Research Note 85-79

AS A DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT

ARI Scientific Coordination Office

U.S. Army Europe

LTC Ford R. McLain, Chief

DTIC

ELECTE

MAY 0 6 0

LU

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

July 1985

Acproved for "ubI.C releose, cistribution unli...ed.

86 5 6 073
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM DARRYL HENDERSON*q

EDGAR M. JOHNSONCLI

Technical Director fUI2

IThis report has been cleared for release to the Defense Technical information Center (D)TiC). It his been given no 0.

Iother primary distribution and will be available to requs-tors only through DTIC or other reference services suc

as the National Technical Inofoiration Service INTIS). The views. opinions, and/or findings contained in this

report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as Sn official Department of the Army position. Ipolicy. or decision. unless so designated by other official documentation.I
SECU7RITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("Onw bet' Entered) %P~

REPORT~~~EA DOuETriNPG NSTRUCTIONS REPOT DCLIMNTAiON AGEBEFOE CMPLELNGFORM

1.REPORT NUMBER 2.GOVT ACCESSIOtN NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ART Research Note 85-79 4 TILE ('d ubt~le)S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

THE FAMILY SURVEY AS A DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT Miay 193-eb.o 198

G. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7.AUTHOR(a) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

Karol Girdler

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 2Q263731A792

Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue,2.2

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 * '

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and July 1985 N

Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 23

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDWRESS(if different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this. report)

Unclassified

IS&. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWN GRADING

SCHEDULE n/a

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (af this Report)

Approved for public release; distibution unlimited. I

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of th, abstrac? entered In Block 20, It differenlt from Report)

Itt. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide if neceseery end Identify by block rumber) I

Army Family

Instrumentation for Army Family Studies

2Q. ABSrRACT -Coutbo as reverse* 94rif nueeewy ad ldetjfy. by block nu~bev)

The purpose of this paper is Lo document analyses done to make refinements

* in an instrument previously itsed for a May 1983 survey of 1,036 Army couples ~ ~ *

* in the U.S. Army in Europe. The analyses were performed to deterltine strengths

* and weaknesses of the Instrument, as well as to examine implications for use

of data obtained from such an instrument. Sections of the instrument were

assessed to determine whether the sections constituted actual scales. Results

(OVER)

DD 'FORM7 473 EDITION OF I EOV155IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whe~n Dots Entored) . .

~ V #d ~ ~~ *.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whain Dlot& Bnet"d)

ARI Research Note 85-79 ' -

20. (continued)

include reliability coe!fficients and relationships among the scales

- determined by factor analysis, intercorrelation, and step-wise regression. I

Results were examined in light of suggested refinements for the instrument,

if it or sections of it are used in such research in the future. Recommendations include 1) future use of scales to analyze family bonding, strengths

or weaknesses which have literature giving us the psychometric properties,

and known relationships to other constructs, 2) revising items from the

"Family Index of Coherence" to form a commitment to the Army scale, _

3) using the literature on the psychological sense of community to develop

scales for this variable, 4) using a known scale for job satisfaction, and

5) designing the next survey instrument so that multivariate scores can be

more easily applied to groups of items or composite scores.

LAM

" "--'7i.°-v-'•-.v -

1*

XX

U I N I{ A.SSTUFTI

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(W?,en Dot. Enreoed)

. . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.- "'..',-
THE FAMILY SURVEY AS A DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT

CONTE NTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1

ANALYSIS .................................................. I

Structure of the Scales .............................. I

Relationships Among the Scales ...... ....................... I

Diagnostic Ability of the Scales .... ...................... 2

RESULTS ................................................... 2

Internal Structure of the Scales ................ ..... 2

Relationships Among the Scales ....... ....................... 7

Diagnostic Ability of the Scales ...... ..................... 9

SUMMARY ........... ................................................... 12

Social Support . ....................................... 12

Family Index of Coherence (FIC) ...................... 16

Community Life (Satisfaction) ............................... 16

Job SaLibfaction ...................................... 16

Spouse Independence (Short-term Family Separation) ... 17

S k i l1 s ......... ............................................... 17

Expectations .................................................. 17

FACES ................................................ 18

REFERENCES ................................................ 19

Accesion For

NTIS CRA&MDTIC TAB 1 U0annouriced "

Justifica uon ,y.. ............

By ";:"

Dist ioution _

Availability Codes Dist Avail andj or

Special

i ii _ .... " __ -
 j4 -~-~- - -V

. • . .7 .- ,. .

_•i .* • ,• .•• .• ,v.• % • % o• . .. • "pJo -• .. .* *.*• .. .. 9 . . • . . - .- . .*." '°""o ° '' . '° P " q%•

LIST OF TABLES j

Table Page

1 Scale Reliability Summary .......................... 3

2 Factor Pattern of Seven Scales (Military Members

O nly ) ...................... ........................ 4

3 Factor Pattern of Scale Scores .......................... 8

4 Intercorrelation of Composite Scale Scores (Military

Members Only) ...................................... 10

5 Summary of Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression

Analysis for the Prediction of Community Life

Scores (Military Members Only) ......................... 11

6 Summary of Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression

Analysis for Prediction of Intention to Extend

Yes, No. Maybe) for the Ranks El to E5 ................ 13

7 Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for

the Prediction of Intention to Extend (Yes, No, -p Maybe) for the Ranks E6 to E9 .......................... 14 -

8 Summary of Results of Stepwise Mulitple Regression

Analysis for the Prediction of Intention to Extend C_

Yes, No, Maybe) for Officers ........................... 15

Ni

N

I.%

* ----*.,, p. •-'-V :%.-..-- .J- ... . . *- . .- . ..-. . ~~. . .......- .- g... j ~ .x fE k aa~ n
Introductioij

The survey instrument used in the 1983 ARI survey of Army

Families in USAREUR was examined to determine if seven selected

scales, as they appear in the survey format, actually possess the

psychometric properties of scales. Scale at this point meant a

group of items presented together under one heading in the survey

instrument and using one response format for all items in the

group. Two purposes guided this effort: I) If scales could be

demonstrated, the "value" of the survey will be enhanced, as

composite scale scores can be used as diagnostic instruments

in multivariate analyses; and, (2) scales identfied can be

selected or discarded for inclusion in subsequent surveys based

on their psychometric properties, and on their relationship to

other variables of interest in the research plans.

Analysis

Structure of the Scales

Seven scales were chosen after a review of the survey

instrument, based on their face value to provide diagnostic

information about Army families in general, the family in Europe, or satisfaction with the community. The scales are 1) Family

Index of Coherence (FIC) , 2) Social Support Index, 3) Community Life (examined as a possible community satisfaction scale), 4)

Short-Term Family Separation (used as a measure of spouse

independence), 5) Skills, 6) Expectations, and 7 ) Family

Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES) .

Subsequently, an eighth scale, job satisfaction, was created from

five items in the Community Life scale.

Each of these scales was subjected to an analysis of their

reliability, estimated by.Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Only the

responses o' the military members were used except when the FACES

scale was considered. The FACES scale was not administered to

the military member population, only to the non-military spouses.

Items were deleted until the highest reliability coefficient was

achieved.

Next, all the items which were retained for each scale were

entered into a factor analysis. Only the responses of military

members were analyzed. The FACES items (responses from the

spouse population only) were not included in the factor analysis.

The resulting factor loadings were examined to determine if the

pre-selected scale groupings corresponded to the factor structure

subsequently obtaineo.

Relationships Among the Scales

A second factor analysis was done using the composite scores

as variables to exaiine whether the scale scores were generally

tapping one or more than one constellation of factors or

• ::1

".•',•-...-...':"x',-."".'.-..-- -•.'-. -. •.. • . •.'.. " ".',.'_•" -" "-"." ". "." ..."..."."-.'...-...-.......-..'-..-..'..--..-..-..-..-......-...-...-..-..-.-......•.- - -.
* . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

N--

constructs about Army families In Europe. An intercorrelation

matrix was Constructed using the composite scale scores as

variables to further examine the extent of the relationships

among the scales.

Diagnostic Ability of the Scales

Further surveys of Army families can be constructed in such a

way that more inferences can be made about influences on Army

families and about the relationships between various attitudes.

Analyses were computed which serve as examples of areas for .

consideration in future studies, and which highlight changes in

design needed in future survey instruments.

A second correlation matrix was constructed which included

the composite scale scores and the variable "length of time in

Europe during present tour," to look for areas of change over

time in families in Europe.

Finally, regression analysis was used to further test the

diagnostic ability of the scales. The scale scores, the profile

Items of "quantity of sponsorship," "belief in the NEO program,*

and community size were used as independent variables in a

stepwise multiple regression analysis to construct an equation to

predict community satisfaction (defined as the Community Life

scale). Regression analyses were also computed using the

additional scale scores, "quantity of sponsorship, and community

size as independent variables to construct an equation to predict

"intention to extend," (defined as Yes, No, and Maybe groups).

The regression analyses on intention to extend" were done for

each rank grouping: Officer; NCO; and junior enlisted.

Results

Internal Structure of the Scales

Each scale was examined for reliabilitj by the computation of

Cronbach's coefficient alpha. In the FIC scale and the Social

Support scale , items were deleted until the highest possible

coefficient for the set of items was obtained Table 1

summarizes the items which were retained, and the relatively high

coefficients obtained for the scales. The coefficients are

comparable to the coefficients obtained in McCubbin and

Patterson (1983).

In order to.test whether the items loaded into factors which

were comparable to the groupings (scales) already established for

the items, a factor analysis was performed on all the individual

items in all the scales for military members' responses only

(excluding the FACES items which had been answered by the spouse

population only). Results of the factor analysis are summarized

in Tables 2a, 2b, 2c. • .4"

"2%o%

".4.=%•
4 .

Table I

Scale Reliability Summary

Scale Cronbach Alpha Items Deleted

Standardized

Family Index of Coherence (FIC) .82 16 items:

2,3,5,8,11 ,13,

17,18,20,21 ,22, 23,25,26,28,29

Social Support Index .83 6 items:

1,7,11,16,19,25

Community Life .91 none

Short-Term Family Separation .86 none

Skills .86 none

Expectations .73 none

FACES .91 none

Job Satisfaction .83 not applicable

3 -'..,

.. ~

. . . .... . ... . . . . .. . .
Table 2

Factor Pattern of Seven Scales (Military Members Only)

Scale Items Highest Factor Loading Per Item ". |

1. Social Support 3 5 6 is

02 In emergency, community willing to help .50

03 Good feelings about time spent with fam .75

04 SM feel part of family .75

05 Community helps people in trouble .48

06 Friends value SM and SM's ability .51

08 People can depend on each other in com. .63

09 Family seldom listens to SM problems .6u

10 Com friends are part of activites .54

12 Friends may take advantage of SM .50

13 Living in community gives secure feeling .51

14 Family shows love and affection to SM .69

15 Feeling in community to not be friends .60

17 Not good community to raise children .41

18 SM important to friends as they're to SM .51

2U Role in community is active and involved .46

21 Friends really care and love me .53

22 Family doesn't understand SM .65

23 SM feels useful in community .55

24 SM friends dishonest in comments .45

II, Family Index Of Coherence (FIC)

01 It tam-Army conflict, Army first .48

04 Family planning for assignments .44

06 Confidence in getting help for problems .55

U7 Family has say in future assignments .55

09 Family unsure whether to stay in Army .48

10 Plan for educ and work impossible .60 Factor

12 Career hurt if fam voices needs .46 10

14 Fam unsure if SM at home or gone .62

15 Schedule unsure due to freq TDY .68

16 Army treats SM & fam justly .65

19 Fam committed to Army lifestyle .58

24 Army takes care of its families .62

27 Army helps us understand hardships .62

30 Being in Army Can't be good for family .52

"2.'. .

b -'
Table 2 (cont)

Factor Pattern of Seven Scales (Military Members Only)

Scale Items Highest Factor Loading Per Item

III. Community Satisfaction 4 7 8 11 12 13 14

01 Your present housing .77

02 Your present neighborhood .67

03 P. .79

04 Commissary .78 .. *•

05 Child care services .57

06 Medical/dental services .61

07 Cost of living .4i

08 Travel around and see places .46

09 Eat out with family & friends .48

10 Quality of ACS program .51

11 Quality of recreation program .64

12 Chance for SP to find a job .42

13 Quality of child education .8U

14 Children's happiness .80

15 Spouses happiness .46

16 SM satisfaction with job .54

17 Amount of time with children .72--..'

23 Fear of S4 going to war .69

24 Youth activities .61

25 Fear family caught in war .71

26 Use of NEO/Off club .38

27 Quality and number of friendships .37

28 Number of financial problems .54

29 Amount of crime .48

30 Quality of marital relationship .40 ,,..-

31 Quality of chaplains' programs .85

32 Quality of church services .86 ..

IV. Job Satisfaction

18 Chances for promotion .54

19 Quality of unit training .73

20 Qual-ity of unit leadership .78

21 Quality of unit morale .68

22 Unit readiness .74

..

5 :: :::

5.-.:.

.7"-I -'
m - -. --' '• . - . . - -, , ,.r .• . " " ''' • - '' ' ' " ( • •• • V o ¥ . t'k•

Table 2 (cont)

Factor Pattern 01 Seven Scales (Military Members Only) ,

S,'ale Items Highest Fdctor Loadin, Per Item

V. Expectations _ 9 _7 ___

01 Qalitty housing for tamily .51

V2 Quality schools for kids .52

03 rime for faro togetherness .5.

U4 A job i really like ."-45

05 Better chance for advancement .41

06 Charce to travel In Europe .55

07 Family chance to enjoy Europe .53

:0 Quality Med/Dental services .54

09 Financial security stability .58

VI. Skills .7-

U1 Speak German or Italian language .74

U2 Drive a car in USAREUR or SETAF .46

U3 Use public transportation .71

U4 Use the local telephone system .73

0ý Order food from local restaurant .76

U6 Understand local customs and laws .73 , U Ot• 7 Uzwe se Elie the local postal system .7(, train system in Europe .7ý '

SU9 Shop on the economy .67"'"

VII. Spoose Independence.-.

U1 Sp hatidles/displines child .5bi

02 Sp gets jobs done at home .7U 03 Sp uses Army & Civ stores .64

04 Sp offers support to child .59 %

05 Sp handles family finances .71

06 Sp keeps busy and does things .71

07 Sp makes decisions for the family .75

Ob Sp maintains a positive attitude .66

09 Sp handles emergencies .71

.1

6.%'

.• *..*
The factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded 15

orthogonal factors which accounted for 63% of the total v.iriance.

The factor structure is summarized below in terms of the scales.

The Social Support scale is comprised of two factors with no

P items from any other scale loading on these factors. The factors

represent items about support from the community (factor 5) and

items about support from the family (factor 6).

The Short-term Family Separation (Spouse Independence) scale

formed a 9-item factor (factor 2). The 9 skills items also

formed a factor (factor 1).

The Expectations scale formed somewhat of a scattered factor

* pattern. The three factors represent: 1) an item about time for

family togetherness (factor 10), 2) two items which factored with

the job satisfaction items (factor 7), 3) and a 6-item general

expectations scale (factor 9).

"Ten of the 14 items in the FIC scale formed a factor (factor

3). Two of the items loaded with one other item from the

Expectations scale (factor 10). The three items deal with time

for the family to be together. Two of the FIC items comprised

another factor (factor 15). The items were about planning future

assignments.

The Community Life scale was the least "cohesive scale,

loading on 7 various factors. One Community Life item loaded on

the factor composed of the five-item job satisfaction scale

(factor 7). (Although it was not done in the present analysis,

that item should be grouped with the job satisfaction scale for

any future tests of these scales.) A second Community Life

factor was formed for items related to children (factor 8). The

main factor within the scale was formed by 13 of the 27 items

(factor 4). It appears to be a general community satisfaction or

quality of life factor. The remaining eight items loaded into

four different factors. Each factor contained two items: one

factor on housing and neighborhood (factor 11); one on fear of

war (factor 13); one on church programs (factor 12); and one on

amount of crime and financial problems (factor 14).

Relationships Among the Scales

A second factor analysis with varimax rotation which used the

composite scale scores as variables produced two factors in the

scales Sixty-seven percent of the total variance was accounted

for by the two factors. Factor I consisted of FIC, Social

Support, Short-term Family Separation (Spouse Independence),

Skills, and Expectations. Factor 2 consisted of the job

satisfaction items and Community Life. The FACES scale did not

load above a criterion of .30 on either factor, and appears to be

discrete from the above scales. Factor 1 could indicate that

some global quality of Army Family functioning in USAREUR is

being measured. These factors are summarized in Table 3.
S.

Table 3

Factor Pattern of Scale Scores

Scale Highest Factor Loading

Factor I Factor 2

Job Satisfaction .89

FIC -. 83

Social Support .85

Community Satisfaction .88

Spouse Independence .85

Skills .80

Expectations .70

FACES .13

p.- %.

.5-

8 %.%~

- .. .. -. 5- ~ V..v. %.*.** *%.~,*~
S.. . . . . % ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.

An intercorrelation matrix was constructed using the scale

scores as variables. Table 4 summarizes the high degree of

relationships among the scales. All the scales are correlated

with the others (p < .01), except the FACES scale which has no

relationship with the others except for a low correlations

(p < .05) with Social Support, probably because of the factor of

family s-pport in the Social Support scale. An examination of

the positive and negative correlations among the other scales

could lead to hypotheses about the population for further study.

Diagnostic Ability of the Scales IV.-

A second correlation matrix was constructed to examine

whether the scales had any relationship to the length of time a

family has been in Europe. These scales generally do not

discriminate among families based on that variable. The only

correlations found were a moderate correlation (r - .22; _E < .01)

between time and the Skills scale, and a low correlation between

time and Expectations (r = .16; p <.05).

The diagnostic ability of the sLales was further examined by

a stepwise multiple regression analysis to construct an equation

to predict the dependent variable community satisfaction (defined

as the Community Life scale). The variables "quantity of

sponsorship," "belief in NEO,' and community size were also used

with the scales as independent variables. Table 5 summarizes the

resulta of this analysis. All the variables entered into the

equation significantly. A total of 49% of the variance in

community satisfaction responses was accounted for. Job

satisfaction accou.nted for 44% of the variance. Expectations

accounted for the next highest amount of variance, 5%. As the

job satisfaction scale was created from items in the Community

Life group on the survey, there is contamination in the

interpretation of this finding. The Community Life scale was

formed from the remaining items which did not pertain to job

satisfaction. The two scales are factorially independent.

However, the suggestion is that some relationship may exist

between community satisfaction and job satisfaction for the

military member population. A more complete measure of job

satisfaction should be used in future research to determine if

job satisfaction has a real relationship to community

satisfaction and to other constructs of interest.

A final test of the scales was made by using "intention to

extend" as a dependent variable. Intention to extend was broken

into three categories: "Yes, No, and "Maybe. The

independent variables were all of the scales, "quantity of

sponsorship," and community size.- These variables were used to

form an equation by stepwise multiple regression analysis. The

analyses were done by rank.

A total of 17Z of the variance in the response to the item

"intention to extend" for ranks El to E5 was accounted for by

................. .

... , .'.-.~~~~~~. .- . -, .-... x:.';,.-.-." .. ...... > . -. "-,.,.,- •..... -.-.-. '. .- •.•"x-"•"
11-4-

00

00

01
~*~..-~

 .Z7 TV V- .P - ...

Table 5

Summary of Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for

the Prediction of Community Life Scores (Military Members Only)

Variables R R2 R2 change

Job Satisfaction .66 .44 .44

Expectations .70 .49 .05

Community Size .70 .49 .00

Quantity of Spousorship .70 .49 .00

Social Support .70 .49 .00

Sp~use Independence .70 .49 .00

Belief in NMO .70 .49 .00

FIC .70 .49 .00

Skills .70 .49 .00

FACES .7u .49 .O0

.. -'U

11 .- "A
these variables. Table 6 summarizes these findings. The FIC

scale accounted for 10%, and Spouse Independence accounted for

the next largest amount of the variance, 4%.

Table 7 summarizes the same analysis for ranks E6 to E9. A

total of 11% of the variance could be accounted for. Again, the

FIC scale and the Spouse Independence scale accounted for most of

the variance in response, along with community size.

The same analysis for Officers produced a very different

profile. A total of only 8% of the variance could be accounted

for by these variables. However, the most significant variable

was Expectations, accounting for 3% of the variance, with FIC

second, accounting for 2%. Spouse Independence did not enter the

equation for Officers. Table 8 summarizes this analysis.

Summary

The analyses above were computed for the dual purposes of 1)

determining if selected subsections of the family survey

instrument labelled as scales actually represented scales for

which composite scores could be computed and used in multivariate

analysis, and 2) to substantiate suggestions for the inclusion,

deletion or substitution of new material in future research

instruments.

The scales considered will be commented on individually in

reference to their reliability, scale structure, predicted

relationship to variables of interest in future research plans,

and their long-range potential for indicating areas of

intervention to improve the quality of life for Army Families in I'*

Europe.

Social Support

Nineteen items of the Social Support scale were grouped

together for the current analysis. The resulting scale appears

to be reliable and is composed of two discrete factors: Support '

from the community and support from the family. The scale loaded

into a factor with the FIC scale, the Spouse Independence scale,

Skills and Expectations scales when composite scores were used as

variables. As suggested above, these may constitute unique

measures of Army family life.

The concept of social support is very important in any

analysis of copi-ng strategies, and some measure of social support

should be retained. We have no guarantee, however, that the

scale is valid, that is, measuring what it says it measures. One

option is to replace this scale with a family diagnostic

instrument the qualities of which are known. A suggestion is the

Fam4 ly Relationship Index (FRI) (see Billings & Moos, 1982) which

has high reliability (Alpha = .89), is correlated with other

measures of social support, and is predictably related to

individual levels of depression and psychosomatic symptoms. "'The

,.- .. . . .-. . . 2..... ...
"Table 6

Summary of Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for

the Prediction of Intention to Extend (Yes, No Maybe)

for the Ranks El to E5

Variables R R2 R2 change

FIC .32 .10 .10

* Spouse Independence .36 .14 .04

Community Size .39 .15 .01

Community Satisfaction .39 .15 .00

Job Satisfaction .40 .16 .01

Social Support .40 .16 .00

Quantity of Sponsorship .40 .16 .00

Skills .40 .16 .00

FACES .41 .17 .01

Expectations .41 .17 .00

',:'

•,,

13
Table 7

Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for the

Prediction of Intention to Extend (Yes, No, Maybe)

for the Ranks E6 to E9

Variables R R2 R2 change

FIC .24 .06 .06

.,pouse Independence .28 .08 .02

Community Size .31 .10 .02

* 1Job Satisfaction .32 .10 .U0

Social Support .32 .11 .01

Community Satisfaction .33 .11 .00

,- Quantity of Sponsorship .33 .11 .00

Skills .33 .11 U

Expectations .33 .11 .00

FACES .33 .11 .00

14

Yý,%

.ml

' 14 .. . -" -
Table 8

Summary of Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

for the Prediction to Intention to Extend (Yes, No, Maybe)

for Officers

Variables R R2 R2 change

Expectat ions .17 .03 .03

FIC .22 .05 .02 .

Community Satisfaction .25 .06 .01

Social Support .27 .07 .01

Skills .28 .08 .01

Community Size .28 .08 .U0

Job Satisfaction .29 .08 .00

FACES .29 .08 .00

I::

1 5 

%

r ~~~15 '.',

IL
FRI has been used to show that femily resources can moderate the

relationships between stressful life events and criteria of

individual functioning," (p. 221). The study by Billings and

Moos showed how this measure was used to evaluate the support of

the family in improving the individual's ability to tolerate work

stress. The FRI contains a subscale of family coherence.

An additional scale to measure community support could be

derived from one of the social support factors in the original

scale.

Family Index of Coherence (FIC) .

This scale proved to contain a discrete factor for 10 of the

14 items used in this analysis. The scale appears to be reliable.

It was the best predictor of intention to extend for enlisted

members in the present analysis. Rather than measuring "family

coherence, however, the 10 items seem to measure commitment to

the Army based on their content. The FIC could be used in future

research as measure of commitment to the Army.

Community Life (Satisfaction)

This scale formed several factors even with five job

satisfaction items being removed. It appears to be a reliable

scale. Because the items seem to measure attitudes about the

c.uality of community services which are unique to Army

communities, portions of the scale should be retained. The job

satisfaction items should be removed from the scale: Items 18-22

and item 16.

Because of the emphasis by the Army Family Action plan on the s.

Psychological Sense of Community, and Quality of Life, more items

on these issues should be added and the constructs separated

psychometrically. Thp literature on these topics which have

received a great deal of attention in the past 10-15 years since

the "birth" of community psychology, should be examined for

• reliable scales, whose psychometric properties have already been

investigated.

Job Satisfaction I-'.

V,. The five-item job satisfaction scale formed a unique factor,

and is reliable. It also predicts 43% of the variance in the

r e sponses to the Community Life sc~le. This finding is

contaminated by the fact that the job satisfaction items were

,. drawn from the Community Life group of items. The remainder of

'C the items were used to form a factorially separate Community Life ,%

scale. However, it is possible that the construct of job

satisfaction could be highly related to community satisfaction in

the military member population. These five job satisfaction .8

items should be retained with item 16 from the Community Life

scale due to their content which is specific to active duty

military careers. However, given the rich literature on job

C-. .16 :•

• • .%
satisfaction and Its relationship to job performance e , 

absenteeism, turnover, etc., it is advisable to include a broader

measure of job satisfaction in future surveys. A short measure

of job satisfaction which could be included is the 20-i tem

Minnesota scale the psychometric properties of which are well

documented (Weiss, Dawis, Lofquist, & England, 1967).

Spouse Independence (Short-term Family Separation)

The scale formod a discrete factor, appears to be reliable,

and taps an aspect of family life which is somewhat unique to

military life, especially in foreign settings. It was also a

significant predictor of intention to extend for the enlisted

population in the current study. Retain this as is.

Skills

This scale is also unique in containing items specific to

this population. It formed a discrete factor and a high

reliability coefficient was obtained. Correlation analysis also

showed that reported skills were greater for those with more time

in country, across ranks, perhaps refuting the idea that the

population under study tends to remain isolated and uninformed

about their host country. It should be retained as is.

Expectations

The scale, while reliable, did not form a discrete factor.

There was a correlation between Expectation responses and how V:-

long the military member had been in Europe, and there is a

significant difference in Expectations among ranks (as found by

Sanders'). Expectations was the best predictor of intention

to extend for officers, of all the variables considered in this

analysis. It also contributed to the prediction of intention to

extend for enlisted members, and to the prediction of Community

Life responses.

Given the rich literature and theoretical models available on

expectations and their relationship to subsequent attitudes and

behavior, (see for example the theories reviewed in Fishbein,

1975), it seems appropriate to expand the number of items on

expectations, breaking it into subareas of interest (e.g., Job,

housing, culture shock, etc.). Specific areas where expectations

were not met have already been identified from the first survey,

and differences were found among ranks (Ozkaptan and Sanders,

1984) An expanded analysis of met and unmet expectations offers

an avenue for future intervention.

I .. *•"

ISanders, W., ARI, FU, USAREUR. Personal communication, January

1984.

17 -I-I:
FACES

This scale, while highly reliable, did not relate to the

other scales except for a low correlation with Social Support.

* It may be related to other research questions not considered in

this effort, but it did not demonstrate any utility in the

present analyses. !-V

In conclusion, there may be other reliable scales in the

survey instrument which should be retained in addition to those

recommended here. And, there are other research questions where

the scales confirmed in this effort can be tested as diagnostic

. instrument . The -diagnosis" of family functioning, quality of

"life, and psychological sense of community should be further

investigated in terms of additional items or scales which can

discriminate these constructs in this population. The measures

of family functioning and social support in the current survey

,[ are first steps in this investigation, but are in need of

. refinement. The Community Life scale with some items deleted

* offers a possible Quality of Life measure. The Expectations

scale appears to be a good diagnostic instrument , although some

items should probably be deleted (3, 4, and 5). A short job

* satisfaction scale should be added. Finally, the Skills and

Short-term Family Separation (Spouse Independence) scales should

be retained. A factor of the FTC scale should be retained as a

measure of commitment to the Army.

S S°* ..-
eZ

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 

ib, ih.

References

Billings, A.G., and Moos, R.H. (1982). Work stress and the

stress-buffering roles of work and family resources. Journal of

Occupational Behavior, 3, 215-232.

Fishbein, M., and AJzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention

and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading,

FMassachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

McCubbin, H.I., and Patterson, J.M. (1983). One Thousand Army

Families: Strengths, Coping & Supports. University of

Minne sot a. •~m

Ozkaptan, 11., Sanders, W., and Holz, R. (July 1984). A Profile

of Army Families in USAREUR: Results of the 1983 Families in

Europe Survey. In publication. Army Research institute, Field

Unit USAREUR.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., Lofquist, L.H., and England, C.W.

Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. (1967).

Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: 2. University

of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, Work Adjustment

Project .

1 A