Development of a Farm/Ranch Stress Scale
Bette A. Ide, David Carson, University of Wyoming; & Mary Araquistain, West Coast Community Clinic.
This paper reports on the development of a Farm/Ranch Stress Scale, a self-report
measure of family members' reactions to stressors common to farming and
ranching. The 13-item scale was standardized on two data sets comprised
of Idaho husbands and wives; an individual and a couple data set. It had
acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .83-.85), was significantly
correlated with Family Strains, Family Discord, and Family Quality of Life
Scales, and exhibited higher stress scores for lower family hardiness groups.
Principal axis factor analysis, varimax rotation, revealed three factors:
Financial Stress, Work-related Role Stress, and Unpredictable Stress. Strong
likenesses in the results for the two data sets supported the notion of
shared paradigms between family members. Modifications were made in the
tool based on qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. This resulted
in a revised 22-item scale that needs to be tested. The FRSS has practical
utility as a screening measure, as one of a battery of tools that can be
used by health care providers to increase their knowledge and understanding
of the particular nature of stressors experienced by their clients, as well
as those resources families possess that enable them to cope with those
stressors.
Hardiness, in addition to being considered an important factor in individual human stress, illness, and health (see Kobasa, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982), has been identified as a collective characteristic shared by family members (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988, 1989; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982a). As a family variable, hardiness involves a sense of commitment to work together to manage and solve problems, a belief that families are in control of their responses to stressful life events, and a conviction that those changes and events can be both challenging and growth-producing (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989; McCubbin & Thompson, 1987). Hence, families high in hardiness have internal strengths, durabilities, and effective coping behaviors, whereas families low in hardiness are thought to be more susceptible to the potential negative effects of life's stressors and strains, both acute and chronic.
The accurate assessment of stressors unique to farming and ranching, and family members' reactions to these stimuli, has been a needed area of investigation in farm and ranch family research. Instruments that have a strong theoretical foundation are particularly lacking. Our purpose in developing the Farm/Ranch Stress Scale (FRSS) was to provide researchers and practitioners with a tool that would assess various potential stressors and strains that were specific to farm and ranch family life. In regard to the assessment of the validity of the FRSS, it was important for us to select widely used instruments that were developed from contemporary models of family stress and coping (such as those proposed by the McCubbins and their associates) and ones that have been found to provide a valid and reliable assessment of family stress, hardiness, and quality of life. These included two measures that would assess the more generic aspects of stressful life events and chronic difficulties in families -- the Family Strains and Family Discord scales from the Family Invulnerability Test (FIT) (McCubbin, Olson, Lavee, & Patterson, 1985). Family hardiness was measured by the Family Hardiness Index (FHI; McCubbin, 1990; McCubbin & Thompson, 1987), and the construct of bonadaptation was measured by the Family Quality of Life Scale (Olson et al., 1985).
A major limitation of current life events scales as measures of individual or family stress is their inclusion of static one-time events, as well as the inability of these instruments to assess respondents reactions to various items in terms of the extent to which specific stressors and strains are distressful for the individual or family (Burks & Martin, 1985; DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1982; Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981; Kaplan, 1990; Pearlin, 1983; Wagner, Compas, & Howell, 1988). The FRSS differs in important aspects from the 22-item Family Farm Stressor Scale developed by Weigel and Weigel (1988) for the investigation of two-generation farm family stressors. While their scale focused primarily on reactions to intra-familial stressors that are rather specific (e.g., negative criticism, difficulty working as a team, child-rearing differences), our scale emphasizes perceptions of the impact of external forces on the farm/ranch family and includes items that are more global. Hence, the FRSS was developed from more recent literature on stress in farm and ranch families, and has items that are directly pertinent to that issue. Although a few of the items were adapted from the measure of farm and family stress developed by Walker and Walker (1988a), not all of the items on their scale pertained to stressors specific to farming and ranching (e.g., "conflict with spouse").
In sum, the FRSS was developed to compensate for the scarcity of quantitative
assessment tools relevant to farm and ranch stress and allow family members
to add additional stressors they felt to be important and indicate their
reactions to these stressors. The scale also includes process-oriented items
(i.e., on-going potential stressors and strains) rather than just static
events that occurred at some point within the life of the farm or ranch
family. Although stress is not always negative and may have growth-producing
qualities (Antonovsky, 1990), for the purposes of the development of this
instrument stress was defined as family members' responses to an external
stimulus and its concomitant demands for change or adjustment in the family
system.
This paper describes the psychometric properties of the FRSS. We detail the results from tests for reliability and validity, along with those from a qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended items. It was expected that scores on the Farm/Ranch Stress Scale would be positively correlated with scores on the Family Strains and Family Discord scales, but negatively associated with scores on the Family Hardiness Index and Family Quality of Life Scale.
Method
Procedures
The study site represented a wide range of environment in Idaho, from high desert to river valleys to mountainous terrain. A number of different crops are raised, and both irrigation and dry land farming techniques are used. Cattle (predominantly beef cattle, but also dairy) are the principal animal crop raised in the area. A large percentage of families in this sample were engaged in both farming and ranching (60%). Twenty-four percent of the families grew crops only, and 16% raised livestock only. Sixty-seven men (76%) reported working off the farm or ranch at least part of the year, compared to 67 women (67%). Idaho has experienced drought conditions for the last five years, and this has severely impacted the agricultural industry in this region. The U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987) reported that Idaho had the largest percentage of persons living in rural areas, with over 80% of the population living in areas of less than 2,500 people.
A sample size of 300 respondents, 150 male and 150 female heads of households
located in several counties in Southwestern Idaho, was targeted. Families
were identified through the use of Cooperative Extension Service mailing
lists in each of the six counties involved. Fifty farm and ranch families
from each county were randomly selected and then contacted by phone to solicit
their participation in the study. Data collection took part over a 3-month
period during the Spring of 1992. Those families consenting to take part
in the study were then sent a packet containing consent forms and a cover
letter explaining the purpose of the study, and two identical questionnaire
booklets containing a demographic questionnaire and several scales. A self-addressed
stamped envelope was provided for participants to return all completed forms
and scales. Family was defined as any group of two or more persons living
together who were related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Farm and ranch
families were further defined as those whose primary source of income or
occupation was through crop or dairy farming and/or ranching. For the purposes
of the study, the male and female heads of household were asked to fill
out separate but identical scales and questionnaires.
Description of the Sample
Of 300 questionnaires and scales mailed to male and female heads of household, 188 (63%) were returned; 88 (46.8%) of the returns were males and 100 (53.2%) females. Eighty-six of these were couples. The remainder of the sample consisted of 16 married men and women whose spouses did not participate in the study. The data from those 16 individuals are not included in this report. The final sample size is 172 individuals, all husbands and wives (86 couples). No single parents responded to the survey.
Respondents ranged in age from 20-84 years with a mean age of 48.6 years. Over a third of the 172 respondents were aged 60 or more and over a quarter were aged 44-59. The sample was largely Caucasian (94.7%) and well-educated, with 70.9% of the females and 58.1% of the males having at least some college education. Eighty-nine percent reported living on a farm or ranch. The remainder of the sample lived in small towns but were actively involved in farming and/or ranching. Over half (51.2%) had no children living in the household and 40.7% had between one and three children living at home.
Measures
There is no clear agreement on how measurement in family research should
be approached. One can always question the use of perceptions of one or
two family members to reflect perceptions of the entire family. Examining
the mean scores of men and women separately would mask any extreme scores
between husband and wife couples. The use of a "maximized family score"
(Uphold & Strickland, 1989) such as that used by Olson et al., (1983)
would, if one member's perception is incorrect or skewed, result in increased
measurement error. Research supports the argument that "information
from an individual concerning family relationships is an individual assessment
and does not reflect the functioning of the entire family system" (Bray,
1995, p. 470). As noted by Feetham, Perkins, and Carroll (1993), it is as
yet unclear whether differences are due to problems with self-reporting
and with research instruments or whether, in fact, true differences exist
between perceptions of family members. The correlations between the summed
scores for members of couples for all measures used in the study were moderate
to moderately high and statistically significant. Most importantly, the
correlation between members of couples on the Farm/Ranch Stress Scale was
.57 (p=.000). These findings provided support for Reiss and Klein's (1987)
notion of shared family paradigms. The data analyses for this paper were
conducted on both the individual data set (n = 172) of husbands and wives
and on the mean scores for the couples (n=86). Because the discrepancy between
couples' scores was small, we used the mean scores for the couples (Fisher,
Kokes, Ransom, Phillips, & Rudd, 1985).
Farm/Ranch Stress Scale (Appendix A). The Farm/Ranch Stress Scale developed by Araquistain (1992) is a 13-item self-report instrument that measures perceived stresses experienced by the family that are directly related to farming or ranching (see Carson et al., 1993). Items for the instrument were generated from the literature on farm stress. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = No Stress to 4 = Very Stressful according to the degree of stress it caused in the family. The scale was scored by summing the value of the responses, with higher scores indicating greater stress. Five faculty members in a School of Nursing and a Child and Family Studies Program who were actively involved in research and/or practice with rural people reviewed the scale items for appropriateness and format. Changes they suggested were incorporated into the final tool. In addition to the 13 specific items, respondents were given the opportunity to add other items related to farming or ranching that caused increased stress in the family.
The following instruments were included in the original project and were
used in assessing the validity of the FRSS. All had documented reliability
and validity and exhibited acceptable levels of reliability in this study.
Family Strains and Family Discord Scales. These two scales are from
the Family Invulnerability Test (FIT) (McCubbin et al., 1985). The FIT is
a self-report assessment tool based on the Family Adjustment and Adaptation
Response (FAAR) model (Patterson, 1989) and the Circumplex Model of Family
Functioning (Olson & McCubbin, 1982). It is comprised of eleven separate
scales that assess three major areas of family life: family stress and strain,
family strengths, and family adaptation.
The Family Strains Scale was adapted from the Family Inventory of Life Events (FILE) (McCubbin, Patterson & Wilson, 1982). It contains 10 yes-no statements that measure daily hassles and chronic difficulties in the family (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982a; McCubbin & Thompson, 1987). Respondents are asked to indicate whether or not an item occurred in the family during the past six months. Scores are determined by summing the items, with higher scores indicating greater stress and strain in the family. Past internal reliability was .69 with a correlation of .87 with the original FILE (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Internal reliability for this study was .66 for the individual data and .77 for the couple data.
The Family Discord Scale is a 4-item Likert scale that assesses the extent to which families worry, have the same problems over and over, are critical of each other, or have difficulty accomplishing what they want to do. Previous reported internal reliability was .67; for this study it was .75 for the individual data and .79 for the couple data.
Family Hardiness Index. The Family Hardiness Index (FHI) (McCubbin, 1990; McCubbin & Thompson; 1987; McCubbin & Thompson, 1991) is a 20-item self-report instrument designed to assess various aspects of family hardiness, which is based on Kobasa's (1979a, 1979b) formulation of hardiness (Bigbee, 1991; Hall, Van Treuren, & Virnelli, 1987; Lee, 1991). The instrument requires the respondent to report the degree to which each statement describes the family at that time, ranging from false (0), mostly false (1), mostly true (2), to true (3). Higher scores indicate greater perceived hardiness. The overall internal consistency of the FHI has been reported to be .80-.82 with subscale reliabilities of .73-.86 (Failla & Jones, 1991; McCubbin & Thompson, 1987). FHI scores have been found to be moderately correlated with family adaptability, family time and routines or maintenance of stability and continuity, and indices of family and marital satisfaction (McCubbin, 1989, 1990; McCubbin & Thompson,1987). Family hardiness has also been found to be the best predictor of appraisal of illness in adults with cancer (Oberst, Hughes, Chang, & McCubbin, 1991) and to explain a substantial amount of the variance in health outcomes (Sawin & Harrigan, 1995). Internal reliability for this study was .85 for the individual data and .86 for the couple data.
Family Quality of Life Scale. The Family Quality of Life Scale (FQOLS), a 10-item self report measure in a Likert-type format developed from the original 40-item scale that was part of the Family Inventories of McCubbin and associates (Olson et al., 1985) was also used in the validity tests. It assesses the degree of satisfaction with various aspects of family life. Previous alpha reliability was .76, and its correlation with the original 40-item scale, which had sound psychometrics, was .82. The alpha for this study was .75 for the individual data and .74 for the couple data.
Alpha coefficients were used to test the internal consistency of the FRSS. Criterion-related validity was examined through correlations with the Family Strains Scale, and concurrent/predictive validity was tested through correlations with the scales measuring Family Discord, Family Quality of Life, and Family Hardiness. Construct validity was assessed through differences in FRSS scores according to levels of family hardiness and content validity in regard to the theoretical dimensions of farm/ranch stress by factor analysis.
Results
Reliability Tests
The internal reliability results for the individual data set are reported
first and then compared with the results for the couple data set. The alpha
coefficient for the FRSS was .83. There was no increase in alpha value if
any item was deleted. The only item-total correlation of less than +.30
was that for "government policies and regulations" (+.23). Ranges
were in the +.30s for "weather" , "accidents/injuries"
and "isolation" to greater than +.60 for "balancing the needs
of the farm and family", "high debt load", "working
with bankers and loan officers", and "problems with machinery."
The alpha coefficient for the FRSS for the couple data was .85. Again, there
was no increase in alpha if an item was deleted and all item-total correlations
exceeded +.25. Overall, there were similar patterns in correlations to those
obtained with the individual data. The scale appeared to demonstrate acceptable
internal consistency.
Validity Tests
Correlations between the FRSS and the various scales are shown in Table
1. In both data sets, the FRSS correlated significantly with the criterion,
the Family Strains Scale at the same level. This would be expected because
both scales measure chronic strains rather than reactions to acute stressors.
Concurrent/predictive validity was also acceptable. The FRSS correlated
significantly, in the expected directions, and at similar levels in both
data sets with the Family Discord Scale and the Family Hardiness Index.
Although the correlations with the Family Quality of Life Scale were the
same in both data sets, the value was statistically significant only in
the larger individual data set.
| Scale | Individual Data | Couple Data |
| Family Strains | .50** | .50** |
| Family Discord | .46** | .47** |
| Family Quality of Life | -.18* | -.18 |
| Family Hardiness | -.27** | -.33** |
| * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 | ||
One-way analysis of variance tested the degree to which levels of family
hardiness differentiated between farm/ranch stress scores (Tables 2 and
3). Family Hardiness Scale scores were divided by quartiles from low to
high. For the individual data, the post hoc Scheffe' test showed differences
at the .05 level between means for low/medium low and medium high/high family
hardiness groups, with the mean Farm/Ranch Stress scores for the lower family
hardiness groups being larger. In the couple data set, the Scheffe' test
demonstrated similar results between the low and medium high/high family
hardiness groups. These findings supported previous analyses which found
that stressors related to farming and ranching were associated with lower
levels of family hardiness (Carson et al., 1994).
| Mean | SD | F | p | |
| Low | 33.4 | 7.8 | 5.95 | 0.001 |
| Medium Low | 30.8 | 7.3 | ||
| Medium High | 27.7 | 6.7 | ||
| High | 28.3 | 6.5 |
| Mean | SD | F | p. | |
| Low | 35.0 | 7.2 | 5.99 | 0.001 |
| Medium Low | 33.2 | 6.6 | ||
| Medium High | 27.9 | 6.0 | ||
| High | 27.7 | 5.2 |
| Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
| High Debt Load | .78 | .26 | .13 |
| Irregular cash flow | .72 | .10 | .18 |
| Working with bankers and loan officers | .65 | .32 | .19 |
| Balancing many roles | .29 | .75 | -.01 |
| Lack of time with family for recreaction | .19 | .63 | .09 |
| Balancing the needs of farm and family | .49 | .52 | .21 |
| Seasonal variations in workload | .06 | .41 | .36 |
| Isolation | .06 | .41 | .10 |
| Illness | .10 | .35 | .71 |
| Accidents/injuries | .00 | .08 | .58 |
| Problems with machinery | .42 | .23 | .54 |
| Weather | .19 | .10 | .42 |
| Government policies/regulations | .19 | -.06 | .33 |
| Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
| High Debt Load | .87 | .12 | .10 |
| Irregular cash flow | .74 | .14 | .21 |
| Working with bankers and loan officers | .69 | .27 | .15 |
| Balancing the needs of farm and family | .65 | .41 | .12 |
| Problems with machinery | .44 | .41 | .36 |
| Balancing many roles | .43 | .80 | -.17 |
| Seasonal variations in workload | .14 | .65 | .23 |
| Lack of time with family for recreation | .37 | .51 | .02 |
| Isolation | .02 | .41 | .18 |
| Accidents/injuries | -.10 | .25 | .63 |
| Illness | .14 | .47 | .60 |
| Weather | .30 | .02 | .51 |
| Government policies/regulations | .23 | -.05 | .35 |
We named the three factors Financial Stress, Work-related Role Stress, and Unpredictable Stress. Factor 1, Financial Stress, was most clearly delineated in the individual data analysis. All items related to financial worries had >.60 loadings on it. Two items which primarily loaded on other factors in this data set, "balancing the needs of the farm and family" (Factor 2) and "problems with machinery" (Factor 3), also had loadings of >,40 on the first factor. In the couple data set, those items loaded primarily on the first factor, with loadings of .41 on the second factor. "Lack of time to spend with the family for recreation" also had a loading of .37 on Factor 1 in the couple data set, although loading primarily on Factor 2 in both data sets.
Factor 2, Work-related Role Stress, seemed to refer to stresses that impinged upon people's ability to carry out farm/ranch activities, the difficulties and strains in relation to carrying out of familial and enterprise roles plus those strains occurring because work and family life occur together. The strongest loading in both data sets was for "balancing many roles", and "lack of time with the family for recreation", "seasonal variations in workload", and "isolation" loaded at >.40 on this factor in both data sets. "Balancing the needs of farm and family" had a loading of .41 on this factor in the couple data set, although loading primarily on Factor 1.
Factor 3, Unpredictable Stresses, appeared to refer to those stresses that could not be easily anticipated or controlled and impacted upon a smoothly functioning farm/ranch enterprise. The strongest loadings in both data sets were for "illness" and "accidents/injuries", and "weather" and "governmental policies and regulations" also loaded primarily on this factor. "Problems with machinery" loaded on this factor but had a loading of >.40 on Factor 1 in the individual data set; in the couple data set it actually loaded across all three factors.
Several items, including "problems with machinery", balancing the needs of farm and family", balancing many roles", lack of time with the family for recreation", "illness", and "seasonal variations in workload", had substantial loadings across more than one factor. This suggests their importance as sources of stress in multiple aspects of farm/ranch life.
Qualitative Analysis. Although the original FRSS seemed to demonstrate acceptable levels of internal consistency and validity, the answers to the "other" category on the instrument suggested that revisions needed to be made. Two of the investigators carried out independent content analyses of those responses. Consensus resulted in a list of suggested changes in wording and additional items (Appendix A). Changes in wording were made in items where answers were more specific than the language in the original items. Further probes were added to Items 1 (balancing the needs of the farm/ranch with the needs of the family), 2 (the weather), 3 (governmental policy and/or regulations), and 5 (seasonal variations in workload). In the latter case, respondents noted specific periods of stress such as calving time, harvest season, marketing time, etc. One item was broadened. Lack of money to pay for day-to-day expenses such as purchases, repairs, etc. was a recurring theme in the answers and seemed to be clearer and more specific than the words used in Item 6, "irregular cash flow".
Themes derived from the open-ended responses also resulted in nine items being added to the scale. These items cover other aspects of financial stress, lack of money for emergencies and unexpected problems, the instability of the agricultural economy and fears for the future, and high taxes (a recurring complaint). They also refer to the stresses and strains occurring because of the family working together at the same economic enterprise into which outsiders occasionally intrude. Another recurring theme was problems with livestock such as illness or disease. Mentioned again and again were stresses related to deadlines and lack of time, everyday strains that occur in working with extended family members, inheritance problems, problems dealing with hired help, and lack of understanding by outsiders of the nature of farming/ranching.
Discussion and Summary
In this initial testing, the FRSS demonstrated acceptable reliability. It
correlated in the expected direction with scales measuring Family Seriousness
of Illness, Quality of Life, Family Strains, and Family Discord. In addition,
lower Family Hardiness scores were associated with higher scores on the
FRSS. The data yielded three factors that appeared to be appropriate, mirroring
important themes that also emerged in the analysis of the qualitative responses.
Those responses differentiated between everyday strains and acute problems
or emergencies. They emphasized the feelings of helplessness generated from
problems seen as outside the control of the farmer or rancher, the overwhelming
financial worries, and the strains due to problems with roles and relationships,
both within the family and with outsiders.
The study has several limitations. Generalizability is limited to farm and ranch families living in southwestern Idaho, and little is known about the families who chose not to participate or the members of families who did not fill out questionnaires. Also, measurement in family research continues to be an issue. Nevertheless, the likenesses in the results from the analyses for the individual and couple data sets provide support for the notion of shared paradigms.
The 22-item revised scale is available from the authors. It needs testing
with a larger, more ethnically and socio-economically diverse population.
However, it appears promising as a tool for family research where stressors
unique to the farming and ranching enterprise are believed to interact with
the physical, social and psychological well-being of the family. This scale
complements existing measures of family stress, and we suggest that it be
used in conjunction with other such measures. We believe that it has practical
utility as a screening measure and might be used by mental health professionals,
cooperative extension agents, and rural health care providers to identify
families who might benefit from appropriate education and intervention programs
(in short, as a needs assessment tool). More specifically, the FRSS is a
useful member of a battery of tools that can be used by health care providers
to increase their knowledge and understanding of the particular nature of
stressors experienced by their clients, as well as those resources families
possess that enable them to cope with those stressors.
REFERENCES
Antonovsky, A. (1990). A somewhat personal odyssey in studying the stress process. Stress Medicine, 6, 71-80.
Antonovsky, A., & Sourani, T. (1988). Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 79-92.
Araquistain, M. (1992). Stress, family hardiness, and perceived illness occurrence in farm and ranch families in Southwest Idaho. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wyoming, School of Nursing, Laramie, WY.
Bigbee, J. L. (1991). The concept of hardiness as applied to rural nursing. In A. Bushy (Ed.), Rural nursing, Vol. 1 (pp. 39-58). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bray, J.H. (1995). Family assessment: Current issues in evaluating families. Family Relations, 44, 469-477.
Burks, N., & Martin, B. (1985). Everyday problems and life change events: Ongoing versus acute sources of stress. Journal of Human Stress, 11, 27-35.
Carey, P.J., Oberst, M.T., McCubbin, A., & Hughes, S.H. (1991). Appraisal and caregiving burden in family members caring for patients receiving chemotherapy. Oncology Nursing Forum, 18, 1341-1348.
Carson, D.K., Araquistain, M., Ide, B., Quoss, B., & Weigel, R. (1994). Stress, strain, and hardiness as predictors of adaptation in farm and ranch families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3(2), 157-174.
Carson, D.K., Araquistain, M., Ide, B., Quoss, B., Jansa, N., & Weigel, R. (1993). Hardiness as a mediator of the effects of stressors and strains on reported illnesses and relational difficulties in farm and ranch families. The Journal of Rural Health, 9(3), 215- 226.
Coward, R. T., & Jackson, R. W. (1982). Environmental stress: The rural family. In H. I. McCubbin & C. R. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the family, Vol. 1, Coping with normative transitions (pp. 188-200). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Coward, R. T., & Smith, W. M. (1982). Families in rural society. In D. A. Dillman & D. J. Hobbs (Eds.), Rural society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s (pp. 77-89). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Davis-Brown, K., & Salamon, S. (1988). Farm families in crisis: An application of stress theory to farm family research. In R. Marotz-Baden, C. B. Hennon, & T. H. Brubaker (Eds.), Families in rural America: Stress, adaptation, and revitalization (pp. 47-55). St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
DeLongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1, 119-136.
Duncan, S. F., Volk, R. J., & Lewis, R. A. (1988). The influence of financial stressors upon farm husbands and wives' well-being and family life satisfaction. In R. Marotz-Baden, C. B. Hennon, & T. H. Brubaker (Eds.), Families in rural America: Stress, adaptation, and revitalization (pp. 32-39). St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
Failla, S., & Jones, L.C. (1991). Families of children with developmental disabilities: An examination of family hardiness. Research in Nursing & Health, 14, 41-50.
Feetham, S.L., Perkins , M., & Carroll, R. (1993). Exploratory analysis: A technique for the analysis of dyadic data in research of families. Pp. 99-107 in S. L. feetham, S. B. Meister, J.M. Bell, C.L. Gilliss (Eds.), The nursing of families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fisher, L., Kokes, R.F., Ransom, D. C., Phillips, S. L., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating "relational" family data. Family Process, 24, 213-224.
Geller, J. M., Bultena, G., & Lasley, P. (1988). Stress on the farm: A test of the life events perspective among Iowa farm operators. The Journal of Rural Health, 4, 42-57.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Heffernan, W. D., & Heffernan, J. B. (1986). Impact of the farm crisis on rural families and communities. The Rural Sociologist, 6, 160-170.
Hull, J. G., Van Treuren, R. R., & Virnelli, S. (1987). Hardiness and health: A critique and alternative approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 518-530.
Johnson, D. R., & Booth, A. (1990). Rural economic decline and marital quality: A panel study of farm marriages. Family Relations, 39, 159-165.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress management: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 (1), 1-39.
Kaplan, H. B. (1990). Measurement and the stress process: Retrospect and prospect. Stress Medicine, 6, 249-255.
Kobasa, S. (1979a). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. (1979b). Personality and resistance to illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 413-423.
Lee, H. J. (1991). Relationship of hardiness and current life events to perceived health in rural adults. Research in Nursing and Health, 14, 351-359.
Loeb, E., & Dvorak, J. (1987). Farm families. In D. Rosenthal (Ed.), Family stress (pp. 97-109). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Marotz-Baden, R. (1988). Stressors: A rural-urban comparison. In R. Marotz-Baden, C. B. Hennon, & T. H. Brubaker (Eds.), Families in rural America: Stress, adaptation, and revitalization (pp. 74-82). St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D. H., Lavee, Y., & Patterson, J. (1985). Family Invulnerability Test (FIT). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1982). Family strains. In H. McCubbin & A. Thompson (Eds.), (1987) Family assessment for research and practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., & Wilson, L. (1982). FILE: Family inventory of life events and changes. In D. Olson, H. I. McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen & M. Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories (pp. 69-89). St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1983). The family stress process: the double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. In H. I. McCubbin, M. B. Sussman, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and the family: Advances and developments in family stress theory and research (pp. 7-37). New York: Haworth Press.
McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. (Eds.) (1987). Family assessment inventories for research and practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (Eds.). (1991). Family assessment inventories for research and practice (2nd ed). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
McCubbin, M. A. (1990). Development of Family Hardiness Index. Unpublished manuscript.
McCubbin, M.A., & McCubbin, H.I. (1989). Theoretical orientations to family stress and coping. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Treating stress in families. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1993). Family coping with health crisis: The resiliency model of family stress, adjustment and adaptation. In C. Danielson, B. Hamel-Bissell, & P. Winstead-Fry (Eds.), Families: Health and illness. St Louis: Mosby.
Oberst, M.T., Hughes, S.H., Chang, A.S., & McCubbin, M.A. (1991). Self care burden, stress appraisal, and mood among persons receiving radiotherapy. Cancer Nursing, 14, 71-78.
Olson, D. H., & McCubbin, H. I. (1982). Circumplex model of marital and family systems V: Application to family stress and crisis intervention. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping, and social support (pp. 48-68). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Minnesota family inventories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Olson, K. R., & Schellenberg, R. P. (1986). Farm stressors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 555-569.
Patterson, J. M. (1988). Families experiencing stress: I. The family adjustment and adaptation model; II. Applying the FAAR model to health-related issues for intervention and research. Family Systems Medicine, 6 (2), 202-237.
Patterson, J. M. (1989). A family stress model: The family adjustment and adaptation response. In C. Ramsey (Ed.), Family systems in medicine (pp. 95-118). New York: Guilford Press.
Pearlin, L. I. (1983). Role strains and personal stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 3-32). New York: Academic Press.
Reiss, D., & Klein, D. (1987). Paradigm and pathogenesis: A family-centered approach to problems of etiology and treatment of psychiatric disorders. In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 203-252). New York: Plenum Press.
Rosenblatt, P., & Anderson, R. (1981). Interaction in farm families: Tension and stress. In R. Coward & W. Smith, Jr. (Eds.), The family in rural society (pp. 147-166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rosenblatt, P., & Keller, L. (1983). Economic vulnerability and economic stress in farm couples. Family Relations, 32, 567-573.
Rowe, G. P., & Lingren, H. G. (1988). Stressors, coping behaviors, and psychosocial strengths of farm/ranch families. Wellness Perspectives, 3, 17-23.
Sawin, K.J., & Harrigan, M.P. (1995). Measures of family functioning for research and practice. New York: Springer.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Thompson, E.A., & McCubbin, H.I. (1987). Farm families in crisis: An overview of resources. Family Relations, 36, 461-467.
Uphold, C. R., & Strickland, O. L. (1989). Issues related to the unit of analysis in family nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 11, 405-417.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1988 (108th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Wagner, B. M., Compas, B. E., & Howell, D. C. (1988). Daily and major life events: A test of an integrative model of psychosocial stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 166(2), 189-205.
Walker, L. S., & Walker, J. L. (1988a). Stressors and symptoms predictive of distress in farmers. In R. Marotz-Baden, C. B. Hennon, & T. H. Brubaker (Eds.), Families in rural America: Stress, adaptation, and revitalization (pp. 56-63). St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
Walker, J. L., & Walker, L. J. S. (1988b). Self reported stress symptoms in farmers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(1), 10-16.
Weigel, R. R., & Weigel, D. J. (1988). Identifying stressors and coping strategies in two-generation farm families. In R. Marotz-Baden, C. B. Hennon, & T. H. Brubaker (Eds.), Families in rural America: Stress, adaptation, and revitalization (pp. 216-224). St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
Appendix A
Farm/Ranch Stress Scale - Original Items
1. Balancing the needs of the farm/ranch with the needs of the family
2. The weather
3. Governmental policy and/or regulations
4. Farm/ranch accidents and injuries
5. Seasonal variations in workload
6. Irregular cash flow
7. High debt load
8. Working with bankers and loan officers
9. Not enough time to spend together as a family in recreation
10. Balancing the many roles I perform as family member and farmer/rancher
11. Problems with machinery (purchases, repairs, breakdowns)
12. Illness at peak times (harvest, planting season)
13. Isolation
Revised Items
Modified Items:
1. Balancing the needs of the farm/ranch with the needs of the family (too
much work,
putting business before family)
2. The weather (water shortage, fog, snow)
3. Governmental policy and/or regulations (red tape, loss of water or property
rights,
environmentalists)
5. Seasonal variations in workload (planting season, harvest, calving time,
marketing time)
6. Not enough money for day-to-day expenses (purchases, repairs, parts,
fence and building
maintenance)
Additions:
Problems with livestock or crops (illness, disease, noxious weeds, rodents)
Not enough cash/capital for unexpected problems (illnesses, health care, breakdowns, other emergencies)
Working with extended family members in the farm/ranch operation (parents, in-laws, children)
Inheritance problems
Time management and schedules (deadlines, lack of schedule, not enough time, no free time, sleeping problems, balancing outside work and ranch demands)
Agricultural economy (prices, getting and dealing with buyers, lack of stability, future)
Taxes (high taxes, figuring taxes)
Dealing with non-relative help (incompetent help, finding good help, supervising help)
Outsiders not understanding nature of farming/ranching
© 1997, Journal of Rural Community Psychology