Author (year)

Indicator variable & Point of service

Outcome variables

Outcome measure(s)

Covariates

Relevant findings and effects

Cigrang et al. (2021)

Active duty for 3 months

1) Couple dysfunction

2) IPV

3) ACEs

1) MSI-B; RDS

2) CTS2

3) ACEs scale (10 items)

N/A

1) Higher parental divorce during childhood in SM sample vs. nationally representative survey of US adults: 62% vs. 35% (females) and 49% vs. 32% (males).

2) Equal rates of exposure to IPV in SM sample vs. civilians: 21% (females) and 12% (men).

3) Higher proportion of SMs reported 2+ ACEs, compared with civilians in the CDC-KACES^: 62% vs. 41% (women) and 39% vs. 34% (men). Serving women, compared with serving men, reported more ACEs (t [371] = 4.48, p < 0.001). Total ACEs were related to recent IPV victimization for women SMs, but not for men.

SMs reported higher rates of childhood abuse or neglect vs. civilians: 43% vs. 21% (women) and 34% vs. 24% (men).

Salivar et al. (2020)

11% active duty

89% veterans

1) Psychological distress

2) Perceived stress

3) Anger

4) Problematic alcohol use

5) Perceived overall physical health

6) Insomnia

1) K10

2) PSS

3) PROMIS: Anger-SF

4) PROMIS: Alcohol use

5) SF-36 (general health perceptions subscale)

6) ISI

N/A

Nsd were observed on any baseline measure of individual outcomes.

1) Civilian: M = 5.96 (5.58), Military: M = 16.65 (5.88); b = 0.695, SE = 0.511, p = 0.174, ES = 0.12

2) Civilian: M = 8.36 (3.11), Military: M = 8.77 (3.19); b = 0.404, SE = 0.284, p = 0.156, ES = 0.13

3) Civilian: M = 14.63 (4.72), Military: M = 14.91 (4.38); b = 0.281, SE = 0.409, p = 0.492, ES = 0.06

4) Civilian: M = 5.53 (6.16), Military: M = 6.00 (5.17); b = 0.468, SE = 0.550, p = 0.395, ES = 0.08

5) Civilian: M = 17.61 (4.32), Military: M = 17.93 (4.08); b = 0.314, SE = 0.367, p = 0.392, ES = 0.07

6) Civilian: M = 10.18 (6.23), Military: M = 10.58 (5.98); b = 0.397, SE = 0.514, p = 0.440, ES = 0.06

Nsd in treatment gains based on military/civilian status, with the exception of greater reduction in insomnia for Civilian couples.

Salivar et al. (2020)

11% active duty

89% veterans

(Only active duty reported here)

1) Relationship satisfaction

2) Communication conflict and Emotional support

3) Perceived breakup

potential

4) IPV

1) CSI

2) ACF Supporting Healthy Marriage project measures

3) Adapted from the MII (3 items)

4) Developed with NDVH (7 items)

N/A

Nsd in baseline relationship functioning variables between active service and non-military.

1) Satisfaction b = 0.17, SE = 0.467, p = 0.71, ES = 0.04

2) Conflict b = 0.19, SE = 0.49, p = 0.70, ES = 0.04; Emotional Support b = 0.21, SE = 0.32, p = 0.51, ES = 0.06

3) Break-up potential b = 0.02, SE = 0.11, p = 0.87, ES = 0.02

4) IPV b = 0.09, SE = 0.35, p = 0.81, ES = 0.03

Sig. pre-post change in relationship and individual functioning for MF couples. Small between-groups ESs (d = 0.31 - 0.46): relationship satisfaction, communication conflict, emotional support, and breakup potential.

McCarroll et al. (2010)

Deployment status:

Deployed in year prior to survey (11,540, 43.0%); never deployed (15,294, 57.0%)

1) Spousal aggression

1) Modified CTS

Sex, age, race, rank, spousal unemployment, children living with respondent, living on/off military installation

1) Sig. effect of deployment on self-reported severe spousal aggression by AD Army men and women.

Overall prevalence of moderate vs. severe violence against a spouse in military groups was consistently higher: never deployed (17.6% vs. 4.6), deployed < 3 months (19.5% vs. 5.6), deployed 3 - 6 months (20.2% vs. 6.8%) and deployed 6 - 12 months (20.9% vs. 7.6%).

Higher than civilian rates (national weighted survey data) of moderate husband-to-wife and wife-to-husband violence: ~10%; and severe violence: 0.7%.

The ORs of using severe violence for deployed groups relative to the never-deployed group were 1.16 for deployed < 3 months, 1.26 for deployed 3 - 6 months, and 1.35 for deployed 6 - 12 months. All increments were sig.

McLeland et al. (2008)

Deployment status:

Not alerted, (n = 6)

Alerted (n = 13)

Alerted and mobilized (n = 4)

Deployed (n = 74)

1) Marital satisfaction

1) KMS Scale

NR

1) Nsd on marital satisfaction between civilian (M = 18.1, SD = 3.6), and any military group: not alerted (M = 19.5, SD = 2.5), alerted (M = 15.9, SD = 4.5), mobilized (M = 18.0, SD = 1.4), deployed (M = 25.8, SD = 5.7).

Sig. differences between groups in marital satisfaction of never deployed (civilian and military not alerted; M = 18.4, SD = 3.4) and deployed groups (M = 15.9, SD = 3.4), t = 2.93, df = 74.8, p < 0.0005. Cohen’s d = 0.55.

Pye & Simpson (2017)

Deployment Status: Pre-D, currently-D, post-D

1) Marital satisfaction

2) Family balance

3) Family satisfaction

4) Family communication

5) Child perceptions of the family

1) KMS Scale

2) FACES IV

3) FSS

4) FCS

5) PCA and PCA-R Scale

Age of mother, age of child, marriage duration, length of soldier’s service

1) Pre-D reported highest levels of marital satisfaction (M = 6.6, SD = 0.5), followed by Non-M (M = 6.1, SD = 0.66), Current-D (M = 5.9, SD = 0.47), and Post-D (M = 5.8, SD = 0.79). Sig. effect of Deployment stage on wives’ report of marital satisfaction. (F(3, 106) = 9.6, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.21). Nsd between Post-D and Current-D on marital satisfaction (p = 0.74). Sig. differences between Pre-D and Non-M (p = 0.005) in favour of Pre-D.

2) Non-M group scores were highest (M = 4.8, SD = 1.5), followed by Pre-D (M = 3.6, SD = 0.89), Post-D (M = 1.8, SD = 1.3), and Current-D (M = 0.7, SD = 0.6). A Sig. effect of deployment stage on wives’ reports of family balance (F(3, 33.47) = 48, p < 0.001, η² = 0.81). Sig. difference between Current-D and Post-D families (p < 0.001), who both scored lower than Pre-D and Non-M. Pre-D and Non-M showed Nsd on family balance (p = 0.78). Pre-D scored Sig. higher on measure of Rigidity (t(41) = 8.83, p < 0.001), and Sig. lower (t(54.7) = −2.48, p = 0.016) on Cohesion than Non-MFs.

3) Nsd in wives’ reports of family satisfaction between Pre-D and Non-M (p = 0.9). Sig. difference between Post-D and Pre-D/Non-M (p < 0.001).

4) Nsd in family communication between Non-M and Pre-D groups (p = 0.6). Non-M and Pre-D rated communication Sig. higher than Post-DF (p < 0.001), who rated communication Sig. higher than Current-DF (p = 0.001).

5) PCA: Nsd between Non-M and Pre-D (p = 0.3). Sig. difference between these and Post-D (p < 0.001), who were lower than Current-DF (p = 0.02). PCA-R: Nsd between Current-D and Post-D (p = 0.09), Pre-D Sig. higher (p < 0.001) and Non-M Sig. higher again (p = 0.01).

Tupper et al. (2018)

Deployment status: Deployed (n = 15), away but not deployed (n = 15), working from home unit

1) Parenting stress

2) Attachment

1) PSI

2) SSP

Location of military base, military division, language, child age and gender, maternal education, and family income

1) Sig. difference between parenting stress in the military sample (M(SD) = 221.81 (42.62)) compared with the general population (M(SD) = 222.8 (6.2); Abidin, 1995 ), p < 0.001.

2) Nsd in prevalence of children classified as secure in the overall military sample as compared to the normative population (57% and 65% respectively, p = 0.21; van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988 ). Sig. difference in children classified as insecure in the deployed military sample as compared to the general population (73% and 35% respectively, p = 0.001).

Tupper et al. (2020)

Deployment status: Deployed (n = 11), nondeployed (n = 40)

1) Parenting stress

2) Attachment

1) PSI

2) SSP

Language, child age, child gender, maternal education, family income

1) Nsd in parenting stress between groups (deployed, nondeployed and control), F(2, 81) = 0.25, p = 0.778, ηp² = 0.006.

2) Sig. effect of group (deployed, nondeployed and control) on attachment, χ²(2, N = 85) = 6.87, p = 0.032. Children in the deployed group were less likely to present a secure attachment (z = −2.6) and more likely to present an insecure attachment (z = 2.6).