View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Development, Validity, and Reliability of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Family Resilience in Military Families

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Development, Validity, and Reliability of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Family Resilience in Military Families
Language: English
Authors: Travis N. Ray, Alejandro P. Esquivel, Valerie A. Stander, Hope S. McMaster, Scott C. Roesch, Froma Walsh
Source: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2024 57(4):299-317.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: US Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED)
Contract Number: N1240
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Test Construction, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Measures (Individuals), Self Evaluation (Individuals), Family Characteristics, Resilience (Psychology), Military Personnel, Spouses, Factor Analysis, Well Being, Armed Forces, Mental Health, Physical Health, Positive Attitudes, Religious Factors, Marital Satisfaction, Children, Stress Variables, Family Relationship
DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2024.2321937
ISSN: 0748-1756
1947-6302
Abstract: Objective: This study aimed to develop a brief and valid measure of family resilience for use in research with military families. Method: A population-based sample of military spouses (N = 16,379) completed assessments of family resilience and validation constructs. Participants were randomized into two subsamples. Subsample 1 was used in a factor analysis to reduce the number of items, whereas subsample 2 was used in a series of models to confirm the initial model and evaluate dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Results: Nine items were retained and demonstrated strong factor loadings (> 0.80) in the initial and confirmatory models. A bifactor model provided some evidence of multidimensionality, but not enough to dismiss the unidimensional construct. Brief measures of family resilience and its subconstructs demonstrated strong reliability and construct validity. Conclusions: The 9-item instrument is a reliable and valid tool that can be used to assess military family resilience in future research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1443659
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE6NlR6VuM_YzaxslyBSTUgAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL1xbluTyoFiaMvCPgIBEICBm3RlHEjF0wgIbG11P3aAA4OcABWCuU5PvNpKiyJbkpxoBH1vaPjL8YT6gBuU3vynv8EgH_4WN37zNlV2PoFTx8ueGVNupIZluoB2bHFieu5JwI6KwofB5w7EEAa_LPupz7Hh4L2tMH_N1F9d_6X6sMmm6RRiFjXnfXJ3UpMGQ6oQ2tEHVAETVf1cBAADn5rqskdTzZKbRhNi4I7e
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180231277;mev01oct.24;2024Oct15.04:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180231277-1">The Development, Validity, and Reliability of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Family Resilience in Military Families </title> <p>Objective: This study aimed to develop a brief and valid measure of family resilience for use in research with military families. Method: A population-based sample of military spouses (N = 16,379) completed assessments of family resilience and validation constructs. Participants were randomized into two subsamples. Subsample 1 was used in a factor analysis to reduce the number of items, whereas subsample 2 was used in a series of models to confirm the initial model and evaluate dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Results: Nine items were retained and demonstrated strong factor loadings (>.80) in the initial and confirmatory models. A bifactor model provided some evidence of multidimensionality, but not enough to dismiss the unidimensional construct. Brief measures of family resilience and its subconstructs demonstrated strong reliability and construct validity. Conclusions: The 9-item instrument is a reliable and valid tool that can be used to assess military family resilience in future research. Significance statement: The brief 9-item measure reduces survey burden and facilitates further empirical research on family resilience in military populations. Such research could inform interventions and preventative care intended to improve the health and well-being of military families.</p> <p>Keywords: Military family resilience; military spouses; shared beliefs; organizational patterns; communication</p> <p>Military service is associated with a host of stressors that can adversely affect the health and well-being of service members and their families. Among these are potentially long work hours, trauma exposure, family separation, relocation, and uncontrollable working conditions (Campbell & Nobel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]). Research on family systems has shown that stressors experienced by an individual can impact the entire family and other members in their relational networks (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]). This may be especially true within military families, because many of the challenges faced by service members can disrupt family functioning and members' personal lives (e.g. social support, childcare arrangements, career aspirations), including permanent changes of stations (PCS), extended time away (e.g. deployment, temporary duty travel [TDY], temporary additional duty [TAD]), or reintegration into civilian life. However, family strengths that are characteristic of resilience can help families flourish despite military-life stressors. Family resilience not only promotes positive relationship outcomes within military families, but also may support better adjustment among individual family members, benefit military population health, and contribute to force readiness (O'Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]; Pullman & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>]; Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]; Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref6">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>A leading theoretical perspective on family resilience comes from the Walsh Family Resilience Framework. Walsh ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref7">55</reflink>]) defines family resilience as a family's ability to endure and recover from disruptive life challenges as a stronger and more resourceful unit. This goes beyond merely coping with stressful events. Rather, family resilience involves personal and relational growth forged through challenging life experiences. There are three key aspects of the Walsh Family Resilience Framework: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>) shared belief systems, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>) organizational patterns, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>) communication processes (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]). Shared belief systems allow family members to make meaning of stressful situations, develop or maintain a positive outlook, and transcend challenges through shared values or spirituality. Healthy organizational patterns include family connectedness or cohesion, flexibility to meet the demands of challenges, and the ability to mobilize resources to support recovery from adversity. Finally, resilient families tend to communicate with clarity and open emotionality, while also able to collaboratively problem solve through brainstorming, shared decision making, and active learning (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref13">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref14">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Walsh ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref15">56</reflink>]) explains that families are often well-equipped to endure short-term, minor crises but may fracture under conditions of cumulative strain. The construct of family resilience is therefore most appropriately applied to families exposed to complex or multilayered stressors. In the civilian context, this can include transitions into parenthood (Young et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref16">63</reflink>]), divorce (Greene et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]), death of a family member (Greeff et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]; Hooghe & Neimeyer, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]), natural disasters (Osofsky & Osofsky, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref20">41</reflink>]), and serious illness or disability (Rolland & Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>]; West et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref22">61</reflink>]). The onset of these challenging life events has the potential to severely alter family functioning by disrupting relational patterns, but also may introduce subsequent stressors. For example, parenthood may entail financial strain; divorce involves residential and co-parenting changes and may lead to challenges in stepfamily integration upon remarriage; and chronic illness or disability may require substantial lifestyle changes (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]). Although failure to adequately deal with compounding stress is associated with diminished physical, social, and mental health outcomes, the family's ability to adapt can support positive growth (Maurović et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref25">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the military context, family resilience comprises the transactional processes through which military families adapt and grow following military-life challenges like deployment or PCS (Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref26">48</reflink>]). The mounting empirical literature on military family resilience consists of research exploring resilience factors among military dependents (Bullock et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]; Pullman & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref28">46</reflink>]), family members' ability to endure deployment and reintegration (O'Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]), and interventions to enhance resilience in military families (Lester et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]; Saltzman et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref32">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref33">51</reflink>]). This literature generally indicates that most military families are well adjusted despite exposure to military-life stressors (Manser & Ogilvie, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]; Wadsworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref35">54</reflink>]). However, vital mechanisms underlying military family resilience continue to be detailed. For example, recent studies indicated that family communication was protective against marital instability in military couples (Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref36">44</reflink>]), and a pattern of strengths characterized by high levels of self-mastery, positive outlook, spirituality, social support, and family communication was associated with better marital quality reported by military spouses (Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unfortunately, not enough research has focused on elucidating military family resilience and operationalizing the construct (Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]). As a result, researchers have not had access to a theoretically grounded measure of family resilience developed and validated for military populations. Importantly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] (2019) reviewed the resources and programs offered to military families to promote resilience. The academies concluded that advancement in this area has been hindered by the lack of a consistent definition and assessment of military family resilience, and called for the development of a validated measure. Furthermore, military populations are inundated with lengthy surveys that contain redundant information (Klahr, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]; Winkie, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref40">62</reflink>]). This highlights the need to develop a brief measure, which would not only standardize and advance the empirical understanding of family resilience within military contexts, but also aid social scientists whose research designs require the assessment of numerous constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-2">Current Research</hd> <p>To address current research deficits, the goal of this study was to develop a brief and valid self-report measure of family resilience in military families. The research also integrated theory (i.e. the Walsh Family Resilience Framework; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref41">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref42">57</reflink>]) into the empirical item reduction process to ensure the brief measure retained content validity. Analyses were conducted using two subsamples of data from the Millennium Cohort Family Study (MCFS). The analysis conducted with the first subsample sought to reduce the number of items used to assess family resilience whilst retaining its theoretical utility, whereas the analysis of the second subsample aimed to confirm the results of the first subsample, evaluate the measurement structure of the data, and verify the reliability and validity of the final measurement tool.</p> <p>We began with an initial set of items drawn from the Walsh Family Resilience Questionnaire (Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref44">57</reflink>]) and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES IV; Olson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]; Olson & Barnes, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]; Olson & Gorrall, 2006). In the initial analysis with subsample 1 data, we expected these items to strongly load onto their respective factors (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication processes). However, we further expected that some would load more strongly than others, and not all items would be necessary to maintain theoretical relevance, thus allowing for the development of a shortened measure. In the subsample 2 analysis, we more specifically hypothesized that the significant factor loadings observed for the retained items in subsample 1 would be confirmed, and that the brief measure would demonstrate multidimensionality, strong internal reliability, and construct (i.e. convergent and discriminant) validity.</p> <p>Regarding convergent validity, prior research indicates that family resilience is a predictor of family functioning and consists of processes that support individual-level resilience and well-being (Maurović et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>]; Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref48">32</reflink>]; Pullman & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref50">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref51">57</reflink>]). Therefore, it was expected that indicators of family functioning (i.e. social support of family, marital quality, marital dissolution, parenting alliance), individual-level resilience (i.e. self-mastery, positive outlook, spirituality), and well-being (i.e. mental functioning) would have moderate to large associations with family resilience. In contrast, physical health and the effects of military life are expected to have relatively weaker associations with family resilience. For example, resilient military families are thought to bounce back from the adversity of military life as a more resourceful unit (Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]), which may in turn positively impact various aspects of family members' lives (e.g. physical health, career and educational development, ability to cope with stress; Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]; Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref54">48</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref56">57</reflink>]). These indirect associations occurring over time imply that family resilience is likely to have small associations with physical functioning, military-life impact, and military-life stress. Observed associations that align with these expectations would provide evidence of discriminant validity.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-4">Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria</hd> <p>Military spouses who participated in the most recent data collection cycle (2019–2021) of the MCFS (<emph>n</emph> = 22,401) were considered for sample inclusion. Participants were excluded if they were divorced or widowed (<emph>n</emph> = 790), neither individual in the couple was serving in the military at the time of survey completion (<emph>n</emph> = 1975), or the participant did not complete at least 75% of the family resilience items included in the study (<emph>n</emph> = 3257). This resulted in a total sample size of 16,379.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-5">Participant Characteristics</hd> <p>Most participants were female (90.26%; <emph>n</emph> = 14,784), under the age of 35 (79.08%; <emph>n</emph> = 12,953), White (68.14%; <emph>n</emph> = 11,160), and had never served in the military (87.09%; <emph>n</emph> = 14,265). Approximately half of all participants held a Bachelor's degree or higher (49.78%; <emph>n</emph> = 8154). Few participants had separated from their spouses at the time of survey completion (1.65%; <emph>n</emph> = 271). Most families had at least one child (60.13%; <emph>n</emph> = 9,848) and an annual household income (i.e. service member income, spouse income, and basic allowance for housing) of less than $100,000 (76.23%; <emph>n</emph> = 12,486). Army was the most common branch of service (42.23%; <emph>n</emph> = 6917). Most service members were enlisted (70.05%; <emph>n</emph> = 11,474) and serving on active duty (82.50%; <emph>n</emph> = 13,513). Table 1 presents a complete breakdown of demographics characteristics.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Total (<italic>N</italic> = 16,379)</td><td>Subsample 1 (<italic>n</italic> = 8190)</td><td>Subsample 2 (<italic>n</italic> = 8189)</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Sex</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">14,784</td><td char=".">90.26%</td><td char=".">7396</td><td char=".">90.31%</td><td char=".">7388</td><td char=".">90.22%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">1595</td><td char=".">9.74%</td><td char=".">794</td><td char=".">9.69%</td><td char=".">801</td><td char=".">9.78%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">1.20</td></tr><tr><td> 17–24 years</td><td char=".">3748</td><td char=".">22.88%</td><td char=".">1872</td><td char=".">22.86%</td><td char=".">1876</td><td char=".">22.91%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> 25–34 years</td><td char=".">9205</td><td char=".">56.20%</td><td char=".">4615</td><td char=".">56.35%</td><td char=".">4590</td><td char=".">56.05%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> 35–44 years</td><td char=".">2211</td><td char=".">13.50%</td><td char=".">1085</td><td char=".">13.25%</td><td char=".">1126</td><td char=".">13.75%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Greater than 44 years</td><td char=".">386</td><td char=".">2.36%</td><td char=".">199</td><td char=".">2.43%</td><td char=".">187</td><td char=".">2.28%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Race and Ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">8.24</td></tr><tr><td> African American or Black</td><td char=".">878</td><td char=".">5.36%</td><td char=".">444</td><td char=".">5.42%</td><td char=".">434</td><td char=".">5.30%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Asian American</td><td char=".">1230</td><td char=".">7.51%</td><td char=".">643</td><td char=".">7.85%</td><td char=".">587</td><td char=".">7.17%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Hispanic or Latinx</td><td char=".">2919</td><td char=".">17.82%</td><td char=".">1465</td><td char=".">17.89%</td><td char=".">1454</td><td char=".">17.76%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Native American</td><td char=".">76</td><td char=".">0.46%</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">0.37%</td><td char=".">46</td><td char=".">0.56%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">11,160</td><td char=".">68.14%</td><td char=".">5545</td><td char=".">67.70%</td><td char=".">5615</td><td char=".">68.57%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> None of the above</td><td char=".">47</td><td char=".">0.29%</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">0.34%</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">0.23%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Military Status</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">4.79</td></tr><tr><td> No Military Experience</td><td char=".">14,265</td><td char=".">87.09%</td><td char=".">7177</td><td char=".">87.63%</td><td char=".">7088</td><td char=".">86.56%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Veteran</td><td char=".">843</td><td char=".">5.15%</td><td char=".">396</td><td char=".">4.84%</td><td char=".">447</td><td char=".">5.46%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Dual Military</td><td char=".">1258</td><td char=".">7.68%</td><td char=".">610</td><td char=".">7.45%</td><td char=".">648</td><td char=".">7.91%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.67</td></tr><tr><td> High School Diploma or Less</td><td char=".">2044</td><td char=".">12.48%</td><td char=".">1033</td><td char=".">12.61%</td><td char=".">1011</td><td char=".">12.35%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Some College/Associate's</td><td char=".">6154</td><td char=".">37.57%</td><td char=".">3092</td><td char=".">37.75%</td><td char=".">3062</td><td char=".">37.39%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Bachelor's or Higher</td><td char=".">8154</td><td char=".">49.78%</td><td char=".">4053</td><td char=".">49.49%</td><td char=".">4101</td><td char=".">50.08%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Marital Status</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">2.74</td></tr><tr><td> Married</td><td char=".">16,099</td><td char=".">98.29%</td><td char=".">8035</td><td char=".">98.11%</td><td char=".">8064</td><td char=".">98.47%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Separated</td><td char=".">271</td><td char=".">1.65%</td><td char=".">149</td><td char=".">1.82%</td><td char=".">122</td><td char=".">1.49%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Number of Children</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">2.65</td></tr><tr><td> 0</td><td char=".">6508</td><td char=".">39.73%</td><td char=".">3238</td><td char=".">39.54%</td><td char=".">3270</td><td char=".">39.93%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> 1</td><td char=".">4313</td><td char=".">26.33%</td><td char=".">2127</td><td char=".">25.97%</td><td char=".">2186</td><td char=".">26.69%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> 2</td><td char=".">3403</td><td char=".">20.78%</td><td char=".">1718</td><td char=".">20.98%</td><td char=".">1685</td><td char=".">20.57%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> 3 or more</td><td char=".">2132</td><td char=".">13.02%</td><td char=".">1093</td><td char=".">13.35%</td><td char=".">1039</td><td char=".">12.69%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Annual Household Income<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">1.58</td></tr><tr><td> $49,999 or less</td><td char=".">5399</td><td char=".">32.96%</td><td char=".">2683</td><td char=".">32.76%</td><td char=".">2716</td><td char=".">33.67%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> $50,000–$99,999</td><td char=".">7087</td><td char=".">43.27%</td><td char=".">3584</td><td char=".">43.76%</td><td char=".">3503</td><td char=".">42.78%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> $100,000 or more</td><td char=".">3727</td><td char=".">22.75%</td><td char=".">1843</td><td char=".">22.50%</td><td char=".">1884</td><td char=".">23.01%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SM Branch</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">0.74</td></tr><tr><td> Army</td><td char=".">6917</td><td char=".">42.23%</td><td char=".">3445</td><td char=".">42.06%</td><td char=".">3472</td><td char=".">42.40%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Navy</td><td char=".">2,574</td><td char=".">15.72%</td><td char=".">1271</td><td char=".">15.52%</td><td char=".">1303</td><td char=".">15.91%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Marine Corps</td><td char=".">1466</td><td char=".">8.95%</td><td char=".">738</td><td char=".">9.01%</td><td char=".">728</td><td char=".">8.89%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Air Force</td><td char=".">4427</td><td char=".">27.03%</td><td char=".">2228</td><td char=".">27.20%</td><td char=".">2199</td><td char=".">26.85%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Coast Guard</td><td char=".">379</td><td char=".">2.31%</td><td char=".">190</td><td char=".">2.32%</td><td char=".">189</td><td char=".">2.31%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SM Rank</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">5.65</td></tr><tr><td> Enlisted</td><td char=".">11,474</td><td char=".">70.05%</td><td char=".">5796</td><td char=".">70.77%</td><td char=".">5678</td><td char=".">69.34%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Warrant Officer</td><td char=".">83</td><td char=".">0.51%</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">0.51%</td><td char=".">41</td><td char=".">0.50%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Commissioned Officer</td><td char=".">4221</td><td char=".">25.71%</td><td char=".">2042</td><td char=".">25.30%</td><td char=".">2169</td><td char=".">26.49%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SM Component</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">1.17</td></tr><tr><td> Reserve or National Guard</td><td char=".">2265</td><td char=".">13.83%</td><td char=".">1155</td><td char=".">14.10%</td><td char=".">1110</td><td char=".">13.55%</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Active Duty</td><td char=".">13,513</td><td char=".">82.50%</td><td char=".">6725</td><td char=".">82.11%</td><td char=".">6788</td><td char=".">82.89%</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Notes.</emph> SM: service member. <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>: Pearson Chi-Square.</p> <p>2 Annual household income consists of service member income, spouse income, and basic allowance for housing. There were no significant differences in demographic frequencies between subsample 1 and subsample 2.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-6">Sampling Procedures</hd> <p>The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) was launched in 2001 to assess the long-term health effects of military service. Participants were recruited into five panels between 2001 and 2021 using probability-based samples of military personnel with 1-5 years of service. The samples were drawn to represent all service branches and components (i.e. active duty, reserve, National Guard), but female service members were oversampled to ensure sufficient power within this subgroup (Belding et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]). In 2011, spouses of the MCS' fourth panel of service members were recruited to complete a baseline assessment and join the first panel of MCFS—an ongoing longitudinal population-based cohort study of health and well-being in military families. The first panel of spouses has completed three waves of assessments to date: wave 1 (2011/2012; <emph>n</emph> = 9872), wave 2 (2014/2015; <emph>n</emph> = 6618), wave 3 (2019/2020; <emph>n</emph> = 4178). A second panel of military spouses was recruited in 2021 to complete their first wave of assessments (<emph>n</emph> = 18,223). Participants in the current study consisted of military spouses who completed either the panel 1/wave 3 or panel 2/wave 1 assessment and met inclusion/exclusion criteria (<emph>N</emph> = 16,379). Military spouses were randomly assigned into two subsamples to fulfill study objectives: subsample 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 8190), and subsample 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 8189).</p> <p>Extensive details of the MCFS sampling procedures are documented elsewhere (Corry et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]; McMaster et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref60">31</reflink>]). MCS and MCFS were approved by the Naval Health Research Center institutional review board and conducted in agreement with all applicable federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-7">Measurement of Constructs</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-8">Family Resilience</hd> <p>Family resilience and its three subconstructs were assessed using 34 items. Shared belief systems consisted of 12 items from the Walsh Family Resilience Questionnaire (Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]); items were rated on a scale from 1 (<emph>rarely or never</emph>) to 5 (<emph>almost always</emph>). Organizational patterns consisted of 12 items from the cohesion and flexibility subscales of the FACES IV (Olson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]; Olson & Gorall, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref64">39</reflink>]), whereas communication processes consisted of 10 items from the Family Communication Scale (Olson & Barnes, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>]); items were rated on a scale from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Participants rated each of the 34 statements with respect to their family, including themselves, their spouse, and their children (if applicable), with higher ratings indicating stronger shared belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication processes. There was strong internal consistency in both subsamples for the 12-item shared belief systems scale (<emph>α</emph> =.93), 12-item organizational patterns scale (<emph>α</emph> =.95), 10-item communication processes scale (<emph>α</emph> =.94), and the overall 34-item family resilience scale (<emph>α</emph> =.97).</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-9">Validation Constructs</hd> <p>Several variables were chosen from the MCFS surveys to represent individual- and family-level constructs that are theoretically and empirically associated with aspects of family resilience (Maurović et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]; Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]; Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref68">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]; Pullman & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref70">46</reflink>]; Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref71">48</reflink>]; Saltzman et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref72">51</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref73">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref74">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref75">57</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref76">58</reflink>]). Individual-level constructs included mental and physical functioning, self-mastery, positive outlook, spirituality, and military-life impact. Constructs representing the family-level included social support of family, marital quality, marital dissolution, parenting alliance, and military-life stress. More information about each construct and their expected associations with family resilience are provided in the sections below.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-10">Mental and Physical Functioning</hd> <p>Mental and physical functioning were calculated using the shortened 12-item scale from the Veterans RAND 36-item Health Survey (Kazis et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref77">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref78">22</reflink>]). Mental functioning included assessments of vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health (e.g. "During the past 4 wk, how much time have you felt downhearted and blue?"). Physical functioning included assessments of bodily pain, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, and general health (e.g. "During the past 4 wk, how much did pain interfere with your normal work [including both work outside the home and housework]"). To represent overall mental and physical functioning, manualized scoring criteria based on population weights were applied to create Mental Component (MC) and Physical Component (PC) summary scores (Ware & Kosinski, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref79">60</reflink>]). Scores were then standardized as <emph>t</emph>-scores with means of 50 and standard deviations of 10 to reflect the general population. Higher MC (<emph>α</emph> =.87) and PC (<emph>α</emph> =.81) summary scores indicated better mental and physical functioning, respectively. MC is an indicator of well-being and was expected to have a moderate to large positive association with family resilience, whereas PC is an indicator of the more distal physical health and was thus expected to have a weak positive association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-11">Self-Mastery</hd> <p>Self-mastery was assessed using the 7-item Pearlin Mastery Scale (Pearlin & Schooler, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref80">42</reflink>]). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement to items such as "I have little control over the things that happen to me" (reverse scored) and "I can do just about anything I really set my mind to do" on a scale from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater self-mastery (<emph>α</emph> =.82). Self-mastery is an individual-level strength and indicator of resilience among military couples (Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref81">43</reflink>]) and was thus expected to have a moderate to large positive association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-12">Positive Outlook and Spirituality</hd> <p>Positive outlook and spirituality were assessed using the 11-item Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (Cann et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>]; Kaur et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref83">20</reflink>]). Participants were asked to indicate the degree to which the statements are true in their life on a scale from 0 (<emph>not at all</emph>) to 5 (<emph>to a very great degree</emph>). Positive outlook consisted of nine items, such as "I prioritize what is important in life" and "I know that I can handle difficulties," whereas spirituality consisted of two items: "I have an understanding of spiritual matters," "I have religious faith." Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater positive outlook (<emph>α</emph> =.92) or spirituality (<emph>α</emph> =.78). Positive outlook and spirituality are individual-level strengths and indicators of resilience among military couples (Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref84">43</reflink>]) and were thus expected to have moderate to large positive associations with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-13">Military-Life Impact</hd> <p>Military-life impact was assessed using six items that asked participants to "Please indicate to what extent you feel being a military spouse has impacted the following aspects of your life:" (e.g. "career development," "education development", "overall financial stability") on a scale from 1 (<emph>very negative impact</emph>) to 5 (<emph>very positive impact</emph>). Items were averaged, with lower scores indicating negative impact and higher scores indicating positive impact (<emph>α</emph> =.78). Military-life impact has a theoretically distal association with family resilience (Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref85">32</reflink>]) and was thus expected to have a small positive association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-14">Social Support of Family</hd> <p>Social support of family was assessed using two items from the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Porter et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>]; Zimet et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref87">64</reflink>]). Participants were asked to rate each statement (i.e. "I get the emotional help and support I need from my family," "My family is willing to help me make decisions") on a scale from 1 (<emph>very strongly disagree</emph>) to 7 (<emph>very strongly agree</emph>). Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater perceived social support from family (<emph>α</emph> =.90). Social support of family is an indicator of family functioning and was thus expected to have a moderate to large positive association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-15">Marial Quality</hd> <p>Marital quality was assessed using three items from the Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref88">36</reflink>]). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements about their relationship with their spouse (i.e. "I have a good marriage," "My relationship with my spouse is very stable," "I really feel like a part of a team with my spouse") on a scale from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater marital quality (<emph>α</emph> =.95). Marital quality is an indicator of family functioning and was thus expected to have a moderate to large positive association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-16">Marital dissolution</hd> <p>Marital dissolution was assessed using a single item from the Land Combat Study (Hoge et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref89">18</reflink>]). Participants were asked, "In the last year, have you or your spouse seriously suggested the idea of divorce or permanent separation." The item was rated using dichotomous (yes/no) response options. Marital dissolution is an indicator of family functioning and was thus expected to have a moderate to large negative association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-17">Parenting Alliance</hd> <p>Parenting alliance was assessed using five items from the Parenting Alliance Inventory (Abidin & Brunner, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]). Participants with at least one child were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as "My spouse is willing to make personal sacrifices to help take care of our child(ren)" and "My spouse makes my job of being a parent easier" on a scale from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater parenting alliance (<emph>α</emph> =.95). Parenting alliance is an indicator of family functioning and was thus expected to have a moderate to large positive association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-18">Military-Life Stress</hd> <p>Military-life stress was assessed using a single item in which participants were asked, "In general, how stressful do you feel military life has been for you and your family?" The item was rated on a scale from 1 (<emph>not at all stressful</emph>) to 4 (<emph>very stressful</emph>), with higher scores indicating greater levels of stress. Military-life stress has a theoretically distal association with family resilience (Meadows et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>]; Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref92">48</reflink>]) and was thus expected to have a small negative association with family resilience.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-19">Data Collection</hd> <p>The data utilized in the current study were collected online <emph>via</emph> a web-based survey from November 2019 to August of 2021. The online survey was designed to be compatible with any device, thus allowing participants to complete it on a computer, smartphone, or tablet at a time and place of their choosing. The online interface provided definitions of key terms and guided participants through skip patterns for irrelevant survey questions to reduce survey burden. The survey took participants approximately 35–40 min to complete. Participants who completed the study were redirected to a private site where they were asked to enter their mailing address for a $10 post-inventive gift card.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-20">Analytic Plan</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-21">Subsample 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-22">Data Diagnostics</hd> <p>Data diagnostics and item-level descriptives (see Table 2) were conducted in SPSS (version 29) and Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref93">33</reflink>]) for the 34 family resilience items, including analyses of missing data, outliers, and normality. Most participants (91.75%) completed all 34 of the family resilience items. Data were missing at random, which was evidenced by the high number of missing data patterns (i.e. 115), all of which represented less than 1% of cases (i.e. ≤ 0.56%). Full information maximum likelihood estimation was used to account for missing data. Calculations of Mahalanobis distance identified 196 potential multivariate outliers. However, all responses were within expected value ranges and in close proximity to other scores <emph>via</emph> histograms and scatterplots. The primary analysis was conducted with and without potential outliers to determine if these data disrupted results; conclusions were unaltered regardless of inclusion or exclusion. Because the recruitment procedures included the use of administrative records to verify that respondents belonged to the population of military spouses, flagged responses appeared legitimate, and potential outliers did not alter results, these responses were retained. All 34 family resilience items had distributions within acceptable ranges of normality according to skewness (< |1.76|) and kurtosis (< |3.63|) indices (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref94">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2. Family resilience items, descriptives, and standardized factor loadings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Descriptives</td><td>Exploratory</td><td>Confirmatory</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td>Sub</td><td>Mean</td><td><italic>S</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td>FL</td><td>95% CI</td><td>FL</td><td>95% CI</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Face difficulties as a team.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">3.92</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">.66</td><td char=".">.64,.68</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>View distress as understandable.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">3.59</td><td char=".">1.21</td><td char=".">.64</td><td char=".">.62,.66</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Approach a crisis with shared efforts.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">3.89</td><td char=".">1.14</td><td char=".">.85</td><td char=".">.83,.86</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Make sense of stressful situations.</bold></td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.04</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">.87</td><td char=".">.86,.87</td><td char=".">.88</td><td char=".">.86,.89</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Remain hopeful during difficulties.</bold></td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.17</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">.87</td><td char=".">.86,.87</td><td char=".">.89</td><td char=".">.88,.90</td></tr><tr><td>Encourage and build strengths.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.22</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">.86</td><td char=".">.85,.87</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Seize opportunities and persist.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.01</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">.83,.85</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Focus on possibilities and acceptance.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.01</td><td char=".">0.90</td><td char=".">.81</td><td char=".">.79,.82</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Share values and life purpose.</bold></td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.19</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">.86</td><td char=".">.85,.87</td><td char=".">.80</td><td char=".">.79,.82</td></tr><tr><td>Draw on spiritual resources.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">3.04</td><td char=".">2.31</td><td char=".">.39</td><td char=".">.37,.41</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Increase compassion through hardship.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">3.68</td><td char=".">1.28</td><td char=".">.66</td><td char=".">.64,.67</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Learn and strengthen from challenges.</td><td>SBS</td><td char=".">4.15</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">.83</td><td char=".">.82,.84</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Are involved in each other's lives.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.40</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">.83,.86</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Deal with problems in new ways.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">3.97</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">.73</td><td char=".">.71,.74</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Feel close to each other.</bold></td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.34</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">.90</td><td char=".">.89,.90</td><td char=".">.89</td><td char=".">.88,.90</td></tr><tr><td>Support each other.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.34</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">.90</td><td char=".">.89,.91</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Consult with each other.</bold></td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.39</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">.87</td><td char=".">.86,.88</td><td char=".">.88</td><td char=".">.87,.89</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Adjust to change.</bold></td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.32</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">.83,.85</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">.82,.85</td></tr><tr><td>Spend free time with each other.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.37</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">.82</td><td char=".">.80,.83</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Shift household responsibilities.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">3.69</td><td char=".">1.41</td><td char=".">.54</td><td char=".">.52,.56</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Participate in family activities.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.28</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">.83</td><td char=".">.82,.84</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Have clear rules and roles.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.02</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">.63</td><td char=".">.61,.65</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Balance separateness and closeness.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.09</td><td char=".">0.90</td><td char=".">.78</td><td char=".">.77,.79</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Compromise with each other.</td><td>OP</td><td char=".">4.17</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char=".">.83,.85</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Have satisfactory communication.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.02</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">.81</td><td char=".">.80,.82</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Are very good listeners.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">3.98</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">.81</td><td char=".">.80,.82</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Express affection to each other.</bold></td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.31</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">.83</td><td char=".">.82,.84</td><td char=".">.83</td><td char=".">.82,.84</td></tr><tr><td>Ask for what we want.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.25</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">.87</td><td char=".">.86,.88</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Calmly discuss problems.</bold></td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.11</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">.85</td><td char=".">.84,.86</td><td char=".">.81</td><td char=".">.80,.82</td></tr><tr><td>Discuss ideas and beliefs.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.29</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">.85</td><td char=".">.84,.86</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Get honest answers of each other.</bold></td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.29</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">.85</td><td char=".">.84,.86</td><td char=".">.85</td><td char=".">.84,.86</td></tr><tr><td>Try to understand each other's feelings.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.23</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">.89</td><td char=".">.88,.89</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Seldom say negative things.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">3.67</td><td char=".">1.43</td><td char=".">.48</td><td char=".">.46,.50</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Express true feelings to each other.</td><td>CP</td><td char=".">4.21</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">.85</td><td char=".">.83,.86</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Notes</emph>. Sub: Subconstruct; <emph>S</emph><sups>2:</sups> Variance; FL: Factor Loading; CI: Confidence Interval; SBS: Shared Belief Systems; OP: Organizational Patterns; CP: Communication Processes. Items are paraphrased in the table; see the original source material for full wording. Item-level descriptives are those for subsample 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 8190). Bolded text signifies the item was retained. Confidence intervals that do not contain zero indicate significance.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-23">Statistical Power and Precision</hd> <p>A Monte Carlo simulation (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref95">34</reflink>]) was conducted in Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref96">33</reflink>]–2017) to confirm the statistical power and precision of subsample 1 to perform the planned analysis. The simulation specified the structure of the planned factor analysis using 8,190 observations, 1000 replications, and standardized loadings of.80. The results indicated that there was little parameter (< 1%) and standard error (< 1%) biases, strong coverage (.94–.96), and sufficient power using a conservative cutoff (1−<emph>β</emph> >.90).</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-24">Item Selection and Measurement Content</hd> <p>Data from subsample 1 were used to reduce the number of items for the brief family resilience instrument. Due to potential measurement effects associated with the predisposed structure of the family resilience questionnaires, the 34 items included in the subsample 1 analysis were specified to load onto their respective subscales in a factor analysis using full information maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref97">33</reflink>]–2017). The strength of factor loadings and theory (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref99">57</reflink>]) were used to inform item removal decisions. Items were retained if they strongly loaded onto their respective subscale (≥.80) and captured unique theoretical facets of family resilience, including within each subconstruct. For example, shared belief systems consist of making meaning of adversity, positive outlook, and transcendence and spirituality (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref100">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref101">57</reflink>]); items were retained to capture these concepts and maintain theoretical relevance of the instrument. This strategy was selected because it allowed for the analytic integration of theory and empirical deduction, resulting in a balanced instrument that is both practically relevant and empirically sound.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-25">Subsample 2</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-26">Data Diagnostics</hd> <p>Data diagnostics were conducted in SPSS (version 29) and Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref102">33</reflink>]–2017) for the retained family resilience items and validation constructs. Like subsample 1, there were several missing data patterns (i.e. 93). Only one high frequency pattern (i.e. > 1% of cases) was observed, which was the result of missing data on the parenting alliance inventory. Missing data on this variable was expected, given that the inventory was only completed by participants with children. All other data were missing at random, including the nine retained family resilience items, which most participants (96.53%) had fully completed. Full information maximum likelihood estimation was used to account for missing data in analyses. Calculations of Mahalanobis distance identified 214 potential multivariate outliers. However, consistent with subsample 1, these data were retained because responses were confirmed to belong to the population of military spouses <emph>via</emph> administrative records, were within expected value ranges and in close proximity to other scores <emph>via</emph> histograms and scatterplots, and did not alter study results in a sensitivity analysis. All continuous variables had distributions within acceptable ranges of normality according to skewness (< |1.81|) and kurtosis (< |4.09|) indices (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref103">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-27">Statistical Power and Precision</hd> <p>A Monte Carlo simulation (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref104">34</reflink>]) was conducted in Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref105">33</reflink>]–2017) to confirm the statistical power and precision of subsample 2 to perform the planned analysis. The simulation specified the structure of the planned model with the largest number of estimated parameters (i.e. bifactor model) using 8,189 observations, 1,000 replications, and standardized loadings of.80. The results indicated that there was little parameter (< 1%) and standard error (< 1%) biases, strong coverage (.94–.96), and sufficient power using a conservative cutoff (1−<emph>β</emph> >.90).</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-28">Confirmatory Analysis and Measurement Structure</hd> <p>The retained items from the initial factor analysis were respecified in a confirmatory factor analysis using data from subsample 2, which was followed by a series of structural models to assess dimensionality using full information maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref106">33</reflink>]–2017). Consistent with procedures recommended by Hammer and Toland ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref107">16</reflink>]), the retained items were specified into four structures: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>) a unidimensional model specifying all items loading onto a single latent construct of family resilience, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>) a correlated factors model specifying three intercorrelated latent variables (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, communication processes) with items loading onto their respective factor, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref110">3</reflink>) a second-order factor model specifying items loading onto their respective first-order factor (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, communication processes), which in turn loaded onto a second-order factor of family resilience, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref111">4</reflink>) a bifactor model specifying items loading directly onto a general factor (i.e. family resilience) in addition to three specific factors (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, communication processes). Global fit indices, including chi-square test of model fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were used to evaluate model fit. Models with RMSEA values ≤.08, CFI values ≥.90, and SRMR values ≤.10 are considered to have adequate global fit, whereas models with indices reaching stricter thresholds (RMSEA ≤.05; CFI ≥.95; SRMR ≤.08) have good fit (Wang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref112">59</reflink>]). Furthermore, Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used as relative fit indices between models to determine which structure best fit the data; relatively smaller BIC values indicated better model fit, with differences of 10 or more between models indicating strong evidence (Wang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref113">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Once the general structure of the instrument was determined, additional analytic work was conducted to assess the extent of dimensionality (e.g. whether items can be used to represent a unidimensional construct) <emph>via</emph> ancillary bifactor measures (Hammer & Toland, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref114">16</reflink>]). Standardized factor loadings and residuals from the bifactor model were specified as starting values in the ancillary model to calculate estimates based on the standardized solution. Estimates were computed for explained common variance of the general factor (ECV<subs>gen</subs>), percent of uncontaminated correlations (PUC), omega hierarchical of the general factor (<emph>ω</emph>H), individual explained common variance (IECV), and omega hierarchical of specific factors (<emph>ω</emph>HS). ECV<subs>gen</subs> values ≥.85 provide evidence that the measurement structure is primarily unidimensional (Stucky et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref115">52</reflink>]; Stucky & Edelen, 2015), though models with PUC <.80, ECV<subs>gen</subs> >.60, and <emph>ωH</emph> >.70 suggest that multidimensionality of the instrument is not severe enough to dismiss the unidimensional construct (Hammer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref116">15</reflink>]). The two remaining estimates were used as supplemental information to understand the amount of variance explained by the general and specific factors; IECV provides the proportion of item variance explained by the general factor, whereas <emph>ω</emph>HS values provide estimates for the unique variance explained by the specific factors after accounting for the general factor.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-29">Evidence of Measurement Reliability and Validity</hd> <p>Internal reliability was assessed using estimates of Cronbach's alpha (<emph>α</emph>) and McDonald's omega (<emph>ω</emph>); conventional cutoffs suggest that ≥.70 is adequate internal consistency, ≥.80 is good, and ≥.90 is excellent. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed through associations with theoretically relevant constructs <emph>via</emph> Pearson correlations (for continuous variables) and point-biserial correlations (for the binary marital dissolution variable), while convergent validity also was assessed through Pearson correlations between brief and full-scale measures. Furthermore, the associations between brief and full-scale measures with related constructs were compared to determine if the brief measures adequately performed relative to the full-scale measures. Convention cutoffs were used to interpret correlation effect sizes:.10–.30 is small,.30–.50 is moderate, and >.50 is large (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref117">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-30">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-31">Subsample 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-32">Item Selection and Measurement Content</hd> <p>The factor analysis conducted with subsample 1 data demonstrated adequate global fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib524" id="ref118">524</reflink>] = 25425.71, <emph>p</emph> <.001; RMSEA =.08; CFI =.91; SRMR =.04). All items significantly loaded onto their respective factors (<emph>p</emph> <.001), though standardized loading estimates indicated that several items failed to reach the.80 cutoff. Items were retained if they met the.80 cutoff and best conceptually captured important theoretical facets of family resilience, including items assessing each of the three subconstructs (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, communication processes) and their theoretical characteristics (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref119">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref120">57</reflink>]). This resulted in the retention of nine items—three items from each subconstruct. Items and standardized factor loadings with their 95% confidence intervals are presented in Table 2.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-33">Subsample 2</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180231277-34">Confirmatory Analysis and Measurement Structure</hd> <p>The confirmatory model was specified using the same structure as the initial model but included only the nine retained items (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref121">24</reflink>] = 1241.24, <emph>p</emph> <.001; RMSEA =.08; CFI =.98; SRMR =.03). All items significantly loaded onto their respective factor (FLs >.80, <emph>p</emph> <.001; see Table 2). The confirmatory model was followed by the specification of four structural models to assess dimensionality: unidimensional (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref122">27</reflink>] = 6401.01, <emph>p</emph> <.001; RMSEA =.17; CFI =.88; SRMR =.06; BIC = 139770.99), correlated factors (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref123">24</reflink>] = 1241.24, <emph>p</emph> <.001; RMSEA =.08; CFI =.98; SRMR =.03; BIC = 134002.05), second-order factor (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref124">24</reflink>] = 1241.24, <emph>p</emph> <.001; RMSEA =.08; CFI =.98; SRMR =.03; BIC = 134002.05), and bifactor (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref125">18</reflink>] = 418.69, <emph>p</emph> <.001; RMSEA =.05; CFI =.99; SRMR =.01; BIC = 133118.80). The bifactor model best fit the data, which was evidenced by its good global fit and its BIC value well below the other models.</p> <p>Although the bifactor structure provided evidence of multidimensionality, ancillary bifactor measures were necessary to determine the extent of multidimensionality and whether items can be used to represent a unidimensional construct: ECV<subs>gen</subs> =.70, PUC =.75, <emph>ωH</emph> =.87, IECV =.48 −.99, <emph>ω</emph>HS <.05. The ECV<subs>gen</subs> value was below the.85 cutoff needed to support the instrument as primarily unidimensional (Stucky et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref126">52</reflink>]; Stucky & Edelen, 2015), providing further evidence of multidimensionality. However, Hammer ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref127">15</reflink>]) suggested that when PUC is less than.80, ECV<subs>gen</subs> is greater than.60, and <emph>ω</emph>H is greater than.70, multidimensionality of the instrument is not severe enough to dismiss the unidimensional construct. This notion was supported by many IECV values greater than.50, as well as <emph>ω</emph>HS values less than.50, which indicated that much of the variance for subconstruct items were explained by the general factor—even though substantial proportions of variance (23–52%, according to IECV values) were best attributed to specific factors for five of the nine items. Thus, there was mixed empirical support regarding dimensionality of the instrument, but sufficient evidence to assess family resilience as a general construct.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-35">Evidence of Measurement Reliability and Validity</hd> <p>When considering the family resilience constructs independently, each demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity. Shared belief systems (<emph>α</emph> =.89; <emph>ω</emph> =.89, 95% CI [.89,.90]), organizational patterns (<emph>α</emph> =.90; <emph>ω</emph> =.90, 95% CI [.90,.91]), communication processes (<emph>α</emph> =.87; <emph>ω</emph> =.87, 95% CI[.86,.88]), and the overall family resilience construct (<emph>α</emph> =.94; <emph>ω</emph> =.94, 95% CI [.94,.94]) possessed strong internal consistency, with agreement between Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega estimates. Furthermore, the miniscule differences between McDonald's omega 95% CIs indicated confidence in the reliability estimates. Family resilience constructs significantly (<emph>p</emph> <.001) correlated with each validation construct included in the study (see Table 3). Most correlations had moderate or large effect sizes (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref128">7</reflink>]). Particularly strong associations were observed for the family resilience constructs with marital quality (<emph>r</emph>s ≥.62) and with parenting alliance (<emph>r</emph>s ≥.59), suggesting convergent validity; relatively weaker associations were observed with physical functioning (<emph>r</emph>s ≤.08) and military life-stress (<emph>r</emph>s ≤ |.16|), suggesting discriminant validity. There were strong associations between brief and full-scale measures for family resilience (<emph>r</emph> =.97), shared belief systems (<emph>r</emph> =.94), organizational patterns (<emph>r</emph> =.93), and communication processes (<emph>r</emph> =.95). Brief measures generally produced slightly weaker associations with validation constructs than the full-scale measures, though the interpretations of effect sizes were consistent between measures (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref129">7</reflink>]), providing further evidence of convergent validity.</p> <p>Table 3. Bivariate correlations between family resilience and validation constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Family resilience—total (<italic>r</italic> =.97)</td><td>Shared belief systems (<italic>r</italic> =.94)</td><td>Organizational patterns (<italic>r</italic> =.93)</td><td>Communication processes (<italic>r</italic> =.95)</td></tr><tr><td>Validation Construct</td><td>34-item</td><td>9-item</td><td>12-item</td><td>3-item</td><td>12-item</td><td>3-item</td><td>10-item</td><td>3-item</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Mental Functioning</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char=".">.30</td><td char=".">.29</td><td char=".">.27</td><td char=".">.29</td><td char=".">.27</td><td char=".">.30</td><td char=".">.30</td></tr><tr><td>Physical Functioning</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Mastery</td><td char=".">.37</td><td char=".">.37</td><td char=".">.38</td><td char=".">.37</td><td char=".">.34</td><td char=".">.33</td><td char=".">.34</td><td char=".">.34</td></tr><tr><td>Positive Outlook</td><td char=".">.47</td><td char=".">.45</td><td char=".">.46</td><td char=".">.43</td><td char=".">.43</td><td char=".">.40</td><td char=".">.43</td><td char=".">.43</td></tr><tr><td>Spirituality</td><td char=".">.25</td><td char=".">.23</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.21</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.20</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.21</td></tr><tr><td>Military-Life Impact</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.20</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.23</td><td char=".">.23</td><td char=".">.22</td></tr><tr><td>Social Support of Family</td><td char=".">.36</td><td char=".">.35</td><td char=".">.32</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char=".">.34</td><td char=".">.33</td><td char=".">.35</td><td char=".">.35</td></tr><tr><td>Marital Quality</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">.64</td><td char=".">.62</td><td char=".">.66</td><td char=".">.65</td><td char=".">.65</td><td char=".">.67</td></tr><tr><td>Marital Dissolution</td><td char=".">−.41</td><td char=".">−.41</td><td char=".">−.36</td><td char=".">−.35</td><td char=".">−.39</td><td char=".">−.39</td><td char=".">−.39</td><td char=".">−.41</td></tr><tr><td>Parenting Alliance</td><td char=".">.68</td><td char=".">.66</td><td char=".">.62</td><td char=".">.59</td><td char=".">.66</td><td char=".">.63</td><td char=".">.63</td><td char=".">.61</td></tr><tr><td>Military-Life Stress</td><td char=".">−.17</td><td char=".">−.16</td><td char=".">−.14</td><td char=".">−.13</td><td char=".">−.16</td><td char=".">−.16</td><td char=".">−.16</td><td char=".">−.16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Notes</emph>. All correlations were significant (<emph>p</emph> <.001). Reported associations with marital dissolution (0 = No, 1 = Yes) are point-biserial correlations..</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-36">Discussion</hd> <p>This study sought to develop a brief and valid measure of military family resilience in a large sample of military spouses. Results indicated that nine items measuring various facets of family resilience effectively assessed the construct. The reduced scale demonstrated some evidence of multidimensionality through its global structure, indicating the presence of theorized subconstructs (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, communication processes), but also was sufficiently unidimensional to allow for the measurement of family resilience as a singular construct. Furthermore, brief scales were strongly correlated with the original full-scale measures, were significantly associated with constructs closely related to family resilience (and to a similar degree as the full-scale measures), and possessed strong internal consistency. Thus, the reduced 9-item scale is a promising tool for social scientists to briefly and reliably measure family resilience in military families.</p> <p>Although there was mixed empirical support regarding dimensionality of the instrument, results indicated that the 9-item measure can assess family resilience as a general construct with underlying multidimensionality. The stronger fit of the bifactor model relative to the unidimensional model indicated that the subconstruct factors of shared belief systems, organizational processes, and communication processes explained some variance beyond the overall family resilience construct and therefore added value to its measurement. Multidimensionality also was demonstrated by comparing the correlated factors and second-order factor models to the unidimensional model; models accounting for multidimensionality had stronger relative fit than the model assuming only a unidimensional structure. Moreover, family resilience subconstructs are theoretically and conceptually distinct, albeit interconnected (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref130">57</reflink>]). The Walsh Family Resilience Framework posits that the family resilience subconstructs are transactional processes (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref131">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref132">57</reflink>]), suggesting they are strongly correlated indicators of overall family resilience. This may explain the observed shared variance between items, allowing them to strongly load onto the general factor. Indeed, results supported the use of the instrument as unidimensional through numerous indices of common variance. These results empirically reinforced the theoretical notion that resilience is an integration of strengths (Grych et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref133">14</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref134">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref135">57</reflink>]). Family resilience is a collection of attributes that includes aspects of shared belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication processes (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref136">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref137">57</reflink>])—a foundational idea captured by the instrument.</p> <p>In addition to corroborating theory with respect to dimensionality, validity of the 9-item measure was demonstrated through its expected associations with theory-relevant constructs, including individual and family-related variables. Theoretically proximal constructs—such as indicators of family functioning (i.e. social support of family, marital quality, marital dissolution, parenting alliance), individual-level resilience (i.e. self-mastery, positive outlook), and well-being (i.e. mental functioning)—demonstrated strong associations with family resilience, whereas more distal or loosely related constructs (i.e. physical functioning, military-life impact, military-life stress) had weaker associations. The only variable to have a slightly weaker association with family resilience than expected was the spirituality construct, which may reflect that not all families engage in religious or spiritual practices. Thus, despite a significant positive association between spirituality and family resilience, spirituality as a resilience-related strength might only apply to a subset of the population while other forms of transcendence or meaning-making are used elsewhere (Grych et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref138">14</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref139">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref140">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, these results provided evidence of convergent and discriminant validity and were consistent with prior research. For example, studies have shown that family communication is protective against marital instability (Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref141">44</reflink>]), individual and relationship strengths (i.e. self-mastery, positive outlook, spirituality, social support, communication) are associated with high marital quality (Pflieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref142">43</reflink>]), and family resilience is associated with reduced psychological distress and improved quality of life among families experiencing adversity (Gayatri & Irawaty, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref143">11</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref144">27</reflink>]; Saltzman et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref145">51</reflink>]). Additionally, although family resilience is expected to positively affect physical functioning, this association is likely indirect or moderated (e.g. Heerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]), which may explain its relatively weak association with family resilience in the current study. Further evidence of convergent validity was demonstrated through strong associations between brief and full-scale measures for family resilience and its subconstructs. Despite the brief measures generally producing weaker associations with validation constructs than the full-scale measures, differences were negligible and would have little (if any) practical effect on the interpretation of results. Therefore, it was concluded that the brief measures adequately performed relative to the full-scale measures and with minimal information loss.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-37">Implications for Counseling Practice and Research</hd> <p>Family resilience can aid healthy family functioning and individual outcomes among families exposed to chronic stressors (Gayatri & Irawaty, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref147">11</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref148">27</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref149">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref150">57</reflink>]), including stressors associated with military life (O'Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref151">40</reflink>]; Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref152">47</reflink>]; Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref153">48</reflink>]), in turn supporting military population health and readiness. However, further research is needed to better understand family resilience processes and aspects of family functioning unique to military families. The development of a 9-item measure of family resilience provides social scientists with a tool to briefly assess the construct alongside other correlates of family functioning. This will not only help to standardize military family resilience and its empirical basis, but also support the examination of its mechanisms and the contexts in which key resilience processes most effectively reinforce individual and family well-being. Such information is of practical interest to United States Department of Defense (DoD) policymakers and practitioners. For example, the Biden Administration's 'Joining Forces' initiative aims to provide resources supporting the physical, social, and emotional health of military families (Brosius, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref154">3</reflink>]). Scientific literature may advance the initiative by providing evidence-based knowledge pertaining to family resilience, which may in turn aid the implementation of health-related interventions serving military families. Research utilizing the instrument may more directly inform clinical practice. Family practitioners are well-positioned to adopt family resilience-orientated principles to help build family-related strengths and promote positive growth (Manser & Ogilvie, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref155">28</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref156">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref157">57</reflink>]). This might be especially true of military family practitioners because such individuals may have contact with military families during cycles proven difficult for family functioning, such as deployment and reintegration[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref158">1</reflink>] (Bullock et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref159">4</reflink>]; O'Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref160">40</reflink>]; Riggs & Riggs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref161">48</reflink>]). The 9-item instrument could assist in developing a deeper understanding of military family resilience, thus allowing practitioners to provide holistic care that considers the unique contexts and challenges of military service.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-38">Limitations</hd> <p>The study had several notable strengths (e.g. large representative sample of military spouses, advanced data analytic approach, theory-driven interpretation), but there also were limitations that should be considered. First, although the integration of theory into the item reduction process aided the development of an instrument that has both theoretical and empirical utility, item retention decisions may have differed if implementing another reduction approach. Second, the assessment of family resilience was based on the self-reported responses of one individual in the family. While this is consistent with prior measures of family resilience (Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref162">10</reflink>]; Olson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref163">37</reflink>]; Olson & Barnes, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref164">38</reflink>]; Olson & Gorall, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref165">39</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref166">57</reflink>]), and research has demonstrated that ratings of family functioning are positively correlated between family members (O'Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref167">40</reflink>]), there remains a possibility that respondents' perceptions of family resilience do not match their family members'. Furthermore, the term "military families" is typically limited to service members and their dependents (Department of Defense [DoD], 2021). To successfully adapt the measure to the population, military family resilience was assessed using a definition of family consistent with DoD guidelines. This implies that the instrument and its results may not generalize beyond traditional or nuclear families, including extended family members capable of providing vital support. Similarly, because male participants represented only 9.7% of the utilized sample, results may not fully denote family resilience ratings of male military spouses. However, the proportion of male participants closely resembled the 9.5% of male military spouses in the population (DoD, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref168">9</reflink>]), thus results likely generalize to military spouses more broadly. Finally, despite the adequate performance of the brief measures relative to the full-scale measures, the slightly weaker associations between the brief measures and validation constructs may indicate a greater likelihood of Type II error if the 9-item instrument is utilized with a small sample in which sufficient power is not achieved. Researchers employing this measure should consider these limitations alongside their research designs to ensure robust findings.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-39">Future Directions</hd> <p>The brief measure of family resilience offers a promising tool for further empirical research on military family functioning. Understanding key processes promoting family resilience in the context of military-related adversity is of critical importance to improve the comparability and generalizability of research in this area (NASEM, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref169">35</reflink>]). Consistent and valid assessment of family resilience is essential for future research examining the complex mechanisms and moderators of resilience among military families facing substantial life stressors (e.g. deployment reintegration, PCS, military separation). Future research also can benefit from using a validated measure to study differential effects of family resilience on the outcomes of military family members in various roles (e.g. service member, spouse, children) or developmental stages (e.g. adolescence, adulthood). Importantly, comparable data and results from multiple studies is necessary to inform targeted resources promoting growth among individuals and families. Furthermore, studies utilizing this validated measure in longitudinal research can help establish temporal associations between family resilience and related constructs. Future research such as this can address gaps in our knowledge of military families for researchers and practitioners working to support them.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-40">Conclusions</hd> <p>The brief 9-item instrument is a reliable and valid measure of family resilience for use in quantitative research with military families. The measure can be used to assess a general construct of family resilience with three underlying subconstructs (i.e. shared belief systems, organizational patterns, communication processes). This theory-supported brief assessment can be applied to a variety of research questions and designs. Future research utilizing the instrument will contribute to a greater empirical understanding of family resilience in ways that may benefit the health and well-being of military families.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-41">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors sincerely thank the other contributing members of the Millennium Cohort Family Study Team, including Isabel Altarejos, Lauren Bauer, Beth Birenbaum, Sarah Carinio, Sabrina Richardson, Karen Tannenbaum, and Kelly Woodall. The authors also express their gratitude toward Robyn Highfill-McRoy and James Davies for their logistical support, as well as Jacqueline Pflieger for her early contributions to the project. Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge Danielle Hunt, Dana Maglic, and Sharmini Radakrishnan from Abt Associates; team members from the Center for Child and Family Health, including Ernestine Briggs-King, and John Fairbank; and contributions of the Millennium Cohort Study Team.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-42">Disclaimer</hd> <p>Valerie Stander and Hope McMaster are employees of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17, U.S.C. §101 defines a U.S. Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties. The project was supported by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery under work unit no. N1240. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from an approved Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board protocol, number NHRC.2015.0019.</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-43">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0180231277-44">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The protocol and datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to security protocols and privacy regulations, but they may be made available upon reasonable request to the Naval Health Research Center IRB (contact phone + 1.619.553.8400) or by contacting the corresponding author to facilitate the request.</p> <ref id="AN0180231277-45"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> In addition to deployment and reintegration, pre-deployment preparation can be a stressful period for military families and may adversely affect family functioning. The MCFS team developed and beta tested a brief assessment of family deployment readiness using a convenience sample of military spouses. This assessment will be included on the 2024 MCFS survey and may compliment and provide military-specific context to the 9-item family resilience measure. Please contact the corresponding author for more information about the deployment readiness assessment.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0180231277-46"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abidin, R. R., & Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24 (1), 31 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2401_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Belding, J. N., Castañeda, S. F., Jacobson, I. G., LeardMann, C. A., Porter, B., Powell, T. M., Kolaja, C. A., Seelig, A. D., Matsuno, R. K., Carey, F. R., Rivera, A. C., Trone, D. W., Sheppard, B. D., Walstrom, J. L., Boyko, E. J., & Rull, R. P. (2022). The Millennium Cohort Study: The first 20 years of research dedicated to understanding the long-term health of US service members and veterans. Annals of Epidemiology, 67, 61 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brosius, R. (2021, September 30). Strengthening America's military families: White House report on administration commitments to support the families of service members and veterans, their caregivers and survivors. The White House. https://<ulink href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">www.whitehouse.gov/</ulink> joiningforces/blog/2021/09/30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bullock, A., Williams, L., & Goubanova, E. (2022). Sources of risk and resilience among adolescents from military families. Military Behavioral Health, 10 (2), 124 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2022.2098883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, D. J., & Nobel, O. B. Y. (2009). Occupational stressors in military service: A review and framework. Military Psychology, 21 (sup2), S47 – S67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600903249149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref82" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., Taku, K., Vishnevsky, T., Triplett, K. N., & Danhauer, S. C. (2010). A short form of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 23 (2), 127 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800903094273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref117" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref58" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Corry, N. H., Williams, C. S., Battaglia, M., McMaster, H. S., & Stander, V. A. (2017). Assessing and adjusting for non-response in the Millennium Cohort Family Study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17 (1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0294-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref168" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Defense [DoD]. (2021). 2021 Demographics: Profile of the military community. https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2021-demographics-report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, J. M., Garrison, M. E., & Killian, T. S. (2021). Measuring family resilience: Evaluating the Walsh Family Resilience Questionnaire. The Family Journal, 29 (1), 80 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720956641</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gayatri, M., & Irawaty, D. K. (2022). Family resilience during COVID-19 pandemic: A literature review. Family Journal (Alexandria, Va.), 30 (2), 132 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807211023875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greeff, A. P., Vansteenwegen, A., & Herbiest, T. (2011). Indicators of family resilience after the death of a child. Omega, 63 (4), 343 – 358. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.63.4.c</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, S. M., Anderson, E. R., Forgatch, M. S., DeGarmo, D. S., & Hetherington, E. M. (2012). Risk and resilience after divorce. In F. Walsh (Eds.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (pp. 102 – 127). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grych, J., Hamby, S., & Banyard, V. (2015). The resilience portfolio model: Understanding healthy adaptation in victims of violence. Psychology of Violence, 5 (4), 343 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammer, J. H. (2016, October). Percent of uncontaminated correlations (PUC) calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate the PUC statistic. <ulink href="http://drjosephhammer.com/">http://drjosephhammer.com/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammer, J. H., Toland, M. D. (2016, November). Bifactor analysis in Mplus [Video file]. https://drjosephhammer.com/research/bifactor-analysis-resources/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heerman, W. J., Samuels, L. R., González Peña, T., van Wyk, C., Mayberry, L. S., Lounds Taylor, J., & Martin, N. C. (2022). Family resilience and childhood obesity among children exposed to adverse childhood experiences in a national survey. Obesity Science & Practice, 8 (1), 3 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351 (1), 13 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooghe, A., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2013). Family resilience in the wake of loss: A meaning-oriented contribution. In Handbook of family resilience (pp. 269 – 284). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaur, N., Porter, B., LeardMann, C. A., Tobin, L. E., Lemus, H., & Luxton, D. D. (2017). Evaluation of a modified version of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory-Short Form. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17 (1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0344-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., Spiro, A., Rogers, W. H., & Ware, J. E. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 Health Survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27 (3), 263 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004479-200407000-00010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazis, L. E., Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Qian, S. X., & Brazier, J. (2012). Monitoring outcomes for the Medicare Advantage program: Methods and application of the VR-12 for evaluation of plans. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 35 (4), 263 – 276. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0b013e318267468f</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klahr, A. (2022, November). Defense Personnel Analytics Center (DPAC) surveys: Challenges and opportunities [Forum presentation]. DPAC Research Forum, Virtual Event.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lester, P., Leskin, G., Woodward, K., Saltzman, W., Nash, W., Mogil, C., Paley, B., &... Beardslee, W. (2011). Wartime deployment and military children: Applying prevention science to enhance family resilience. In S. Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lester, P., Stein, J. A., Saltzman, W., Woodward, K., MacDermid, S. W., Milburn, N., Mogil, C., & Beardslee, W. (2013). Psychological health of military children: Longitudinal evaluation of a family-centered prevention program to enhance family resilience. Military Medicine, 178 (8), 838 – 845. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., Qiao, Y., Luan, X., Li, S., & Wang, K. (2019). Family resilience and psychological well-being among Chinese breast cancer survivors and their caregivers. European Journal of Cancer Care, 28 (2), e12984. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manser, L., & Ogilvie, L. (2022). Supporting resilience in military families–from research to practice. Military Behavioral Health, 10 (2), 74 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2022.2098882</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maurović, I., Liebenberg, L., & Ferić, M. (2020). A review of family resilience: Understanding the concept and operationalization challenges to inform research and practice. Child Care in Practice, 26 (4), 337 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2020.1792838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMaster, H. S., LeardMann, C. A., Speigle, S., & Dillman, D. A. (2017). An experimental comparison of web-push vs. paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health survey of military spouses. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17 (1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0337-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMaster, H. S., Stander, V. A., Williams, C. S., Woodall, K. A., O'Malley, C. A., Bauer, L. M., & Davila, E. P. (2018). Engaging military couples in marital research: Does requesting referrals from service members to recruit their spouses introduce sample bias? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0575-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadows, S. O., Beckett, M. K., Bowling, K., Golinelli, D., Fisher, M. P., Martin, L. T., Meredith, L. S., & Osilla, K. C. (2016). Family resilience in the military: Definitions, models, and policies. Rand Health Quarterly, 5 (3), 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9 (4), 599 – 620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2019). Strengthening the military family readiness system for a changing American Society. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45 (1), 141 – 151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37 (1), 64 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00175.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. H., & Barnes, H. L. (2004). Family communication. In FACES IV package. Life Innovations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2006). Faces IV and the Circumplex model. Life Innovations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neal, C. W., Lucier-Greer, M., Duncan, J. M., Mallette, J. K., Arnold, A. L., & Mancini, J. A. (2018). Vulnerability and resilience within military families: Deployment experiences, reintegration, and family functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (10), 3250 – 3261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1149-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osofsky, J. D., & Osofsky, H. J. (2018). Challenges in building child and family resilience after disasters. Journal of Family Social Work, 21 (2), 115 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2018.1427644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19 (1), 2 – 21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pflieger, J. C., Porter, B., Carballo, C. E., Stander, V. A., & Corry, N. H. (2020). Patterns of strengths in US military couples. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29 (5), 1249 – 1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01593-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pflieger, J. C., Richardson, S. M., Stander, V. A., & Allen, E. S. (2022). Risk and protective factors predictive of marital instability in US military couples. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 36 (5), 791 – 802. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, B., Kolaja, C. A., Powell, T. M., Pflieger, J. C., Stander, V. A., & Armenta, R. F. (2020). Reducing the length of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36 (5), 829 – 838. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pullman, L., & Wang, Z. (2022). Military marriages: Do adaptive processes promote marital resilience? Military Behavioral Health, 10 (2), 92 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2022.2098884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, S. M., Pflieger, J. C., Woodall, K. A., Stander, V. A., & Riviere, L. A. (2020). A model of deployment readiness among military spouses: The role of mental health and deployment-related personal growth. Military Behavioral Health, 8 (4), 378 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2020.1825240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riggs, S. A., & Riggs, D. S. (2011). Risk and resilience in military families experiencing deployment: The role of the family attachment network. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 25 (5), 675 – 687. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rolland, J. S., & Walsh, F. (2006). Facilitating family resilience with childhood illness and disability. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 18 (5), 527 – 538. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mop.0000245354.83454.68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Beardslee, W. R., Layne, C. M., Woodward, K., & Nash, W. P. (2011). Mechanisms of risk and resilience in military families: Theoretical and empirical basis of a family-focused resilience enhancement program. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14 (3), 213 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0096-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Milburn, N., Woodward, K., & Stein, J. (2016). Pathways of risk and resilience: Impact of a family resilience program on active-duty military parents. Family Process, 55 (4), 633 – 646. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stucky, B. D., Edelen, M. O., Vaughan, C. A., Tucker, J. S., & Butler, J. (2014). The psychometric development and initial validation of the DCI-A short form for adolescent therapeutic community treatment process. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46 (4), 516 – 521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183 – 206). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wadsworth, S. M., Whiteman, S., Lester, P., Stander, V., & Christ, S. (2022). Parental deployment and military children: A century of research. In J. E. Glick, V. King, & S. M. McHale (Eds.), Parent-child separation: Causes, consequences, and pathways to resilience (pp. 161 – 188). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42 (1), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, F. (2011). Family resilience: A collaborative approach in response to stressful life challenges. In Resilience and mental health: Challenges across the lifespan (pp. 149 – 161). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511994791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, F. (2016). Strengthening family resilience (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, F. (2021). Family resilience: A dynamic systemic framework. In Multisystemic resilience (pp. 255 – 270). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 10 (5), 405 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012588218728</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, C., Usher, K., & Foster, K. (2011). Family resilience: Towards a new model of chronic pain management. Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 18 (1), 3 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2010.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winkie, D. (2022, October). Does the Army ask soldiers to do too many surveys? Maybe, experts say. Army Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/10/11/does-the-army-ask-soldiers-to-do-too-many-surveys-maybe-expert-says/">www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/10/11/does-the-army-ask-soldiers-to-do-too-many-surveys-maybe-expert-says/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, C., Roberts, R., & Ward, L. (2019). Application of resilience theories in the transition to parenthood: A scoping review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 37 (2), 139 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2018.1540860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52 (1), 30 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Travis N. Ray; Alejandro P. Esquivel; Valerie A. Stander; Hope S. McMaster; Scott C. Roesch and Froma Walsh</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Travis N. Ray, received a Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology from Oakland University in 2022. He currently is a Research Psychologist supporting the Millennium Cohort Family Study at the Naval Health Research Center. He manages the study's Relationship Health portfolio, which encompasses research on marital quality/satisfaction, family resilience, and interpersonal violence within military contexts. Dr. Ray is interdisciplinary in his research perspective and approach, often integrating theory and methodology common to psychology (social, health, clinical, cognitive), public health, sociology, criminal justice, economics, and environmental studies.</p> <p>Alejandro P. Esquivel, received a Masters of Public Health in Epidemiology from San Diego State University in 2017. He currently is a Data Analyst II supporting the Millennium Cohort Family Study at the Naval Health Research Center. He supports the study team with data analysis and data management tasks, such as reviewing variables for analyses and processing data request forms for approval.</p> <p>Valerie A. Stander, is the Principal Investigator for the Millennium Cohort Family Study and has studied the well-being of military personnel and their families at the Naval Health Research Center for 25 years. She has conducted work on issues ranging from interpersonal violence and substance abuse prevention to self-help for returning combat veterans. Dr. Stander earned her Ph.D. in Family Studies at Purdue University, and continues actively collaborating on research with the Purdue Military Family Research Institute.</p> <p>Hope S. McMaster, serves as a civilian Research Psychologist at the Naval Health Research Center where she is the Principal Investigator of the longitudinal Millennium Cohort Study of Adolescent Resilience (SOAR) and Deputy Principal Investigator of the longitudinal Millennium Cohort Family Study. Dr. McMaster is the lead investigator for all Family Study foundational papers and manages the study's mental health research portfolio. As a military spouse, she used her personal experiences and knowledge of military family life and culture to help shape the content of the Millennium Cohort Family Study questionnaire and establish study priorities. Over the past two decades, she has published on the topics of racial bias, racial disparities in health, military marital relationships, survey methodology, and military spouse well-being.</p> <p>Scott C. Roesch, is a Professor of Psychology at San Diego State University, where he teaches advanced and multivariate statistics at the graduate level. He has research expertise in multilevel modeling, latent variable methods, measurement, and longitudinal approaches to data analysis. He also serves as a core research scientist specializing in Research Methods and Statistics for the Moore's Cancer Center, the Children and Adolescent Services Research Center, the Consortium for the Collaborative Initiative on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, and the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. In addition to authoring over 250 publications, he is an Associate Editor for Implementation Science , and has served as Associate Editor for Health Psychology , and he as one of the primary statistical editors for Health Psychology , Journal for Research on Adolescence , American Journal of Preventive Medicine , and the Psychology of Women Quarterly.</p> <p>Froma Walsh, is the Mose & Sylvia Firestone Professor Emerita in the Crown School and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago, and is Co-Founder & Co-Director, Chicago Center for Family Health. Dr. Walsh is a leading international authority on family resilience, with over three decades of scholarship and practice application with families facing highly stressful challenges of trauma and loss, disruptive life changes, and multi-stress chronic conditions. Her research-informed Family Resilience Framework and questionnaire have been translated and applied globally in research, clinical training, and community services. With 120+ scholarly publications, her recent books are: Strengthening Family Resilience (3rd ed., 2016); and Complex and Traumatic Loss: Fostering Healing and Resilience (2023). Dr. Walsh is Past President, American Family Therapy Academy; Past Editor, Journal of Marital & Family Therapy ; and recipient of many awards for her distinguished contributions to the mental health field.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib524" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref169"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1443659
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Development, Validity, and Reliability of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Family Resilience in Military Families
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Travis+N%2E+Ray%22">Travis N. Ray</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alejandro+P%2E+Esquivel%22">Alejandro P. Esquivel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Valerie+A%2E+Stander%22">Valerie A. Stander</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hope+S%2E+McMaster%22">Hope S. McMaster</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scott+C%2E+Roesch%22">Scott C. Roesch</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Froma+Walsh%22">Froma Walsh</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+and+Evaluation+in+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. 2024 57(4):299-317.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: US Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: N1240
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Evaluation+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Evaluation (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Characteristics%22">Family Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Military+Personnel%22">Military Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spouses%22">Spouses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Armed+Forces%22">Armed Forces</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Health%22">Physical Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Factors%22">Religious Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marital+Satisfaction%22">Marital Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Relationship%22">Family Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481756.2024.2321937
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1756<br />1947-6302
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: This study aimed to develop a brief and valid measure of family resilience for use in research with military families. Method: A population-based sample of military spouses (N = 16,379) completed assessments of family resilience and validation constructs. Participants were randomized into two subsamples. Subsample 1 was used in a factor analysis to reduce the number of items, whereas subsample 2 was used in a series of models to confirm the initial model and evaluate dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Results: Nine items were retained and demonstrated strong factor loadings (> 0.80) in the initial and confirmatory models. A bifactor model provided some evidence of multidimensionality, but not enough to dismiss the unidimensional construct. Brief measures of family resilience and its subconstructs demonstrated strong reliability and construct validity. Conclusions: The 9-item instrument is a reliable and valid tool that can be used to assess military family resilience in future research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1443659
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1443659
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481756.2024.2321937
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 299
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Evaluation (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Military Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spouses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Armed Forces
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Marital Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Relationship
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Development, Validity, and Reliability of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Family Resilience in Military Families
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Travis N. Ray
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alejandro P. Esquivel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Valerie A. Stander
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hope S. McMaster
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scott C. Roesch
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Froma Walsh
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1756
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1947-6302
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1