreed to do so. This did not occur at the level 
expected.  
 Another limitation of the study involved the data, which was based on self-reports 
of the spouses. The survey allows the spouse to provide a response based on their 
personal experiences and opinions of the support services experienced and their level of 
personal adjustment to the deployment of a spouse. However, the participants? individual 
perceptions of coping and experiences are subject to reporting bias. The individuals may 
present themselves more favorably and say that their experiences had been better than 
they actually were, or they may underestimate themselves and see a bad experience more 
negatively. Also, the measures chosen and the use of the computer for this study may not 
have adequately assessed the adjustment of the military spouse and their perceptions and 
experiences with the supportive services during a deployment. The use of the computer 
presents both positive and negative aspects. The computer generated survey assumes that 
68 
the participants has access to a computer and knows how to navigate and use the device. 
Additionally, the measures and length of the survey required the participant to be able to 
contribute at least 30 minutes of their time to complete the survey. This assumed that they 
had the time to give and were able to maintain the attention span to complete the 
instruments. Many of these factors may have contributed to the low number of 
participants. 
 
Implications for Counseling Professionals 
 A number of studies have been conducted on the experiences of the Active 
Military family and their adjustment during a deployment. Before the Gulf War, the 
experiences of the National Guard family and soldiers were not examined. Since 
September 11, 2001, all components of the military, including the Active Army and 
National Guard have experienced multiple and long-term separations from their families, 
communities and jobs as a result of a deployment. The effects of the separations as well 
as the effects of combat exposure on the individual and solider can no longer be ignored 
by the professional counseling community. The greater reliance on the National Guard 
during combat missions suggests that many families and communities will be impacted in 
some way by the deployment of a soldier. Additionally, the Active Army families are no 
longer tied to the bases they are assigned too. Many of these families are choosing to stay 
in their home towns or move from the bases when their solider deploys, thus placing 
them in the communities for which the counseling professional serves. Therefore, it 
becomes important that the professional counselor is aware of the individual culture and 
military culture of the consumers they may provide supportive services to both during 
69 
and after an experience with a deployment. The results also suggest that there is a need 
for counselors to become more informed advocates on behalf of this population.  
 
Implications for Military Support Service Providers 
 The military has done extensive research and continues to expand upon the 
research to better understand its soldiers and families. The previous research conducted 
by the military on the influences of family members and retention of soldiers indicates 
that the families are the most significant factor for the solider deciding to continue their 
career with the military (United States General Accounting Office, 2001). In addition to 
continuing the career with the military, the soldier?s reliance on the military to provide 
support for and care for their family in times of separation is another extremely important 
factor to the successfully safe completion of a military operation (Moncrief, 2008). 
 The results of this study indicate that Family Support Groups of both the Active 
Army and National Guard and its leadership should be provided with the most current 
research and information on the needs families of deployed soldier?s experiences. In 
addition to the provision of current information, the leaders should be briefed on the 
expectations and resources available through the military and the community. Both the 
Active Army and National Guard reported limited knowledge of support networks and 
services, suggesting that more comprehensive efforts need to be made to disseminate this 
information. In addition to increasing the information provided to the families, it seems 
that there is a greater need for more affordable and accessible services for the individual 
and family. Though the military has resources available to meet these needs, there still 
remains a stigma attached to accessing the services or seeking additional support. Many 
70 
of the family members fear that their soldier?s career or benefits would be jeopardized if 
they access services, especially military services. To help decrease the stigma, it is 
suggested that the military consider allowing civilian community service providers, such 
as professional counselors an office space or way to be more visible and accessible to the 
family members.  
 
Summary 
On September 11, 2001 the United States was forever changed. The impact and 
ramifications of the continued war reaches beyond the military and the soldiers that serve 
to defend our country. Of the 2 million military personnel serving in combat  since the 
beginning of the war, the National Guard Units represented nearly a half of the soldiers in 
combat (DOD, 2005). The greater reliance on the National Guard to serve combat-related 
missions has asked the families left behind to adjust to situations never before 
experienced. In addition, the communities in which the families live have been 
challenged to meet the growing needs of the families and soldiers of the military.  
The multiple combat deployments and frequent long-term separations ask that the 
families left behind face the challenges of dealing with the emotional, financial, social, 
and physical impacts of a deployment alone. The support networks available can greatly 
diminish the negative experiences and effects of such deployments as the research 
suggests that meaningful supportive relationships can have a significant impact on coping 
during a time of adjustment. This study has attempted to examine the needs and level of 
support the families of the National Guard and Active Army have when experiencing a 
deployment. Though there was a small sample in this study, the conclusions attained are 
71 
important to understanding the needs and expectations the families of deployed soldiers 
have as a result of multiple combat-related deployments. The study also provides a 
foundation for continued exploration on how the military and local community service 
providers can assist the families and soldiers affected by combat through the provision of 
supportive services.  
 
72 
REFERENCES 
 
Albrecht, M. B., & Adelman, T. L. (1987). Communication networks as structure of 
social support. In T. L. Adelman & M. B. Albrecht (Eds.), Communicating social 
support (pp. 40?64). London: SAGE Publications. 
Amen, D., Jellen, L., Merves, E., & Lee, R. (1988). Minimizing the impact of 
deployment separation on military children: Stages, current preventive efforts, 
and system recommendations. Military Medicine, 153(9), 441?446. 
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Military Deployment 
Services for Youth, Families and Service Members (2007). The psychological 
needs of the U.S. military service members and their families: A preliminary 
report. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from 
http://www.apa.org/releases/MilitaryDeploymentTaskForceReport.pdf 
Apellaniz, I. (1998). Coping with war enforced separation: A pilot study on the account 
by wives of Puerto Rican civilian soldiers. Dissertation Abstracts International 
59(10-B), (UMI number 9909145).  
Armstrong, M. I., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., & Ungar, M.T. (2005). Pathways between social 
support, family well being, quality of parenting, and child resilience: What we 
know. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(2), 269?281. 
73 
Army Personnel Survey Office, U.S. Army Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. 
(2001). Survey of army families IV. Alexandria, VA: Author. 
Bartone , P., Adler, A., & Vaitkus, M. (1998). Dimensions of psychological stress in 
peacekeeping operations. Military Medicine, 163, 587?593. 
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory 
for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561?571. 
Benson, D., & Van Vranken, E. (1977). Family responses to a study of available support 
services during separation (Report No. 77-30). San Diego: Family Studies 
Branch, Naval Health Research Center.  
Berkman, L. (1984). Assessing the physical health effects of social networks and social 
support. In L. Breslow, J. Fielding, & L. Lave (Eds.), Annual review of public 
health (pp. 413?422). Annual Reviews Incorporated, Palo Alto, CA. 
Bernard, H. R., Johnson, E., Killworth, P. D., McCarty, C., Shelley, G. A., & Robinson, 
S. (1990). Comparing four different methods for measuring personal social 
networks. Social Networks, 12, 179?215. 
Black, W. G. (1993). Military-induced family separation: A stress reduction intervention. 
Social  Work, 38(3), 273?280.  
Bliese, P. D., & Britt, T. W. (2001). Social support, group consensus and stressor-strain 
relationships: Social context matters. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 
425?436. 
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological wellbeing: 
A large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563?580. 
74 
Blount, B. W., Curry, A., & Lubin, G. (1992). Family separation in the military. Military 
Medicine, 157, 76?80. 
Boss, P., McCubbin, H., & Lester, G. (1979). The corporate executive wife?s coping 
patterns in response to routine husband-father absence. Family Process, 18, 79?
86. 
Boyd, J. H., Weissman, M. M., Thompson, W. D., & Myers, J. K. (1982). Screening for 
depression in a community sample. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1195?
1200. 
Burrell, L., Durand, D. B., & Fortado, J. (2003). Military community integration and its 
effect on the well-being and retention. Armed Forces and Society, 30(1), 7?24. 
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 
38, 300?314.  
Cohen, S., & McKay G. (1984). Social support, stress, and the buffering hypothesis: A 
theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S.E. Taylor, & J.E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of 
psychology and health (pp. 253?267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Karmarck, T., & Hoberman, H. M. (1985). Measuring the 
functional components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), 
Social support: Theory, research and application (pp. 73?94). Boston: Nijhoff. 
Cohen S., & Syme S. L. (1985). Issues in the application and study of social support. In 
S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds), Social support and health (pp. 3?22). Orlando, FL: 
Academic Press. 
75 
Commander?s Family Readiness Toolkit. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2007 from 
http://www.defenselink.mil/ra/documents/toolkit/Commanders%20Toolkit%2003
28.pdf 
Connell, C. M., & D?Augelli, A. R. (1988). Social support and human development: 
Issues in theory, research, and practice. Journal of Community Health, 13(2), 
104?114. 
Cooke, B., Rossman, M., McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1988).  Examining the 
definition and assessment of social support: A resource for individuals and 
families. Family Relations, 37, 211?216. 
Cozza, S. J., Chun, R. S., & Polo, J.A. (2005). Military families and children during 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Psychiatric Quarterly, 76, 371?378. 
Cronenwett, L. (1985a). Network structure, social support, and psychological outcomes 
of pregnancy. Nursing Research, 34(2), 93?999. 
Cronenwett, L. (1985b). Parental network structure and perceived support after birth of 
first child. Nursing Research, 34(6), 347?352.  
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. (2001). Knowing what we know: 
Supporting knowledge creation and transfer in social networks. Organizational 
Dynamics, 30, 100?120.  
Darwin, J. (2006). Reaching out to the families of those who serve: The SOFAR Project. 
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 481?484. 
Decker, K. (1978). Coping with sea duty: Problems encountered and resources utilized 
during periods of family separation. In E. J. Hunter & D. S. Nice (Eds.), Military 
families (pp. 113?129). New York: Praeger.  
76 
Department of Defense. (2005). Armed forces strengths figures for October 31, 2005. 
Retrieved November 1, 2007 from 
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/mmidhome.htm  
Department of Defense. (2008). Armed forces strengths figures for October 15, 2008. 
Retrieved October 15, 2008 from 
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/mmidhome.htm  
DiNola, G. (2008). Stressors afflicting families during military deployment. Military 
Medicine, 173(5), 5?7. 
Dow-Holloway, J. (2004). Army uncovers mental health-service gap. APA Monitor on 
Psychology, 35(7), 36?37. 
Doyle, M. E., & Peterson, K. A. (2005). Re-entry and reintegration: Returning home after 
combat. Psychiatric Quarterly, 76, 361?370. 
Drummet, A. R., Coleman, M. & Cable, S. (2003). Military families under stress: 
Implications for family life education. Family Relations, 52, 279?287. 
Dunning, C. M. (1996). From citizen to soldier: Mobilization of reservists. In R. J. 
Ursano & A. E. Norwood (Eds.), Emotional aftermath of the Persian Gulf War: 
Veterans, families, communities, and nations (pp. 197?225). Washington, DC: 
American Psychiatric Press. 
Eastman, E., Archer, R., & Ball, J. (1990). Psychosocial and life stress characteristics of 
Navy families: Family Environment Scale and Life Experiences Scale findings. 
Military Psychology, 2, 113?127.  
77 
Edwards, K. J., Hershberger, P. J., Russell, R. K., & Markert, R. J. (2001). Stress, 
negative social exchange, and health symptoms in university students. Journal of 
American College Health, 50(2), 75?79. 
Figley, C. R. (1993). Coping with stressors on the home front. Journal of Social Issues, 
49(4), 51?71. 
Figley, C.R. (2005). Strangers at home: Comment on Dirkzwager, Bramsen, Ader, and 
Van der Ploeg. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 227?229. 
Gore, S. (1985). Social support and styles of coping with stress. In S. Cohen & S. Syme 
(Eds.), Social support and health. New York: Academic Press.   
Gottlieb, B. (1983). Social support strategies: Guidelines for mental health practice. 
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.  
Gredler, M. E. (2005). Albert Bandura?s Social-Cognitive Learning Theory. In Learning 
and Instruction: Theory into practice (pp. 342?379). New Jersey: Pearson 
Education Inc.  
Haar, J. M. (2006). Challenge and hindrance stressors in New Zealand: Exploring social 
exchange theory outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource 
Management, 17(11), 1942?1950. 
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.  
Hogancamp, V. E., & Figley, C. R. (1983). War: Bringing the battle home. In C. R. 
Figley & H. I. McCubbin (Eds.), Stress and the family: Coping with catastrophe 
(pp. 148?165). New York: Brunner/Mazel. 
78 
Hogue, C. (1985). Social support. In J. Hall & B. Weaver (Eds.), Distributive nursing 
practice: A systems approach to community health (pp. 58?84). Philadelphia PA: 
J.B. Lippincott.  
Holmes & Rahe (1967). Holmes-Rahe life changes scale. Journal of Psychosomatic 
Research, 11, 213?218. 
Homans, G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 
597?606. 
Hoshmand, L. T., & Hoshmand, A. L. (2007). Support for military families and 
communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(2), 171?180. 
House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.  
Hunter, E. J. (1982). Families under the flat: A review of military family literature. New 
York: Praeger. 
Hupcey, J. E. (1998). Clarifying the social support theory-research linkage. Journal of 
Advanced Nursing, 27, 1232?1241. 
Jensen, P. S., Xenakis, S. N., Wolf, P., & Bain, M.W. (1991). The military family 
syndrome revisited: By the numbers. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 
179(2), 102?107. 
Jensen, P. S., Martin, D., & Watanabe, H. K. (1996). Children?s response to parental 
separation during Operation Desert Storm. Journal of American Academy of Child 
& Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 433?441. 
Johnson, S., Sherman, M., Hoffman, J., James, L., Johnson, P., Lochman, J. et al. (2007). 
The psychological needs of the U.S. military service members and their families: 
A preliminary report (Presidential Task Force on Military Deployment Services 
79 
for Youth, Families and Service Members). Washington, DC: American 
Psychological Association.   
Jumper, C., Evers, S. Cole, D., Raezer, J. W., Edger, K., Joyner, M., & Pike, H. (2006). 
Cycles of deployment: An analysis of survey responses from April through 
September 2005. Alexandria, VA: National Military Family Association. 
Retrieved October 21, 2007 from http://www.nmfa.org/site/DocServer/ 
NMFACyclesofDeployment9.pdf?docID=5401 
Kahn, R. (1979). Aging and social support. In M. Riley (Ed.). Aging from birth to death: 
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview.  
Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles 
and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and 
behavior (pp. 253?286). New York: Oxford University Press. 
Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F.H. (1993). Social support dynamics in adjustment to disasters. 
In S. R. Sarason & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal relationships: Implications for 
clinical and community psychology (pp. 201?224). New York: John Wiley & 
Sons.  
Kelley, M. L., Herzag-Simmer, P. A., & Harris, M. A. (1994). Effects of military-induced 
separation on the parenting stress and family functioning of deploying mothers. 
Military Psychology, 6, 125?138. 
Kester, J. D. (2001). Bandura: Beliefs, bobo, and behavior. American Psychological 
Society Observer, 14(6). Retrieved November 1, 2007 from  
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/0701/keynote.html 
80 
Kim, H., & Stiff, J. (1991). Social networks and the development of close relationships. 
Human Communication Research, 18, 70?90. 
Knight , R. G., Williams, S., McGee, R., & Olaman, S. (1997). Psychometric properties 
of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in a sample of 
women in middle life. Behavior Research & Therapy, 35(4), 373?380. 
Knox, J., & Price, D. H. (1999). Total force and the new American Military Family: 
Implications for social work practice. Families in Society, 80(2), 128?136. 
Krause, N. (1986). Social support, stress, and well-being. Journal of Gerontology, 41(4), 
512?519. 
Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support theory and measurement. In S. Cohen, L. 
Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and 
intervention: A guide for heath and social scientists (pp. 29?52). New York: 
Oxford University Press. 
Lakey, B., & Scoboria, A. (2005). The relative contribution of trait and social influences 
to the links among perceived social support, affect, and self-esteem. Journal of 
Personality, 73(2), 361?388. 
Lamberg, L. (2006). When military parents are sent to war, children left behind need 
ample support. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(13), 1541?
1542. 
Langford, C. P., Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., & Lillis, P. P. (1997). Social support: A 
conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 95?100. 
81 
Lawrence, S. A. (2006). An integrative model of perceived available support, work-
family conflict, and support mobilization. Journal of Management and 
Organization, 12(2), 160?178. 
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.  
Lee, I., Lee, E., Kim, H. S., Park, Y. S., Song, M., & Park, Y. H. (2004). Concept 
development of family resilience: A study of Korean families with a chronically 
ill child. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13, 636?645. 
Legan, K. V. (1987). The emotional cycle of deployment. U.S. Naval Proceedings, 113, 
43?47. 
Mancini, D. (2006). U.S. Army FRG leader?s handbook. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from 
http://www.armyfrg.org/skins/frg/display.aspx?moduleid=8cde2e88-3052-448c-
893d-d0b4b14b31c4&CategoryID=1e9b3feb-985e-4dd2-b5b2-
db37a8aa0d63&ObjectID=9f160323-3fb2-4097-9a64-da80876bedd5 
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2008). Readiness. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from  
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/readiness 
McCubbin, H. I, Joy, C. B., Cauble, A. E., Comeau, J. K., Patterson, J. M., & Needle, R. 
H. (1980). Family stress and coping: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and 
Family Counseling, 42(4), 855?871. 
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1982a). Self Reliance Index (SRI). In H. I. McCubbin, 
A. I. Thompson & M. A. McCubbin, Family assessment: Resiliency coping and 
Adaptation-Inventories for research and practice (pp. 625?637). Madison: 
University of Wisconsin System. 
82 
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1982b). Family Index of Coherence (FIC). In H. I. 
McCubbin, A. I. Thompson & M. A. McCubbin, Family assessment: Resiliency 
coping and Adaptation-Inventories for research and practice (pp. 625?637). 
Madison: University of Wisconsin System. 
McCubbin, H. I., Patterson, J., & Glynn T. (1982). Social Support Index (SSI). In H. I. 
McCubbin, A. I. Thompson & M. A. McCubbin, Family assessment: Resiliency 
coping and Adaptation-Inventories for research and practice (357?389). 
Madison: University of Wisconsin System. 
McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., Cooke, B., & Rossman, M. (1983). Social Support Inventory 
(SSI). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.  
McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., & Lavee, Y. (1983). One thousand army families: Strengths, 
coping and supports. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Family Social 
Science.  
McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1992). Research utilization in social work practice 
of family treatment. In A. J. Grasso & I. Epstein (Eds.), Research utilization in the 
social  
sciences: Innovations for practice and administration (pp. 149?192). New York City, 
NY: Haworth. 
McCubbin, H., & Thompson, A. (1992). Resiliency in families: An east-west perspective. 
In J. Fisher (Ed.), East-west directions: Social work practice, tradition, and 
change (pp. 103?130). Honolulu HI: School of Social Work, University of 
Hawaii. 
83 
McCubbin, H., Thompson, A., Thompson, E., Elver, K., & McCubbin, M. (1994). 
Ethnicity, schema, and coherence: Appraisal processes for families in crisis. In H. 
I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. Fromer (Eds.), Sense of 
coherence and resiliency: Stress, coping and health (pp. 41?67). Madison, WI: 
University of Wisconsin System.  
McCubbin, H., Thompson, A., Pirner, P., & McCubbin, M. (1988). Family types and 
strengths: A life cycle and ecological perspective. Edina, MN: Burgess 
International.  
Miles, D. (2004). Stress levels high among service members, some red flags raised. 
American Forces Press Service. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from 
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2004/n03092004_200403092.html 
Milardo, R., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships:  
Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 964?976. 
Moelker, R., Andres, M., & Poot, G. J. A. (2006). Supporting Military Families ? A 
Comparative Study in Social Support Arrangements for Military Families 
(Theoretical Dimensions & Empirical Comparison between Countries). Retrieved 
October 7, 2007 from http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD= 
A472686&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.p 
Moncrief, A. (2008). Solider and family assistance centers: Taking care of those who are 
taking care of us. The Exceptional Parent, 69?72. 
Murray, W. (1999). Does military culture matter? Orbis, 43(1), 27?43. 
84 
National Guard Bureau. (2007). History fact sheet. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from 
http://www.ngb.army.mil/media/factsheets/12_ARNG_History_Fact_Sheet.pdf 
National Military Family Association (2006). National Military Family Association 
report on the cycles of deployment survey:  An analysis of survey responses from 
April-September 2005. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.nmfa.org/ 
site/PageServer?pagename=Publications 
Neubauer Lombard, D., & Neubauer Lombard, T. (1997). Taking care of our military 
families. Families, Systems and Health, 15(1), 79?83. 
Norwood, A. E., Fullerton, C. S., & Hagen, K. P. (1996). Those left behind: Military 
families. In R. J. Ursano, & A. E. Norwood (Ed.), Emotional aftermath of the 
Persian Gulf War: Veterans, families, communities, and nations (pp. 163?196). 
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc. 
Newby, J. H., McCarroll, J.E., Ursano, R.J., Zizhong, F., Shigemura, J., & Tucker-Harris, 
Y. (2005). Positive and negative consequences of a military deployment. Military 
Medicine, 170, 815?819. 
Norwood, A. E, & Ursano R. J. (1996). The Gulf War. In: Ursano R.J, Norwood A.E, 
(Eds.). Emotional aftermath of the Persian Gulf War: Veterans, families, 
communities, and nations (pp. 3?21). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric 
Press. 
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (2005). Military Community and 
Family Policy. 2005 Demographics Report. Retrieved October 21, 2007 from 
http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/mcfp.html 
85 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 
(2007). Defense Science Task Force on Deployment of Members of the National 
Guard and Reserve in the Global War on Terrorism (DSB Publication No. 20301-
3140). Washington, DC: Author.  
Patterson, J., Jernell, J., Leonard, B., & Titus, J. (1994). Caring for medically fragile 
children at home: The parent-professional relationship. Journal of Pediatric 
Nursing, 9(2), 98?106. 
Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1984). Gender roles and coping. Journal of 
Marriage and  the Family, 46(1), 95?104. 
Pearson, J. E. (1986). The definition and measurement of social support. Journal of 
Counseling and Development, 64, 390?395. 
Peebles-Kleiger, M. J., & Kleiger, J. H. (1994). Reintegration stress for Desert Storm 
families: Wartime deployments and family trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 
7, 173?194. 
Pilisuk, M., & Froland, C. (1978). Kinship, social networks, social support, and health. 
Social  Science and Medicine, 12, 273?280. 
Pisarski, A., Bohle, P., & Callan, V. (2002). Short communication: Extended shifts in 
ambulance work: Influences on health. Stress and Health, 18, 119?126.  
Pittman, J. F., Kerpelman, J. L., & McFadyen, J. M. (2004). Internal and external 
adaptation in Army Families: Lessons from Operations Desert Shield and Desert 
Storm. Family Relations, 53, 249?260. 
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the 
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385?401. 
86 
Raskin, A., Schulterbrandt, J., Reatig, N., & McKeon, J. (1969). Replication of factors of 
psychopathology in interview, ward behavior, and self report ratings of 
hospitalized depressives. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 148, 87?96. 
Renshaw, P. D. (2003). Community and learning: Contradictions, dilemmas ad prospects. 
Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(3), 355?370. 
Roberts, R., Vernon, S. W., & Rhoades, H. M. (1989). Effects of language and ethnic 
status on reliability and validity of the CES-D with psychiatric patients. Journal 
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 581?592. 
Rosen, L. N., & Moghadam, L. Z. (1990). Matching the support to the stressor: 
Implications for the buffering hypothesis. Military Psychology, 2(4), 193?204. 
Rosen, L. N., Teitelbaum, J. M., & Westhius, D. (1993). Stressors, stress mediators, and 
emotional well-being among spouses of soldiers deployed to the Persian Gulf 
during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 
1587?1593. 
Rotter, J. C., & Boveja, M.E. (1999). Counseling military families. Family Journal of 
Counseling & Therapy for Couples & Families, 7, 379?382. 
Schumm, W. R., Knott, B., Bell, D. B., & Rice, R. E. (1996). The perceived effect of 
stressors on marital satisfaction among civilian wives of enlisted soldiers 
deployed to Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. Military Medicine, 161, 601?
606. 
Shumaker, S., & Brownell, A. (1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing 
conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 11?33.  
87 
Stuart, J., & Halverson, R. (1997). The psychological status of U.S. Army soldiers during 
recent military operations. Military Medicine, 162, 737?743. 
Thompson, E., McCubbin, H., Thompson, A., & Elver, K. (1995). Vulnerability and 
resiliency in Native Hawaiian families under stress. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. 
Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. Fromer (Eds.), Resiliency in ethnic minority 
families: Native and immigrant American families, Volume 1 (pp. 115?131). 
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin System.  
Tilden, V., & Weinert, S. (1987). Social support and the chronically ill individual. 
Nursing Clinics of North America, 22(3), 613?620. 
Turner, R., & Avison, W. (1985). Assessing risk factors for problem parenting:  The 
significance of social support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(4), 881?
892. 
United Nations (2007). Peacekeeping. Retrieved October 7, 2007 from 
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp 
United States General Accounting Office (2001). Military personnel: Longer time 
between moves related to higher satisfaction and retention (GAO-01-841). 
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.  
Uehara, E. (1990). Dual exchange theory, social network analysis and informal social 
support. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 521?557. 
Van Breda, A. D. (2001). Resilience theory: A literature review (MPI/R/104/12/1/4, dd 
October  2001). Pretoria, South Africa: South African Military Health Service, 
Military Psychological Institute, Social Work Research, & Development. 
Available: http://www.vanbreda.org/adrian/resilience.htm 
88 
Van Vranken, E., Jellen, L., Knudson, K., Marlowe, D., Segal, M. (1984). The impact of 
deployment separation on Army families (Report WRAIR NP-84-6). Washington, 
DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.  
Veiel, H., & Baumann, U. (1992). The many meanings of social support. In Veiel, H., & 
Baumann, U. (Eds.), The meaning and measurement of social support (pp.1?9). 
Hemisphere, New York.  
Walsh, F. (2003) Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 
42(1), 1?18. 
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community 
ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558?588.  
Wexler, H. K., & McGrath, E. (1991). Family member stress reactions to military 
involvement separation. Psychotherapy, 28, 515?519. 
Winemiller, D. R., Mitchell, M. E., Sutliff, J., & Cline, D.J. (1993). Measurement 
strategies in social support: A descriptive review of the literature. Journal of 
Clinical Psychology, 49(5), 638?648. 
Wortman, C., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1987). Conceptual and methodological issues in the 
study of social support. In Baum, A, & Singer, J. (Eds.). Handbook of psychology 
and health (pp. 63?108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  
Zich, J. M., Attkisson, C. C., & Greenfield, T. K. (1990). Screening for depression in 
primary clinics: The CES-D and the BDI. International Journal of Psychiatry in 
Medicine, 20, 259?277. 
Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 
12, 63?70. 
89 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDICES 
 
 
Appendix A     
 
Family Deployment Survey 
 
Demographics: Please respond to the following 
1. Please indicate the branch of service your family member or loved one serves. 
Army 
Army Reserve 
National Guard 
 
2. AGE: 
 
 
3. GENDER: 
Male 
Female 
 
4. ETHNIC BACKGROUND: 
Caucasian 
African American 
Hispanic 
Asian/Pacific Islander 
Native American 
Multi Racial
Other: 
 
 
5. RELATIONSHIP TO SOLIDER: 
Spouse 
Partner 
Mother 
Father 
Sibling 
Fianc? 
Grandparent 
Other: 
 
 
6. NUMBER OF CHILDREN CURRENTLY LIVING IN THE HOME: 
No Children 
Other: 
 
 
90 
7. ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? 
Yes 
No 
 
8. ARE YOU CURRENTLY WORKING FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME? 
Full-time 
Part-time 
 
9. IS YOUR SPOUSE, FAMILY MEMBER, OR LOVED ONE CURRENTLY DEPLOYED? IF 
YOUR ANSWER IS NO PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 11. 
Yes 
No 
 
10. IF DEPLOYED, HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN GONE? 
Less than one month 
1-6 months 
6-12 months 
12-18 months 
More than 18 months 
Other: 
 
 
11. IF YOUR SPOUSE, FAMILY MEMBER, OR LOVED ONE IS NOT CURRENTLY 
DEPLOYED, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE THEIR LAST DEPLOYMENT? 
Less than one month 
1-6 month 
6-12 months 
12-18 months 
More than 18 months 
Other 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
91 
12. HOW MANY TIMES HAS YOUR SPOUSE, FAMILY MEMBER, OR LOVED ONE 
BEEN DEPLOYED IN THE LAST 6 YEARS? 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
More than 6 
 
13. HOW MUCH NOTIFICATION WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE MOST RECENT 
DEPLOYMENT EXPERIENCED? 
1-3 weeks 
1-3 months 
4-8 months 
9-12 months 
Other: 
 
 
 
14. Please identify the personal stressors or concerns you are currently experiencing as a result of 
deployment. If you are not currently experiencing a deployment, what were some of the 
concerns you experienced during a previous deployment? (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT 
APPLY) 
Financial concerns 
Emotional concerns 
Anxiety about deployment
Dealing with concerns of 
children 
Communication with 
spouse during deployment 
Lack of social support 
Lack of information about 
deployment and spouse's well-
being 
Limited information or 
support from the military 
No Concerns or Stressors
Other concerns experienced during deployment: 
 
 
 
 
92 
15. Please identify any concerns you experienced after your loved one returned from a 
deployment, or the concerns you experienced during the time between multiple deployments. 
Financial Concerns 
Emotional Concerns 
Anxiety about the 
deployment 
Dealing with the concerns 
of the children 
Helping your loved one 
with adjustment 
 
Helping your loved one 
with medical or health 
issues related to the 
deployment. 
Helping your loved one 
with emotional or 
psychological issues 
related to the deployment. 
Marital relationship stress 
 
Lack of social support 
Limited information or 
support from the military 
No concerns 
Other concerns 
   
16. Are you familiar with your local Family Readiness Group and what they do? 
Yes  No 
 
17. Do you know where and when the Family Readiness Group meets? 
Yes  No 
 
18. How did you hear about the Family Readiness Group? 
Solider 
Family member 
Friend 
Internet 
Newsletter 
Unit Commander 
Family Readiness Group 
member 
Other: 
 
 
19. Do you participate in Family Readiness meetings? 
Yes 
No 
93 
20. Do you and your family participate in any events sponsored by the Family Readiness Group? 
(examples include: Holiday potlucks, bake sales etc.) 
Yes 
No 
 
21. Do you receive a Family Readiness newsletter or information about the group by internet? 
Yes 
No 
 
22. Do you think the Family Readiness Group is effective in supporting and communicating with 
families? 
Yes 
No 
 
23. If you answered NO to question 22, please explain why you feel the Family Readiness Group 
has not been effective in supporting or communicating with families. 
 
24. Please provide any comments or suggestions on how you would improve the Family 
Readiness Group. 
 
25. During deployment, did you; your family or loved one utilize any military family support 
services? 
Yes 
No 
 
26. If you utilized any military support services during deployment, how did you locate the 
service you needed? 
Solider 
Family Member 
Friend 
Internet 
Newsletter 
Unit Commander 
Family Readiness Member 
or Leader 
Other: 
 
94 
27. If you utilized military support services, what types of services did you receive? 
Financial Assistance 
Legal Assistance 
Medical Assistance 
Assistance with Childcare 
Counseling (Family or Individual) 
Assistance from a Chaplain 
Other 
 
 
28. If you utilized support services, were you satisfied with the support and service you received? 
Yes 
No 
 
29. If you answered NO to question 28, and you were not satisfied with the services you received, 
please explain why? 
 
30. If you did not utilize supportive services during deployment, would you; your family or loved 
one have benefited from any services? 
Yes 
No 
 
31. If you answered YES to question 30, what support or services would you have liked to 
receive? 
 
32. If you did not utilize any support services during deployment, what were some of the reasons 
you did not seek support if it was needed? 
No support was needed 
Was not aware of any support services 
Was afraid of what others may think 
Was afraid of what my solider may think 
Was concerned how it may affect my 
soldier?s career 
Felt as if the unit commander, other leaders 
and military community would not be 
supportive. 
Other 
 
 
 
95 
33. During deployment, did you; your family or loved one utilize any Civilian support services? 
Yes 
No 
 
34. If you utilized civilian support services during deployment, how did you locate the support 
you needed? 
Solider 
Family Member 
Friend 
Internet 
Newsletter 
Unit Commander 
Family Readiness Member or Leader 
Other: 
 
 
35. If civilian support services were utilized, what types of services were accessed? 
Financial Assistance 
Employment Services 
Social Services 
Counseling (Family or Individual) 
Other: 
 
 
36. If civilian support services were utilized during deployment, were you satisfied with the 
support and service you received? 
Yes 
No 
 
37. If you answered NO to question 36, and you were not satisfied with the support you received 
please explain why. 
 
38. If you did not utilize services during deployment, would you, your family or loved one have 
benefited from any Civilian support services? 
Yes 
No 
 
 
96 
39. If you answered YES to question 38, what services would you have needed, please explain. 
 
 
40. If you did not utilize any supportive services during deployment, what were some of the 
reasons you did not seek support if it was needed? 
Did not know how to locate the services I 
needed 
Was worried about the cost 
Was afraid of what others may think 
Was afraid of what my solider may think 
Was concerned how it would affect my 
soldier?s career 
Felt as if the unit commander, other leaders 
and military community would not be 
supportive. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97 
98 
Appendix B 
 
CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES DEPRESSION SCALE  
(CES-D) 
 
PURPOSE:  The following scale was developed by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies 
(Lenore S. Radloff, 1977). This is a short, self-reporting scale intended for the general 
population. 
DIRECTIONS:  Please read the following statements and rate how often you have felt 
this way during the past year:             0 = Rarely or none of the time 
                1= Some or a little of the time  
     2= Occasionally or a moderate amount of time 
     3= Most or all of the time  
  
During the past year: Rarely or 
none of the 
time 
Some or a 
little of the 
time 
Occasionally or a 
Moderate amount 
of time 
Most or 
all of 
the time 
1.  You were bothered by things that 
usually don?t bother you. 
0 1 2 3 
2.  You did not feel like eating: your 
appetite was poor. 
0 1 2 3 
3.  You felt that you could not shake 
the blues even with help from 
your family or friends. 
 
0 
 
1 
 
 
2 
 
3 
4.  You felt that you were just as 
good as other people. 
3 2 1 0 
5.  You had trouble keeping your 
mind on what you were doing. 
0 1 2 3 
6.  You felt depressed. 0 1 2 3 
7.  You felt that everything you did 
was an effort. 
0 1 2 3 
8.  You felt hopeful about the future 3 2 1 0 
9.  You thought your life had been a 
failure. 
0 1 2 3 
10.  You felt fearful. 0 1 2 3 
11.  Your sleep was restless 0 1 2 3 
12.  You were happy. 3 2 1 0 
13.  You talked less than usual. 0 1 2 3 
14.  You felt lonely. 0 1 2 3 
15.  People were unfriendly. 0 1 2 3 
16.  You enjoyed life. 3 2 1 0 
17.  You had crying spells. 0 1 2 3 
18.  You felt sad. 0 1 2 3 
19.  You felt that people disliked you. 0 1 2 3 
20.  You could not get ?going? 0 1 2 3 
 
 
Appendix C 
 
Family Index of Coherence (FIC) 
 
 
99 
Appendix D 
 
Social Support Index (SSI)  
 
 
 
 
100 
 
 
 
101 
Appendix E 
 
Information Sheet 
 
 
102 
 
 
 
 
 
103 
Appendix F 
 
Department of the Army: Consent to Use Data  
 
104