I .1 .
I... 4.

.ux:
75. t
E... .

fl.

.. A...

w

x

. .3... a
A ; . . .
£13,1-. . . '1‘
992 #5.:

 

e
i ‘
3.31 ‘

5.1;- 11.4.5.3}..5 ; 3. .

zfimxwflmfimflw ,. . . ‘ ‘ #3cfiafiééfiwfivwg» . 1 ‘ .A flurrflfiw

b.
. E.

 

mfiE

 

 

 

 

 

f? ' LIBRARY
'rt‘ (J. ,5 Michigan State
University

{7J/7597

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

The Development of the Scale of Economic Abuse

presented by
Adrienne E. Adams

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Psychology_

 

Zea/'Mg

Major Professor’s Signature
(3’ - /C - (’5

Date

MSU is an Atfinnative Action/Equai Opportunity institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN REFURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 chlTIC/DatoDqundd-pts

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE OF ECONOMIC ABUSE
By

Adrienne E. Adams

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Psychology

2005

ABSTRACT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE OF ECONOMIC ABUSE
By
Adrienne E. Adams

Economic abuse is part of the pattern of behaviors used by abusive men
to maintain power and control over their partners. The economic abuse women
experience could negatively affect their economic, physical and psychological
health and safety. As there currently exists no measure of economic abuse
specifically, the purpose of the present study was to develop such an instrument.
To that end, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 103 female survivors of
intimate partner abuse. The initial version of the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA)
contained 120 items, generated based on the expert knowledge and experience
of domestic abuse researchers, advocates and survivors and from a review of
the literature. Participants responded to the SEA and measures of physical and
psychological abuse, and economic health in order to examine the validity of the
new scale. Factor analysis was used to determine the factor structure of the
SEA, and correlation and regression analyses were used to assess reliability and
validity. The findings of this study provide initial evidence of the reliability and
validity of the SEA as an instrument to measure economic abuse as a distinct
form of abuse. The SEA is an important first step toward a better understanding
of the ways in which economic abuse impacts women's lives. The knowledge
gained from such research can be used to design interventions that meet the

unique needs of women harmed by an economically abusive partner.

In loving memory of my greatest supporter, my mom

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people I wish to thank for their part in this journey called a
Master’s Thesis. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Cris Sullivan, for all of
her support and guidance throughout this process. She was always available to
help formulate ideas, problem solve when things didn’t go as planned, force me
to set deadlines, and provide timely feedback on draft after draft of the measure
and manuscript. Most importantly though, her words of encouragement and the
occasional bottle of wine served to keep me motivated and lift my spirits when
times got tough.

I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Deborah Bybee and
Dr. Rebecca Campbell for their invaluable contribution to this project. I truly value
and appreciate all of their guidance and expertise. I would especially like to thank
Becki for taking the time to meet with my research team to discuss issues and
concerns related to interviewing survivors of abuse. Deb also deserves special
thanks for serving as my statistics guru. I learned a great deal throughout the
thesis process, a lot of which was the result of the time I spent talking stats with
Deb.

I would also like to thank my research team, for without them this project
would not have been possible. Thank you to Megan Greeson, Tanya Anderson, '
Erin Maclntosh, Jillian Henry, and Jessica Sanders, who all volunteered their
time, energy and gas money to help make this project a success. Thanks to each

of their hard work, enthusiasm and dedication we were able to pull off the

iv

logistics of interviewing 103 women at a multitude of locations, at various times of
the day and week, across a significant geographic area. I really could not have
done it without them; well, I could have, but it would have been much more
painful and probably have taken another 2 to 3 years.

In a process like this there is usually a large network of people behind the
scenes, providing that indirect but essential support that makes the process
much more bearable. I have been lucky enough to have many special people in
my life that have supported and encouraged me in ways that are too numerous to
mention here. Thank you to my family and friends who have offered a listening
ear, encouraging words or a hot meal. Thank you to my colleagues, who have
been some of the best friends and greatest supporters of all. I would also like to
thank my family and friends who cared enough to ask over and over again, “Now,
what is it that you are studying?,” because they genuinely did want to eventually
understand. Most importantly, I would like to thank my dad, brother and sister for
all their love and support, and their hundreds of pep talks. I would especially like
to thank my brother, Abe, for leaving all of the brains in the gene pool for me.

Last, but not least, I wish to thank all of the women who volunteered to
participate in this study. For it is their willingness to share their stories and

experiences that truly made this project possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ vii
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Prevalence of the Problem .............................................................. 5
Nature, Severity and Consequences of Physical Forms of Abuse..6
Growing Awareness of Psychological Maltreatment ....................... 7
The System of Power and Control .................................................. 9
Lack of Attention on Economic Abuse .......................................... 11
What We Know about Economic Abuse ....................................... 12
Resource Acquisition ......................................................... 14
Resource Utilization ........................................................... 17
Resource Maintenance ...................................................... 19
Why is Economic Abuse a Problem .............................................. 21
Measuring Economic Abuse ......................................................... 25
Rationale for the Current Study .................................................... 27
METHOD ................................................................................................... 28
Measurement Development .............................................................. 28
Procedure .......................................................................................... 29
Interviewer Training ............................................................. 29
Recruitment ......................................................................... 30
Interviews ............................................................................ 32
Measures .......................................................................................... 34
RESULTS .................................................................................................. 37
Participants ....................................................................................... 37
Scale Construction ............................................................................ 41
Reliability ........................................................................................... 52
Validity ............................................................................................... 56

The Relationship between Economic Abuse
and Physical and Psychological

Abuse ..................................................................... 56

The Relationship between Economic Abuse

and Economic Health .......................................................... 58
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 67
APPENDIX ................................................................................................ 73
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 89

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographics ............................................................................. 38

Table 2: Frequencies for Psychological and Physical Abuse
Experienced in Last Six Months of Relationship .......................... 40

Table 3: SEA Item Means, Frequency of Endorsement and

Item-Total Correlations ................................................................ 44
Table 4: Exploratory Factor Analysis of the SEA ...................................... 51
Table 5: Item-Total and Item-Scale Correlations ...................................... 54
Table 6: Correlations .................... . ............................................................ 57
Table 7: Psychometric Properties and Frequencies for the

Economic Health Index ................................................................ 59
Table 8: Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 1 ............. 62
Table 9: Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 2 ............. 62
Table 10: Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 3 ........... 63
Table 11: Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 4 ........... 65
Table 12: Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 5 ........... 65

vii

Introduction

Intimate partner abuse is a pervasive social problem that has reached
epidemic proportions, affecting the lives of millions of people in the United States
each year. It is estimated that 1.5 million women are physically assaulted by an
intimate partner annually (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and approximately 30% of
women are reportedly victimized by an intimate partner at some point in their
adult lives (Browne, 1993). A great deal of this abuse results in serious injury or
even death. In fact, one out of three female homicide victims are killed by their
intimate partners (Fox, 1998; Rennison, 2003).

To date, a great deal of research in the area of male violence against
women has focused on the nature, severity and consequences of physical forms
of abuse. Studies show that abusive men employ a vast array of physically
abusive tactics, ranging from minor incidents involving pushing and shoving to
severe forms of violence such as punching and strangulation (Sutherland,
Sullivan, & Bybee, 2001 ). Women who endure physical assaults of this nature
are often left with injuries such as black eyes, cuts, bruises, broken bones,
concussions, burns, bite marks, partial loss of hearing or vision, chronic neck and
back pain, and frequent headaches (Browne, 1993; Sutherland, Bybee, &
Sullivan, 2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Furthermore, the physical assaults
that result in these types of injuries are not isolated incidents of abuse, but rather
the violence is recurrent and escalates in severity over the course of the
relationship (Anderson et al., 2003; Rhodes & McKenzie, 1998; Tjaden &

Thoennes, 2000).

In addition to the study of physical violence, in more recent years there
has been a growing awareness and interest in examining the prevalence and
harmful effects of psychological maltreatment of women in abusive relationships.
Women who are psychologically victimized by an intimate partner are subjected
to acts such as verbal harassment, intense criticism, putdowns and name-calling,
public humiliation, ridicule, isolation from friends and family, sexual coercion,
threats of abuse and extreme possessiveness and jealousy (Browne, 1993;
Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990; Walker, 1984). Researchers
have found that the effects of psychological abuse can range from lowered self-
esteem to severe depression to suicide ideation or attempts (Aguilar &
Nightingale, 1994; Orava, McLeod, & Sharpe, 1996; Sackett & Saunders, 1999;
Vitanza, Vogel, & Marshall, 1995).

Through research and direct practice work with abused women and
abusive men, it has become evident that the abuse most women endure is not
limited to physical and/or psychological forms of abuse. Instead, acts of physical
violence or psychological maltreatment are part of a broad system of abusive
behavior used by abusive men to exert power and to maintain control over their
partners (Adams & McCormick, 1982; Bancroft, 2002; Ptacek, 1998; Schecter,
1982; Yllo, 1984). The pattern of coercive control employed by abusive men can
include physical, sexual, psychological and economic forms of abuse (Brewster,
2003; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Ptacek, 1997).

While much effort has gone into the study of physical and psychological

abuse, one form of abuse that has been routinely reported by women with

abusive partners but has yet to receive much attention from the scientific
community is economic abuse. Economic abuse involves behaviors that control a
woman’s ability to acquire, use or maintain economic resources, thus threatening
her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency. For example, some
women report that they are not allowed to earn money through employment, or
that their partner interferes with their ability to hold a job (Brooks & Buckner,
1996; Browne, Salomon, Bassuk, & Raphael, 1999; Brush & Raphael, 2000;
Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999; Raphael, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988).
Some women who are employed are expected to turn their paychecks over to
their abusive partner, and others report that they receive an allowance rather
than having the freedom to spend money how they see fit (Hofeller, 1982; Pence
& Paymar, 1993; Shepard & Campbell, 1992). Some women with economically
abusive partners are not permitted access to cash or a checking account, and
some have stated that they are excluded from household financial decisions that
directly affect their lives (Follingstad et al., 1990; Tolman, 1989). The use of
economically abusive tactics not only limit a woman’s economic freedom, but
also hinder her ability to maintain or achieve economic independence (Shepard &
Campbell, 1992).

This unfair and unwarranted economic control can have practical
implications on a woman’s life. For example, literature on women’s decision-
making processes around leaving an abusive partner shows that many women
perceive few viable alternatives to their abusive relationship and remain with their

partner for a longer period of time than they would given the economic resources

to leave (Chalmers & Smith, 1984). Similarly, researchers have found that
women with limited individual economic resources are more likely to return to an
abusive relationship after taking steps toward leaving (Aguirre, 1985).

Despite considerable indications that abusive men use economically
abusive tactics in their systematic attempts to control their partners, a
measurement instrument has not been developed that allows for empirical
examination of economic abuse as a distinct form of abuse. To date, researchers
have examined some specific forms of economic abuse through two avenues.
First, psychological abuse measures, such as the widely used Psychological
Maltreatment of Women Inventory, often contain one or two items that capture
economically abusive behavior. In addition to being restricted in number, these
items are not intended to measure economic abuse per se, but instead are
categorized as a form of dominance/isolation. Second, an instrument was
recently developed to measure a specific form of economic abuse: interference
with employment and education (Riger, Ahrens, & Blickenstaff, 2001). The
Work/School Abuse Scale contains 24 items that capture specific abusive acts,
both physical and non-physical, that prevent or hinder women's employment
and/or education.

The current approach to the measure of economic abuse needs to be
broadened. Abusive men may employ a broad spectrum of economically abusive
tactics in their attempts to maintain dominance and control over their partner.
These tactics have a detrimental impact on women’s economic stability. For this

reason, a measure of economic abuse that captures the range of economically

abusive tactics is needed. Without a measurement instrument, our understanding
of the nature, extent and effects of economic abuse will continue to be limited.
The purpose of the present study was to develop a comprehensive measure that
captures the economically abusive behaviors used by men who batter. A
measure of economic abuse will enable researchers to examine the nature and
extent of this form of abuse, the impact it has on women’s economic, physical
and mental health and also examine the implications it has on women’s ability to
escape an abusive partner. With a richer understanding of economic abuse, we
can begin to develop interventions and tailor existing programming to the unique
experiences and needs of women whose financial health has been compromised
by an abusive partner.
Prevalence of the Problem

In our society, intimate partner abuse is occurring at an alarming rate.
According to estimates from the National Violence Against Women Survey, 4.8
million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against
women in the United States annually (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). In fact, an
intimate partner is responsible for one out of every five non-fatal violent crimes
committed against women, and 30% of all female murder victims are killed by an
intimate partner (Fox, 1998; Greenfeld & Rand, 1998; Rennison, 2003).

Intimate partner abuse does not occur in remote segments of society, but
rather against women of all ages, racial/ethnic categories and social classes
(Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000; Greenfeld & Rand, 1998;

Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). In an analysis of prevalence studies, Browne (1993)

reported that between 21% to 34% of all women are physically assaulted by an
intimate partner at some point during their lifetime. For the majority of women
victimized by an abusive partner, the physical attacks will occur repeatedly and
take place over the course of many years (Browne, 1993; Straus & Gelles, 1990;
Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

Nature, Severig and Conseguences of Physical Formgaf Abuse

There is no limit to the range of physically abusive tactics employed by

 

 

men who batter. Women report being pushed, shoved, slapped, strangled,
smothered, punched, kicked, bit, dragged, thrown, knocked unconscious,
whipped, raped, hit with objects, threatened with a weapon, and/or shot or
stabbed by their physically abusive partners (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gondolf &
Fisher, 1988; Hofeller, 1982; Sutherland et al., 2002; Sutherland et al., 2001;
Walker, 1979, 1984). Physical attacks of this nature often leave women with
immediate visible injuries such as cuts, bruises, torn hair, black eyes, bloody lips
or broken bones and also long term or permanent injuries such as constant
fatigue, muscle cramps, stomach pain, partial loss of hearing or vision, migraine
headaches, chronic back pain, broken teeth, chest pains, pelvic pain and
pregnancy complications or miscarriage (Browne, 1993; Dobash & Dobash,
1979; Kerouac, Taggart, Lescop, 8 Fortin, 1986; Okun, 1986; Sutherland et al.,
2002; Sutherland et al., 2001). The injuries women sustain often require medical
attention. According to a report by the US. Department of Justice, 20% of all

emergency room visits for trauma are due to intimate partner abuse (Rand,

1997). This same report indicated that 37% of all female patients treated in the
emergency room for a violent injury were injured by an intimate partner.

In addition to the physical injuries women sustain as a result of physical
assaults, ongoing experiences of physical abuse have deleterious effects on
women’s mental health. Consistently, researchers have found high levels of
depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, suicidality and substance abuse or
dependence among women victimized by a physically abusive partner (Cascardi,
O'Leary, Lawrence, 8 Schlee, 1995; Golding, 1999; Khan, Welch, 8 Zillmer,
1993; McCauley et al., 1995; Vitanza et al., 1995).

Growing Awa_renes_s of Psychological Maltreatment

Over the course of the last decade, practitioners and researchers have
been paying increasing attention to the role of psychological maltreatment in
abusive relationships. One reason for this growing interest is the rate at which
physical abuse and psychological abuse co—occur. Studies have shown that
physically abusive relationships always involve psychological abuse. For
example, Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause 8 Polek (1990) interviewed 234
women with a history of physical abuse and found that 99% of the women had
also experienced some form of psychological abuse. SimilarIy, Stets (1990)
found that 99% of women who reported physical abuse in their marriage were
also verbally abused by their spouse. In addition to finding that physical and
psychological abuse covary, Murphy 8 O’Leary’s (1989) conducted a study of
abuse in early marriage and found that a husband’s use of psychological abuse

was predictive of physical abuse one year later.

Psychological abuse has been broadly defined as any behavior that is
harmful or intended to be harmful to the well-being of one's intimate partner
(Tolman, 1992). More specifically, psychological abusive tactics include
threatening behaviors (e.g., threats to physically harm or kill or threats to take
away children), actions intended to degrade or damage one’s self esteem (e.g.,
name-calling, harsh criticism or ridicule), the withholding of emotional support
(e.g., emotional abandonment as a form of punishment) and strategies intended
to restrict one's personal freedom (e.g., isolation from friends and family or
disabling the car or stalking) (O'Leary, 1999).

Evidence suggests that psychological forms of abuse may be equally as, if
not more, harmful than physical abuse. According to Follingstad and colleagues,
72% of the abused women they interviewed attested that psychological abuse
had a more severe impact on them than the physical abuse. In another study,
Orava, McLoed 8 Sharpe (1996) compared abused women and non-abused
women in order to examine the effects of physical and psychological abuse on
women’s perceptions of control, depressive symptomotology and self-esteem.
They found that abused women felt less personal power, were significantly more
depressed and had lower self-esteem than the non-abused women. However,
after controlling for the frequency of verbal abuse, most of the between-group
differences were lost, suggesting that verbal abuse accounted for the differences
between the two groups of women. Other studies examining the effects of
psychological maltreatment have linked this form of abuse to an extensive range

of behavioral and health outcomes such as poor physical health, substance use,

chronic disease, chronic mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide
ideation and attempts, depression, and low self-esteem (Aguilar 8 Nightingale,
1994; Arias 8 Papa, 1999; Cascardi et al., 1995; Coker et al., 2000; Katz, Arias,
8 Beach, 2000; Khan et al., 1993; Marshall, 1996; Sackett 8 Saunders, 1999;
Street 8 Arias, 2001; Vitanza et al., 1995).

The System of Power and Control

Feminist scholars recognize that intimate partner abuse occurs in the
context of a patriarchal society that fosters an ideology of male domination over
women. In their classic study, entitled Violence against Wives, Dobash 8 Dobash
(1979) noted, “all men see themselves as controllers of women, and because
they are socialized into the use of violence, they are potential aggressors against
their wives.” (p.22) According to feminist researchers, victim advocates and
practitioners who treat abusive men, abusive behaviors are rooted in an abuser’s
learned attitudes of entitlement, superiority and ownership of women, combined
with the belief in the right to use physical violence in order to control their partner
and maintain their dominant status (Adams 8 McCormick, 1982; Bancroft, 2002;
Dobash 8 Dobash, 1979; Ptacek, 1998; Schecter, 1982).

While abusive men use physical violence as a means of control, empirical
and anecdotal evidence indicates that physical abuse is simply one of the control
tactics intentionally employed as a means of asserting power and maintaining
control over their partners (Brewster, 2003; Dukes et al., 2002; Ptacek, 1997;
Schechter 8 Gary, 1988). Studies show that abusers achieve power and control

through a vast array of physical, sexual, psychological and economic tactics. For

instance, through focus group interviews with 200 women with abusive partners,
(Pence 8 Paymar, 1986) Pence 8 Paymar (1986) developed the Power and
Control Wheel, which is a framework for understanding the power and control
dynamics of abusive relationships. According to their conceptualization, physical
abuse is part of a larger system of power and control that includes intentional
acts of isolation, emotional abuse, economic abuse, sexual abuse, intimidation,
threats, using male privilege and manipulation involving the children. In other
words, they found that abuse is not limited to isolated acts of physical violence or
verbal degradation, but rather is a pattern of coercive control involving a variety
of abusive acts that work as a system to perpetuate the woman’s fear and the
abuser’s dominant status in the relationship.

Ptacek (1997) also documented the. range of control tactics employed by
abusers by randomly sampling 100 case files containing women’s requests for
restraining orders. The handwritten affidavits detailed in the women’s own words
the extent and nature of the abuse they experienced. Consistent with the model
proposed by Pence 8 Paymar, the women recounted acts of physical and sexual
violence, psychological abuse in the form of threats and intimidation and
economic or resource abuse. Similarly, interviews conducted by Brewster (2003)
with a community sample of 187 women who had been stalked by a former
intimate partner also substantiated that abusers control their partners through a
variety of means. Once again, the interviews revealed that their male partners

had used physical, sexual, social, psychological and economic tactics to exercise

10

power and control over their partners both during their relationship and after the
relationship ended.
Lack of Attention on Economic Abuse

As these studies demonstrate, abusive men make use of a wide range of
abusive tactics as a means of domination and control. More specifically, the
abuse women experience has been shown to include a continuum of physical,
sexual, psychological and economic control tactics. While great strides have
been made through the study of physical and psychological forms of abuse, little
is known about the nature and consequences of economic abuse.

To date, economic abuse has not been systematically studied as a distinct
form Of abuse with its own consequences. Therefore, what is known about
economic abuse is limited, typically unintended and comes from a variety of
sources. For instance, a number of researchers have included a limited number
of items that reflect economically abusive behaviors in their conceptualization of
psychological or emotional abuse (Aguilar 8 Nightingale, 1994; Coker et al.,
2000; Follingstad et al., 1990; Hass, Dutton, 8 Orloff, 2000; Hudson 8 McIntosh,
1981; Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo, 1993; Shepard 8 Campbell, 1992; Sullivan, Tan,
Basta, Rumptz, 8 Davidson, 1992; Tolman, 1989). Examples of economic abuse
can also be found in qualitative studies documenting the experiences and needs
of women with abusive partners (Anderson et al., 2003; Brewster, 2003; Dobash
8 Dobash, 1979; Hofeller, 1982; Martin, 1976; Pagelow, 1981; Pence 8 Paymar,
1993; Ptacek, 1997; VonDeLinde, 2002; Walker, 1979) and in studies

investigating the impact of abuse on women’s ability to maintain employment

11

(Allard, Colten, Lalbelda, 8 Cosenza, 1997; Brandwein, 1999; Brush 8 Raphael,
2000; Curcio, 1997; Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd 8 Taluc, 1999; Moe 8 Bell, 2004;
Raphael 8 Tolman, 1997; Riger et al., 2001; Riger, Ahrens, Blickenstaff, 8
Camacho, 1999; Sable, Libbus, 8 Huneke Diane, 1999; Shepard 8 Pence, 1988;
Tolman 8 Rosen, 2001). Finally, scholars, victim advocates and practitioners
working with abusive men have provided both theoretical and anecdotal evidence
of economic forms of abuse (Bancroft, 2002; Davies 8 Lyon, 1998; Raphael,
1996; Schechter 8 Gary, 1988). Taken together, the information derived from
these sources presents a picture of what we know about economic abuse to
date.
What We K_now a_bout Economic A_buse

There is evidence throughout the literature indicating that many abusive
men maintain power in their relationship by exercising economic control over
their partners. In fact, economically abusive behavior is evident in some of the
earliest accounts of women’s experiences with abusive men. Walker (1979)
recounted the experiences of women whose partners used economic deprivation
as a form of control. Some women were not allowed to hold a job outside of the
home, which prevented them from acquiring financial resources of their own.
Some women interviewed by Walker said they were allotted a specific amount of
spending money and others were reportedly denied access to money even for
the basic necessities of life, such as food, rent or medicine. Similariy, Dobash 8
Dobash (1979) found that some women with abusive husbands were allowed

limited economic freedom. In their study, women reported that allocation of

12

money was strictly controlled and spending was closely monitored. In many
cases, the husband claimed sole responsibility for the distribution of money
within the household, determined how money would be spent and in doing so
often left the woman unable to pay household expenses. In another early study,
Pagelow (1981) described the experience of one woman whose husband denied
her money even for food for herself and their children and another woman whose
husband routinely escorted her to the grocery story, monitored her shopping and
then personally paid the cashier for the purchases. Other early work
documenting women’s experiences also describe abusive husbands who control
all of the finances, closely monitor their partner's spending and/or provide their
partner with little or no access to money (Hofeller, 1982; Langley 8 Levy, 1977;
Martin, 1976; Roy, 1982). For example, having interviewed 50 women with a
history of abuse, Hofeller (1982) reported that some abusive husbands
demanded that their wives paychecks be handed over to them, others decided
how all of the money would be allocated, and some husbands bought things for
themselves while their wives and children went without necessities.

Accounts of economic abuse are not unique to these early studies.
Researchers, victim advocates and practitioners who work with abusive men
have continued to document the use of economic control tactics in abusive
relationships. Both empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that abusers
threaten their partner's economic security and self-sufficiency by exerting control
in three areas: 1) resource acquisition, 2) resource utilization and 3) resource

maintenance.

13

Resource Acquisition

It can be argued that one’s level of freedom and independence is in direct
proportion to their level of economic resources. Thus, it is in the interest of an
abusive man, whose goal it is to maintain power over his partner, to prevent her
from acquiring economic resources of her own. There are several means through
which abusive men thwart their partners’ efforts to acquire resources.
Specifically, studies show that abusive men interfere with their partners’ ability to
obtain employment, attend school or job training programs and collect income or
assets of their own.

One significant way abusive men interfere with a woman’s ability to
acquire resources is by preventing her from both obtaining and maintaining
employment. Research indicates that abusive men often forbid, discourage or
actively prevent their partners from working outside the home (Aguilar 8
Nightingale, 1994; Brewster, 2003; Curcio, 1997; Hudson 8 McIntosh, 1981;
Riger et al., 1999; Sable et al., 1999; Shepard 8 Pence, 1988; Tolman, 1989;
VonDeLinde, 2002; Walker, 1979). For example, in a study of 42 women
attending a domestic violence support group, Shepard 8 Pence (1988) reported
that 33% of the women were prohibited from working and another 59% had been
discouraged from holding a job. Similarly, Riger, Ahrens, Blinkenstaff 8 Camacho
(1999) interviewed 57 women from four shelter programs in Chicago and found
that 46% of the women had been forbidden from getting a job. There is also
evidence indicating that abusers actively interfere with their partners’ ability to

find paid employment. For example, Raphael (1996) described how abusive men

14

sabotage their partners efforts to find jobs by inflicting visible injuries, turning off
the alarm clock, or refusing to provide childcare in order to prevent them from
attending a job fair orjob interviews.

In recent years, a growing amount of attention has also been given to the
effects of abuse on women’s ability to maintain employment. Studies show that
abusive men use a variety of tactics to interfere with their partner's ability to
sustain employment. For example, women interviewed by Riger, Ahrens 8
Blickenstaff (2001) reported that their partners had interfered with their efforts to
go to work by sabotaging their cars, threatening or physically restraining them,
failing to show up to care for their children, stealing their car keys or money, or
refusing to give them a ride to work. These tactics as well as others such as
withholding medication, preventing sleep, cutting her hair, hiding her cloths, and
inflicting injuries have been reported elsewhere (Brandwein 8 Filiano, 2000;
Brewster, 2003; Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd 8 Taluc, 1999; Moe 8 Bell, 2004; Raphael,
1996).

Abusive men also interfere with their partner’s ability to maintain
employment by harassing them at work. Studies show that women in abusive
relationships commonly experience on the job harassment. Abusive men
reportedly show up at their partners’ place of employment, harass them with
telephone calls throughout the workday or harass their coworkers (Lloyd, 1997;
Lloyd 8 Taluc, 1999; Raphael, 1996; Riger et al., 2001).

The impact of an abusive partner’s interference has been examined.

Evidence suggests that the women miss workdays, lose hours at work, or lose

15

their job as a result of their partner’s interference. Sable et al (1999) interviewed
404 women receiving support through AFDC and found that 19.1% had missed
work because of their partners, 17.8% were unable to do their work well because
of their partners and 14.6% lost theirjobs because of their partners. Shepard 8
Pence (1988) also reported on the effects of abuse on women’s employment and
found that out of 71 working women 55% had been absent from work because of
abuse, 62% had been late for work or had to leave work early and 24% had lost
their jobs because of abuse.

In addition to preventing their partners from working, studies show that
abusive men also interfere with their partners’ efforts to take part in self-
improvement activities aimed at increasing their marketability in the labor force
and heighten their chance of obtaining a decent job. In one study, Tolman (1989)
found that 62% of the women in his sample had partners who did not want them
to go to school or engage in other self-improvement activities. In another study,
50% of the women reported that their abusive partners had discouraged them
from going to school, while 24% stated that they had been prohibited from getting
an education (Shepard 8 Pence, 1988). Similar rates were found by Riger et al
(1999), who reported that 25% of the women stated their abusive partner had
forbidden them from going to school and Anderson et al (2003) who found that
22.7% of the women in their sample reported that their partners had tried to keep
them from going to school. Finally, in a larger scale study of 846 AFDC
recipients, Curcio (1997) found that 39.7% of women in abusive relationships

reported that their partner had actively tried to prevent them from obtaining

16

education or training. This was three times the rate reported by non-abused
women.

In addition to the interference women experience as they attempt to obtain
an education, job skills and/or employment, evidence suggests that abusive men
also prevent women from acquiring income and assets by other means. For
example, even if a woman is employed, her partner may demand that she hand
over her paycheck, thus preventing her from having money of her own (Hofeller,
1982). Furthermore, abusive men may hinder a woman from acquiring money of
her own by interfering with the receipt of other forms of support such as child
support, public assistance, disability payments or education-based financial aid
(Brewster, 2003; Moe 8 Bell, 2004; Ptacek, 1997). In addition to income
interference, some abusive partners prevent women from acquiring assets by
refusing to put their names on the deeds to their houses or the titles of their cars,
or by not allowing women to have cars of their own (Brewster, 2003).

Resource Utilization

In our society, money is a source of power (Pahl, 1983). Thus, controlling
a woman’s use of economic resources is a means of accomplishing the goal of
maintaining power in an abusive relationship. Studies show that abusive men
often exert power by assuming control over their partners’ use of economic
resources (Anderson et al., 2003; Brewster, 2003; Davies 8 Lyon, 1998; Dobash
8 Dobash, 1979; Hofeller, 1982; Martin, 1976). More specifically, abusive men
exercise power by controlling how resources are distributed and by monitoring

how they are used.

17

Women in abusive relationships often report that their partners strictly limit
their access to household resources. Some women are denied access to money
even for necessities such as food, while others report that they are allotted a
specific amount of money to be spent on household necessities and nothing
more (Anderson et al., 2003; Coker et al., 2000; Davies 8 Lyon, 1998;
Follingstad et al., 1990; Hofeller, 1982; Hudson 8 McIntosh, 1981; Pagelow,
1981; Pence 8 Paymar, 1993; Schechter 8 Gary, 1988; Tolman, 1989;
VonDeLinde, 2002; Walker, 1979). Women also report that rather than being
able to use money as necessary, their partners give them an allowance or make
them ask for money when it is needed (Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd 8 Taluc, 1999; Pence
8 Paymar, 1993; Shepard 8 Campbell, 1992). Furthermore, studies show that
abusive men hide jointly earned money, prevent their partners from having
access to joint bank accounts, lie about shared assets and withhold information
about their finances (Brewster, 2003; VonDeLinde, 2002) (Coker et al., 2000;
Pence 8 Paymar, 1993; Schechter 8 Gary, 1988; VonDeLinde, 2002).

Besides limiting the resources women have access to, abusive men also
exert economic control by dictating and closely monitoring how resources are
used. For example, women report that they are told exactly how money can be
spent, and some women are even required to account for every dollar they
spend, either verbally or by bringing back receipts (Aguilar 8 Nightingale, 1994;
Davies 8 Lyon, 1998; Dobash 8 Dobash, 1979). Women have also reported that
their partners escort them to the store in order to monitor what is spent (Pagelow,

1981)

18

In addition to controlling how money is spent, some abusive men also
dictate and monitor their partners’ use of transportation. Some women are
prevented from using their cars or their shared transportation, while others have
their access to transportation restricted (Ptacek, 1997; Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo,
1993). One common way abusive men restrict their partners’ use of
transportation is by taking the car keys or disabling the car (Martin, 1976;
Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo, 1993). All of these tactics are instrumental in an abusive
man’s efforts to control his partner's ability to make use of her own or their
shared economic resources.

Resource Maintenance

Not only do women in abusive relationships struggle to make use of
acquired resources, but many also face the challenge of attempting to maintain
their economic resources. Having the ability to sustain an adequate level of
resources runs counter to an abusive man’s goal of having power and control
over his partner. Therefore, abusive men interfere with women’s abilities to
maintain their level of economic resources by employing control tactics that
deplete women’s available resources. This can occur in a variety of way,
including stealing their money, generating costs and generating debt.

One way abusive men have been shown to deplete their partner’s
available resources is by stealing their money (Anderson et al., 2003; Lloyd,
1997; Lloyd 8 Taluc, 1999; Pence 8 Paymar, 1993; Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo,
1993; Schechter 8 Gary, 1988). Anderson et al (2003) reported on the frequency

of stealing among a sample of 485 women who sought services from a domestic

19

violence advocacy program. They found that 38% of the women interviewed
reported that their partner stole money from them. According to anecdotal reports
from victim advocates, abusive men steal money from their partners through a
variety of means. For example, an abusive man may take money from his
partner’s purse or wallet, steal her checkbook or ATM card and use it without
permission, gamble with her money or their shared money, or he may demand
that her money be put into a joint back account so he can spend it freely.

Women in abusive relationships also have a difficult time maintaining their
economic resources when their partners engage in behaviors that generate
costs. For example, research shows that abusive men steal, damage or destroy
their partners’ possessions or household items (Brewster, 2003; Follingstad et
al., 1990; Pearson, Thoennes, 8 Griswold, 1999; Ptacek, 1997; Rodenburg 8
Fantuzzo, 1993). They may also cause damage to their apartment or house or
their car (Davies 8 Lyon, 1998; Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo, 1993). Furthermore,
women have also reported that their partner had their heat, electricity or phone
turned off (Anderson et al., 2003; Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo, 1993). These tactics
deplete women’s level of economic resources in two ways; they not only lose the
property they once had, but they also incur the costs to replace or repair the
damage.

Finally, the control tactics employed by abusive men have been shown to
interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain their economic resources by
generating debt in her name. Research suggests that some abusive men refuse

to pay rent or make mortgage payments or refuse to pay other bills (Brewster,

20

2003; Davies 8 Lyon, 1998; Ptacek, 1997). Another way abusive men have been
shown to generate debt for their partners is by obtaining credit cards in both
names or by using her credit card without her permission (Brewster, 2003). Thus,
women in abusive relationships are at risk for accruing personal debt when
shared resources are under her name or both names. In other words, abusive
men often take advantage of such a situation and use it as a means of
threatening their partner’s economic stability.

Why is Economic A_buse a Problem?

Economic abuse is a problem because of the effects that it has on
women’s economic health, physical safety and potentially their psychological
well-being. More specifically, an abuser who controls a woman’s ability to
acquire, utilize and maintain economic resources limits the resources she has
available. By limiting the economic resources to which a woman has access, the
abuser is fostering economic dependence and threatening her short-term and
long term economic security and mental health. While the relationships between
economic abuse and women’s economic, physical and psychological health have
not been empirically examined, the link between a woman’s economic resources
and economic dependence on her abusive partner has been established.

Studies show that about half of the women who take steps toward leaving
their abusive partner end up returning to the relationship at least once (Aguirre,
1985; Snyder 8 Scheer, 1981 ; Strube, 1988). Researchers have spent decades
examining the process of leaving an abusive relationship in an effort to identify

factors influencing the decision to leave or stay with an abusive partner. Among

21

the variables that have been examined, researchers have consistently identified
economic dependence as a critical obstacle for many women attempting to leave
an abusive partner (Aguirre, 1985; Gondolf 8 Fisher, 1988; Johnson, 1992;
Okun, 1988; Strube 8 Barbour, 1983, 1984).

In one study, Aguirre (1985) collected data from 312 women in 15 shelters
in order to assess the factors that contribute to a woman's decision to return to
an abusive partner after taking steps toward leaving. It was discovered that
economic dependence, operationalized as the husband being the sole source of
income, significantly predicted the decision women made when exiting the
shelter. In fact, 84% of the women who reported that they were economically
dependent on their partner planned to return to the relationship, while 82% of
those who reported that their partner was not their sole source of income planned
to separate from their abusive partner. In this study, women who were
economically dependent on their partners for their income almost always
returned to the relationship, while those women with their own income almost
always terminated the relationship.

Similarly, Rusbult 8 Martz (1995) interviewed 100 women on intake into a
shelter program and then followed up 3, 6 and 12 months later to assess whether
they had returned to their abusive partner. They found that women with greater
individual economic resources were more likely to live independently of the
abuser at follow-up. More specifically, education, employment status, income

level, availability of an independent source of income, available money, the

22

amount of money they had on hand and available transportation were all
resources that were significantly related to women’s relationship status.

In a large-scale study of women seeking services from a shelter program,
Gondolf 8 Fisher (1988) also assessed the relationship between economic
dependence and a woman’s decision to leave an abusive relationship. Once
again, it was discovered that women with individual economic resources were
significantly more likely to plan to live on their own following exit from a shelter
program. More specifically, women with their own income, transportation and
childcare were significantly more likely to plan to live independently of the abuser
after leaving the shelter.

Evidence clearly indicates that dependence on an abusive partner for
economic resources is strongly related to a woman’s decision to remain in or
leave an abusive relationship. Based on what we know about economic abuse,
we can theorize that economic abuse plays a role in developing this dependence.
Economic abuse affects a woman’s level of individual economic resources,
thereby fostering economic dependence. Economic dependence has been
shown to predict the status of an abusive relationship. That is, women with
greater independent economic resources are more likely to live independently of
their abusers, whereas women who are reliant on their partners for economic
resources are more likely to remain in abusive relationships. Therefore, it follows
that women who experience economic abuse are likely to have fewer individual

economic resources on leaving their abusive relationship, which limits their

23

options and places them at risk for returning to the abuser, further threatening
their physical safety and psychological well-being.

The lack of economic resources that economic abuse creates not only
fosters economic dependence on an abuser, but also threatens a woman's short-
term and long-term economic health, and possibly her mental health. For women
with limited economic resources, leaving an abusive relationship often means
having to face an uncertain economic future. Studies show that many women feel
trapped in abusive relationships because they lack the economic resources to
support themselves and their children. In fact, one study found that close to 93%
of women surveyed reported that they had wanted to leave an abusive partner
before they ultimately did, and many of those women cited lack of economic
resources for independent living as a reason for staying (Chalmers 8 Smith,
1984). More specifically, women with abusive partners report a lack of resources
needed for day-to-day survival such as money, housing, childcare and
transportation (Chalmers 8 Smith, 1984; Short et al., 2000). On top of that, many
do not have the job skills or the wage earning power to support themselves or
their children (Labell, 1979). As one woman who was not allowed to work during
her twenty-year relationship stated, “How am I supposed to get a job to support
my family with no skills, no experience and no references” (VonDeLinde, 2002, p.
4)? Women’s options are further limited when their credit has been destroyed by
an abusive partner, making it almost impossible to secure necessary resources,
such as housing (Correia, 2001; Melbin, Sullivan, 8 Cain, 2003). Many women

who do escape an abusive relationship experience a decrease in their standard

24

of living once they leave and end up living in poverty, on government assistance
or homeless (Barnett 8 LaViolette, 1993; Davis, 1999).

By leaving women with inadequate resources to meet daily needs,
economic abuse may indirectly affect women’s physical and psychological
health. Studies have shown a strong relationship between the conditions of
poverty and poor physical and psychological health (Brown 8 Moran, 1997;
Lynch, Kaplan, 8 Shema, 1997; Stronks, Van de Mheen, Van den B05, 8
Mackenbach, 1997). Low-income women who endure chronic sources of stress
such as substandard housing, inadequate food and unstable income have been
shown to be at increased risk for depression, anxiety, chronic health problems
and poor general physical health (Dunn 8 Hayes, 2000; Hall, Williams, 8
Greenberg, 1985; McCaIIum, Arnold, 8 Bolland, 2002; McLeod 8 Kessler, 1990;
Stronks, Van de Mheen, 8 Mackenbach, 1998). Similarly, the health of women
with an economically abusive partner may be compromised as they endure the
stress associated with chronic economic deprivation and exploitation. This
applies not only to women in economically abusive relationships, but also to
women who have left their abusive partners but who are struggling to make ends
meet on what few resources they have available.

Measuring Economic Abuse

Given what we know about economic abuse and the potentially damaging
effects this form of abuse has on women’s lives, the current approach to
measuring economic abuse is not sufficient. Economic abuse has been largely

conceptualized as a form of psychological abuse (Tolman, 1992) and measures

25

of psychological abuse frequently include a limited number of items that tap
economic abuse. For example, the widely used Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989) contains the following five items that
capture economically abusive behavior: 1) My partner did not allow me to work;
2) My partner was stingy in giving me money to run our home; 3) My partner
used our money or made important financial decisions without talking to me
about it; 4) My partner did not want me to go to school or do other self-
improvement activities; and 5) My partner acted irresponsibly with our financial
resources.

Economic abuse items are also included in Rodenburg 8 Fantuzzo’s
(1993) Measure of Wife Abuse, which is designed to measure physical, sexual,
psychological and verbal abuse. The following seven of the fifteen items
contained in the psychological abuse subscale capture economic abuse: 1) your
partner harassed you at work; 2) your partner took your wallet leaving you
stranded; 3) your partner disabled your car; 4) your partner took your car keys, 5)
your partner turned off the electricity; 6) your partner stole food or money; and 7)
your partner stole your possessions. Similarly, Shepard 8 Campbell (1992)
developed a measure of psychological and physical abuse that included a limited
number of economically abusive behaviors in the psychological abuse subscale.
The Abusive Behavior Inventory contains the following three items that capture
economic abuse: 1) prevented you from having money for your own use; 2) put
you on an allowance; and 3) stopped you or tried to stop you from going to work

or school.

26

The Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA; Hudson 8 McIntosh, 1981) and the
Index of Psychological Abuse (IPA; Sullivan, Parisian, 8 Davidson, 1991) also
include economic abuse items. The ISA asks women to respond to two items that
reflect economic abuse (“My partner is stingy in giving me enough money to run
our home” and “My partner feels that I should not work or go to school”), while
the IPA asks women if their partner tried to control their money.

In addition to the conceptualizations of abuse that contain economic
abuse items, Riger, Ahrens 8 Blickenstaff (2001) recently developed a measure
of work/school interference, which is one specific form of economic abuse. The
Work [School Abuse scale (W/SAS) is a 12-item measure designed to assess the
degree to which an abusive partner interferes with his partner’s ability to attend
school or maintain employment. Six of the twelve items assess the use of tactics
that prevent women from going to work or school (e.g., sabotage the car) and six
items assess the use of tactics intended to make women leave work or school
(e.g., comes to work or school to harass you).

Rationale for the Current StudJ

Economic abuse, defined as behaviors that control a woman’s ability to
acquire, use and maintain economic resources, has been shown to be part of the
pattern of abusive behaviors used by men in order to maintain power and control
over their partner. Furthermore, the economic abuse women experience has
been shown to take various forms and could potentially have negative effects on
women’s economic, physical and psychological health and safety. However,

current conceptualizations of abuse that include economic abuse are not

27

sufficient for assessing the potential impact of economic abuse on women’s lives.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to develop a measurement

instrument that can be used to assess economic abuse.

Method

Measurement Development

Items for the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA) were derived from
numerous sources, including the domestic violence literature and the expert
knowledge and experience of domestic violence researchers, advocates and
survivors. Specifically, items were developed from a review of both quantitative
and qualitative studies that captured women’s experiences with abusive partners
and from theoretical and anecdotal literature that described the control tactics
used by abusive men. In addition, five measures of psychological abuse (PMWI,
ISA, IPA, ABI and MWA) and the Interference with Work/School Scale were
examined for items that tapped economic abuse. Items were also generated with
the assistance of three domestic violence advocates from a local domestic
violence shelter program and two prominent domestic violence researchers. In
addition, twelve survivors contributed to the development of the SEA items. I met
individually with three women, two in their homes and one at the shelter where
she was residing, and also with nine women attending a domestic violence
support group. Each of the women completed an initial measure and suggested
changes and additional items. This extensive process resulted in a 120-item

measure.

28

Procedure
Interviewer Tra_inirm

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through face-to-face
structured interviews with women receiving residential and/or non-residential
services through these five organizations. Five female undergraduate students,
all of whom had gone through 50 hours of domestic violence intervention training,
were trained to conduct the interviews. Interviewer training took place over six
three-hour weekly sessions. During the first session, the research team members
were introduced to the layout and content of the interview protocol; that is, each
section of the interview was explained and.the meaning of individual items was
discussed. Next, basic interviewing skills and techniques were discussed and
practiced. At the end of the session, each team member was provided with blank
interview protocols and asked to conduct and record at least two practice
interviews before the following session. The second and third sessions were
primarily devoted to practicing the interview. At the start of the sessions, the
practice interviews they were asked to conduct over the previous week were
reviewed and problems were discussed. The remainder of the training session
was used for one-on-one role playing and open discussion of problems or
concerns that arose. The fourth session was devoted to a discussion of the
emotionality of interviewing. In preparation for the discussion, the research team
members were asked to read select chapters from the book Emotionally Involved
(Campbell, 2002). Dr. Rebecca Campbell met with the research team and

discussed how to deal with a range of emotional responses that participants may

29

have to the interview questions. Time was also spent talking about the
interviewers’ own fears and concerns about interviewing and how they would
deal with their own emotional reactions during and after interviews. For the fifth
training session, each interviewer met with me individually for a practice interview
and individualized feedback. Also during the fifth week, the research team
members paired up and conducted an additional practice interview. The final
training session was used to test inter-interviewer reliability. One of the research
team members and l role-played an interview, while the other four interviewers
recorded my responses on their own protocols. The ratio of accurate recordings
to the total number of items was calculated and 98% agreement had been
reached.
Recrment

Participant recruitment and data collection took place at five domestic
violence shelter programs throughout a Midwestern state. These organizations
offer shelter, residential and non—residential advocacy and counseling services to
women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. Participants Ieamed of the
study through three mechanisms. First, we provided program staff with an
informational flyer describing the project so that they could inform their clients
about the project and direct those who were interested in further information to
the research assistants. Second, informational flyers were posted throughout the
facilities informing women of the study. Third, due to the extensive 50-hour
training the research assistants received, each service provider viewed the

research team as trained volunteers in their organization. Thus, the research

30

team was to make initial contact with program clients while protecting their
confidentiality. Therefore, research team members informed women of the study
and invited them to participate. During recruitment, participants were assured
that their decision to participate in the study would have no impact on their
receipt of services from the agency; the informational flyers and details provided
by the research assistants all included this assurance. Furthermore, it should be
noted that given that the initial hours after leaving one’s home and entering a
shelter program can be an emotionally and physically exhausting time, we did not
talk with shelter residents about this study until they had been in shelter at least
24 hours.

After learning of the study, those women who were interested in
participating were free to talk with a member of the research team for more
information and/or to schedule a time for an interview. The research team was
available to provide information about the study and schedule interviews at
regularly scheduled times throughout data collection. Specifically, in our weekly
team meeting the research team designated blocks of time during the upcoming
week when research team members would be available to discuss the project
with potential participants and schedule interviews. A member of the research
team was available during these scheduled blocks of time to conduct interviews
with women who chose to “drop-in” rather than schedule an interview. This
schedule was given to the program staff and posted in a central location within
the program facilities for program clients to view. In addition, the informational

flyer included my cell phone number for women to call for more information or to

31

schedule an interview. Interviews were scheduled at the research participants'
convenience and took approximately one hour to complete. In order to maximize
participants’ feelings of comfort and safety during the interview, interviews were
conducted at a location of the participants’ choosing. Most interviews took place
in a private space in the shelter complex or at other program facilities. Some
interviews were contacted in the participants’ homes.
Interviews

Before starting the interview, the interviewer spent some time informally
chatting with the participant to help her feel more comfortable. Once the
participant was ready to begin, the interviewer obtained the participants’ informed
consent. The research assistants read the consent form aloud to each participant
in order to ensure that the information contained on the consent form was cleariy
communicated. During the consent process, the interviewer reviewed the
purpose of the study, described what the interview would involve, and informed
her of her rights as a research participant. In addition, the research assistant
asked the participant’s permission to tape record the interview for quality control
purposes. The interviewer explained that the tape would only be heard by the
research team and was only intended to ensure that the interviews were being
conducted in a consistent and thorough manner. Participants were also assured
the tape would be stored in a locked file cabinet and destroyed once the study
was completed. After reading the consent form, the interviewer answered any
questions that the participant had and then asked for the participant’s signature

on the consent form. One copy of the consent form was provided to the

32

participant if she desired, and the signed consent form was placed in a.
designated folder, separate from any other research materials.

Following the consent procedure, the interview began. The structured
interview protocol included basic demographic data and measures of economic
abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse, and economic health, which are
described in detail below. In order to shorten the length of the interview and avoid
the monotony of hearing the same response options over and over again, the
response options for each of the measures were pre-pn'nted on 4X6 index cards.
Prior to beginning each section of the interview, the interviewer placed the
appropriate card in front of the participant and asked her to refer to the card
when giving her response to the items.

In order to minimize any emotional distress experienced during the course
of the interview, the research team was trained to put women’s emotional needs
before the data. In other words, the interviewers stopped the interview and took
the time to listen and empathize with any woman who became distressed and/or
wanted to talk about her experiences and then assess whether she felt she could
continue the interview before beginning again. All of the interviewers received
extensive training in empathy and active listening. Also, the interviewers were
prepared to refer women to counselors employed by the domestic violence
program, should the need arise during the interview.

Upon completion of the interviews, participants were given $10 cash as
compensation for their time. Any participant who chose to terminate the interview

early for any reason still received compensation. At the end of the interview, the

33

interviewer assigned each interview a unique ID number. The ID number
reflected the number assigned to the data collection site and the chronological
order of the interview. For example, if an agency was designated site 01 and the
third interview that took place there was assigned the code 03, the ID for that
interview was 0103. Each research assistant was responsible for returning the
completed interviews to the project office and storing the data in the locked file
cabinet in a timely manner.

The research team met weekly in order to monitor the recruitment
procedures and ensure that the interviews were being conducted accurately and
systematically. Prior to the weekly research team meeting, I reviewed the
interview protocols, audiotapes and entered data from the previous week and
made note of any problems that needed to be addressed, as well as things that
the interviewers were doing well. In the research team meeting, we discussed the
interviews from the previous week and addressed any issues or concerns that
the research assistants had regarding recruitment or interviewing that week.
During the meeting we also determined the recmitment and interview schedule

for the upcoming week.

Measures
Demographic Information. Eight items were used to assess the following
demographic variables: race, age, number of children, education level, education

status, employment status, relationship status, and relationship history.

34

Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA). The SEA contained items that describe
behaviors that control a woman's ability to acquire, use and maintain economic
resources. One hundred and twenty items describing economic abuse tactics
were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Quite
Often). Each of the economic abuse items was endorsed according to the
frequency of occurrence since the woman’s relationship began. In addition to the
quantitative items, the scale also contained qualitative questions eliciting any
additional forms of economic abuse that were experienced but not covered in the
survey. Several experts, including survivors of intimate partner abuse,
determined that the SEA had good face validity; that is, the SEA items appeared
to capture economic abuse.

To help test the validity of the measure under development, three additional
instruments were contained in the interview. One measured women’s economic
well-being, one was a widely used measure of psychological abuse, and one was
a widely used measure of physical abuse.

Economic Health Index (EHI). Developed for this study, the EHI consisted
of 13 items designed to assess women’s economic health since the abusive
relationship began. Examples of the yes-no items included, “Have you had
trouble buying food or other necessities for your family?”, “Have you had trouble
with your credit rating?” and “Has your telephone, electricity or other utilities ever
been turned off?” The EHI had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .86. In a follow-up question to the 13-item EHI, participants were asked

to think about the items to which they had responded “yes” and then rate on a

35

scale ranging from 1 (None/Not at all) to 5 (Completely) how much they thought
their partner had to do with those financial hardships.

Psychological Maltreatment of Women lnventog (PMWI; Tolman, 1989).
The short-version PMWI contained 14 items and was used to assess the degree
of psychological abuse women experienced in the last six months of their
relationship. Women rated how frequently each of the 14 abusive acts occurred
during the last six months of their relationship on a scale ranging from 1 (Never)
to 5 (Very Frequently). Examples of the items included on the short version of the
PMWI include “My partner called me names” and “My partner told me my feelings
were irrational or crazy.” The PMWI had an internal consistency coefficient of .87.

Modified Conflict Tactics Sgle (modified CTS' Straus. 1979; Su_llivan.

 

ESE). The CTS as modified by Sullivan (1992) was used to assess the level of
violence women experienced in the last six months of their relationship. The
modified CTS is a 23-item measure that asks women to rate the frequency of
each behavior during the last six months of their relationship on a scale ranging
from 1 (Never/None) to 7 (More than 4 times per week). The types of physically
abusive behaviors included in the modified CTS include “Pushed or shoved you”,
“Pulled your hair" and “Choked or strangled you.” This scale has demonstrated
good internal consistency (a = 0.92; Goodkind, Sullivan 8 Bybee, 2004). In this

sample, the reliability coefficient was .93.

36

Results
Participants

A convenience sample of 103 adult women survivors of intimate partner
abuse were reanited for participation in this study. The women ranged in age
from 18 to 85, with an average age of 35 years (SD=10.4). Forty-eight percent of
the women were African American, 45% were White, 5% were
Hispanic/Latina,1% was Asian American, and 1% declined to provide racial
information. Eighty-eight percent of the women had completed high school
and/or college. At the time of the interview, 65% of the women were unemployed.
Of those who were working, 22% had a full-time job and 16% were employed
part-time. Over half (57%) of the women reported an annual family income of
less than $15,000, while 21% lived in a household earning between $15,000 and
$30,000, and 22% reported over $30,000 in family income per year.

The average woman in the sample had been involved with her abusive
partner for 8 years and had 2 minor children. Eighty-one percent of the women
were living with their partner at the time the abuse occurred, 30% of whom were
married. See Table 1 for demographics.

All of the women in the sample had experienced psychological abuse and
98% had suffered physical abuse during the last six months of their relationship.
Similarly, 99% of the women had experienced economic abuse at some point
during their relationship. The types of physical abuse most commonly
experienced were pushing/shoving and grabbing, while the most frequently

reported forms of psychological abuse were yelling/screaming and swearing.

37

Over half of the women had been sexually assaulted (57%) and 65% had been
strangled by their intimate partner. See Table 2 for frequencies for psychological

and physical abuse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1
Demographics
(N = 103)
Frequency (%)

AGE

18 — 24 15

25 - 34 36

35 - 44 32

45 — 54 13

55 — 64 3

65 8 over 1
RACE

African American/Black 48

CaucasianNVhite 45

Hispanic/Latina 5

Asian American 1

Unknown 1
EDUCATION

Some High School 22

High School/GED 29

Some College 32

College Graduate/Trade School 16

Advanced Degree 1
EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed 63

Employed Part-time 16

Employed Full-time 21
INCOME

Under $5,000 25

$5,001 - $10,000 15

$10,001 - $15,000 16

$15,001 - $20,000 17

$20,001 - $30,000 4

$30,001 - $50,000 8

$50,001 8 over 15

 

38

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

CHILDREN
None 21
1 19
2 21
3 24
4 7
5 8 over 7

RELATIONSHIP STATUS
Married and living together 30
Separated/Divorced 4
Girl/boyfriend and living together 50
Girl/boyfriend but not living together 11
Ex-girl/boyfriend 1
Dating 1
Other 3

LENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP
Less than 6 months 4
6 months -1 year 9
13 months — 3 years 27
36 months — 5 years 12
61 months - 7 years 9
85 months — 10 years 13
121 months - 15 years 12
181 months — 20 years 6
Over 20 years 8

 

39

Table 2
Frequencies for Psychological and Physical Abuse Experienced
In Last Six Months of Relationship

 

 

 

TYPE OF ABUSE Frquzg‘c'es

Psychological
Yell and scream at you. 99
Call you names. 98
Treat you like an inferior. 97
Swear at you. 96
Tell you your feelings were irrational or crazy. 95
Try to keep you from doing things to help yourself. 93
Blame you for his problems. 92
Try to make you feel crazy. 92
Use money or make important financial decisions without
talking to you about it. 92
Was jealous or suspicious of your friends. 92
Monitor your time and make you account for your whereabouts. 91
Interfere in your relationships with other family members. 87
Accuse you of having an affair with another man. 80
Restrict your use of the telephone. 70

Physical
Pushed or shoved you. 82
Grabbed you 79
Thrown something at you 72
Tried to hit you with an object 68
Drove recklessly to scare you 68
Slapped you with an open hand 65
Coked or strangled you 65
Beat you up 64
Pulled your hair 63
Hit you with a fist 63
Broke your glasses or tore your clothes 60
Forced sexual activity 57
Tied you up or physically restrained you 56
Kicked you 55
Twisted your arm or leg 54
Hit you with an object, aside from throwing something at you 51
Threatened you with a knife 36
Smothered you 28
Threatened you with a gun 27
Bit you 1 9
Burned you 13
Stabbed you 5
Shot you 0

 

4O

Scale Construction

In constructing the final SEA, the goal was to end up with instrument that
was brief, reflective of a broad range of economically abusive tactics, and widely
applicable to respondents. Several steps were taken toward this end. In the initial
pass, items that were not applicable to more than 25% of women in the sample
were removed. In total, 37 items were removed due to inapplicability, including all
items pertaining to school interference and items making reference to children.
Once these items were removed, the expectation maximization (EM) method was
used to provide estimates for the remaining missing data, in order to facilitate
psychometric analysis with the full sample. Expectation maximization is a two-
step iterative process. In the expectation step an estimated covariance matrix is
used to construct a series of regression equations. The predicted values
generated by the regression equations are then used as estimates of the missing
data points. In the maximization step, the data matrix generated in the estimation
step is used to obtain updated estimates of the covariance matrix and mean
vector. This two step process repeats until the differences between covariance
matrices in each successive maximization step falls below a set criterion. At the
final maximization step, a maximum likelihood estimate of the covariance matrix
and mean vector is obtained (Enders, 2003). The EM method was used to
estimate 4% of the values in the data matrix. Little’s Missing Completely at
Random (MCAR) test was nonsignificant (p = 1.00) indicating that the pattern of
missing data was not significantly different from a random pattern and providing

support for handling the missing values as “ignorable.”

41

Once the missing values were estimated, eight items that had been
unclear or difficult for women to answer during the interviews were removed. For
example, many of women in the sample had expressed difficulty responding to
items that were not easily quantified according to the Likert scale, such as being
prevented from getting a credit card or vehicle of one’s own. The internal
consistency of the remaining 75 items was assessed and 17 additional items
were removed based on their low item-total correlations. Another five items were
removed because they were redundant with better performing items. Overall, this
process resulted in the removal of 67 items.

Analysis of the remaining 53 items began with a review of the originally
proposed theoretical framework, which defined economic abuse as behaviors
that control a woman’s ability to acquire, use or maintain economic resources.
Through the data collection process, it became clear that the guiding theoretical
framework appeared accurate, at least anecdotally. Women’s experiences of
economic abuse tended to involve control over their access to and use of
resources, as well as their ability to maintain those resources. However, through
conversations with women during and after the interviews it became clear that
what had been conceptualized as ‘resource maintenance’ was better explained
as “economic exploitation.’ There was a distinct group of women whose partners
had taken advantage of them economically. These men stole from their partners,
forced or coerced them into financially providing for them, and had managed to
deplete their resources in a variety of ways. The unique impact of this form of

economic abuse became increasingly evident during the data collection process,

42

as women who had been exploited economically by their partners expressed the
most anger and resentment during the interviews.

With this revised theoretical framework in mind, the frequencies, means
and item-total correlations were examined for the remaining 53 items. Table 3
includes the psychometric properties and frequencies for the 53 items.
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .957 and the item-total correlations ranged
from .402 to .673. Some of the most frequently occurring items were those
involving control over the use of and access to money. For example, 83% of
women reported that their partners had done things to keep them from having
money of their own, 91% reported that their partners demanded to know how
money was spent, and 89% of the women had partners who decided how they
could spend money rather than letting them spend it how they saw fit. The least
frequently occurring items were all involving specific actions intended to prevent
someone from getting a job or going to work. For example, 24% reported that
their partners had physically assaulted them as a means of keeping them from
going to work and 30% said their partners had hidden or destroyed their clothes

in an effort to prevent them from working.

43

Table 3
SEA Item Means, Frequency of Endorsement and Item-Total Correlations

 

 

 

ITEM Mean SD Frequency Item-total
(%) Correlation

1) Not let you sleep before an

interview. 2.74 1 .53 65 .518
2) Hide or steal your id, social

security card or birth

certificate to keep you from

getting a job 1.96 1.47 36 .573

3) Steal the car keys or take
the car so you couldn’t go
look for a job or go to a job

interview. 2.68 1 .70 59 .595
4) Call you names or put you

down before an interview. 2.91 1.70 64 .577
5) Do things to keep you from

going to your job. 3.02 1.28 82 .588
6) Demand that you stay

home from work. 2.19 1.28 58 .666

7) Cause visible physical
injuries to keep you from
going to work. 2.00 1.29 47 .437

8) Steal the car keys or take
the car so you couldn’t go

to work. 2.52 1.50 60 .582
9) Physically restrain you

from going to work. 1.60 .98 32 .597
10)Threaten you to keep you

from going to work. 2.02 1.28 48 .645

11)Hide your purse, wallet or
money to keep you from

going to work. 1.86 1.37 36 .541
12)Hide or destroy your

clothes to keep you from

going to work. 1.66 1.17 30 .507
13)Beat you up if you said you

needed to go to work. 1.50 .99 24 .540
14)Do things to make you

leave work during the day. 2.60 1.26 74 .407

15)Do things to force you to
quit or make you lose your

 

 

 

 

job. 2.76 1.46 73 .492
16)Come to your work to
harass you 2.55 1.51 62 .546

 

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

 

 

ITEM Mean SD Frequency Item-total
(%) Correlation

17)Call you at work to harass you. 3.10 1.53 74 .413
18)Bother your coworkers or boss. 1.92 1.30 44 .461
19)Threaten you to make you

leave work. 2.20 1.37 52 .548
20)Demand that you quit yourjob. 2.26 1.46 52 .569
21 )Do things to keep you from

having money of your own. 4.07 1.23 93 .525
22)Keep you from building credit

by doing things like put property

in only his name, not let you get

a credit card of your own or

keep you from having your own

bank account. 2.81 1.72 58 .445
23)Take your paycheck, financial

aid check, tax refund check,

disability payment or other

support payments from you. 2.83 1.74 58 .638
24)Decide how you could spend

money rather than letting you

spend it how you saw fit. 3.98 1.34 89 .673
25)Demand to know how money

was spent. 4.17 1.28 91 .596
26)Go shopping with you to watch

what you spent or pay the

cashier himself. 3.45 1.64 76 .504
27)Demand that you give him

receipts and/or change when

you spent money. 3.12 1.75 67 .511
28)Keep you from having the

money you needed to buy food,

clothes or other necessities. 3.27 1.60 75 .568
29)Hide money so that you could

not find it. 3.33 1.70 73 .584
30)Keep you from having access

to bank accounts. 2.55 1.67 54 .526
31 )Keep you from driving the car. 3.20 1.66 70 .547
32)Keep you from using the

checkbook. 2.66 1.69 43 .442
33)Keep financial information from

you. 3.52 1.60 77 .523

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

ITEM

Mean

SD

Frequency
(%)

Item-total
Correlation

 

 

34)Make important financial
decisions without talking with
you about it first.

35)Make you ask him for money.

36)Take money from you without
your permission and/or
knowledge.

37)Damage, destroy or steal your
property, such as your clothes,
household items or car.

38)Damage your credit by doing
things like put property in your
name and then refuse to pay
the bill or prevent you from
paying the bill.

39)Take money from your purse,
wallet or bank account without
your permission and/or
knowledge.

40)Force you to give him money
or let him use your checkbook,
ATM card or credit card.

41 )Damage or destroy household
items.

42)Steal your property.

43)Cause damage to your house
or apartment.

44)Damage or destroy your
personal possessions.

45)Pay bills late or not pay bills
that were in your name or in
both of your names.

46)Build up debt under your name
by doing things like use your
credit card or run up the phone
bill.

47)Gamble with your money or
your shared money.

48)Have you ask your family or
friends for money but not let
you pay them back.

 

3.83
3.74

3.26

3.33

2.60

3.20

3.11

3.13
2.73

3.17

3.27

3.40

2.84

2.14

2.21

 

1.56

1.54

1.75

1.61

1.63

1.54
1.68

1.55

1.55

1.57

1.71

1.51

1 .49

 

84
80

77

78

51

73

69

76
60

75

78

79

60

42

48

 

.572
.462

.579

.607

.473

.597

.570

.632
.555

.525

.567

.536

.402

.548

.506

 

46

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

ITEM Mean SD Frequency Item-total
(%) Correlation

 

49)Convince you to lend him
money but no bay it back. 3.02 1.68 65 .423

 

 

50)Loan out your money or your
shared money without your

permission and/or knowledge. 2.55 1.50 60 .571
51 )Pawn your property or your

shared property. 2.15 1.50 45 .546
52)Spend the money you needed

for rent or other bills. 2.81 1.60 66 .502

53)Threaten you or beat you up
for paying the bills or buying
things that were needed. 2.10 1.37 48 .496

 

 

 

 

 

(Rating scale: 1=never, 2=hardly ever, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=quite often)

The next step in scale construction was to select items from each of the
potential subscales for further analysis. Of the 53 items remaining, 23 involved
actions that interfere with women’s access to resources (resource acquisition),
13 pertained to control over the use of resources (resource utilization) and 17
items concerned economic exploitation. Item-total correlations, item means,
standard deviations, and the conceptual contribution of each item were taken into
account in selecting items. This was an iterative process in which the conceptual
contribution and psychometric properties of each item were taken into
consideration in relation to the other remaining items in each domain. For
example, the psychometrics of the five remaining items pertaining to work
interference through on-the-job harassment were examined collectively. The item
with the lowest item-total correlation was removed (r = .407), as well as two items
with low-item total correlations and relatively extreme item means (r = .413, i =

3.10; r = .461, x = 1.92), leaving the two items with the highest item-total

47

 

correlations and most moderate item means for further analysis (r = ..546, x =
2.55; r = .548, x = 2.20). Through this process, 37 items were selected (13
resource acquisition, 11 resource utilization and 13 exploitation items) and
subjected to further reliability analysis. Ten of the 13 resource acquisition items
asked about work interference in the following four areas: obtaining employment,
getting to work from day to day, staying at work during the day, and job loss. One
item from each of the four work-related areas was selected, as well as the two
items with the highest item-total correlations of the three remaining acquisition
items. In the utilization category, all but one item was retained. “Keep you from
driving the car" was excluded because it would not apply to anyone who did not
have a vehicle, Share a vehicle with their partner, or who had other means of
transportation. All 13 of the exploitation items were initially retained for further
analyses.

The remaining 30 items had a reliability coefficient of .935 and item-total
correlations ranged from .402 to.697. These items were scrutinized and any
remaining problem items were removed. Specifically, “Keep you from building
credit by doing things like put property in only his name, not let you get a credit
card of you own or keep you from having your own bank account” was removed
because of the length of the item and low item-total correlation. “Take money
from you without your permission and/or knowledge” and “Damage your credit by
doing things like put property in your name and then refuse to pay the bill or
prevent you from paying the bill” were both excluded due to their redundancy

with better performing items. Two items that had been removed during earlier

48

phases of item analysis were readmitted for conceptual reasons. That is, “Refuse
to get a job so you had to support your family alone” and “beat you up if you said
you needed to go to work” both tapped areas of economic abuse that were not
covered by the items making up the scale, making these items an important
conceptual addition.

After the aforementioned changes, 29 items remained. Exploratory
principal components analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation was then used to
determine the underlying factor sthcture of the SEA. Oblique rotation was used
because it was expected that any emerging factors would be correlated. Prior to
performing the PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed.
Examination of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients
of .3 or above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .87, exceeding the
recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity
(Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical Significance, supporting the factorability of the
correlation matrix.

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of Six factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining 10%, 3.1%, 2%, 1.5%, 1.1% and 1% of
the variance, respectively. Inspection of the scree plot (Catell, 1966) revealed no
clear indication of the appropriate number of factors to extract. Thus, as
recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), an exploratory approach was
used to find a satisfactory solution with as few factors as possible. Initially, three
factors were retained for further analysis. After rotation, eleven items loaded

highly on the first factor, eleven items loaded highly on the second factor, four

49

items loaded highly on the third factor and three items loaded moderately on two
of the three factors. The first factor accounted for 34.5% of the variance and
included resource acquisition and resource utilization items. The second factor
accounted for 10.8% of the variance and was made up of the exploitation items.
The third factor accounted for 6.8% of the variance and was made up of all the
items pertaining to work interference. For comparison purposes, a second PCA
was performed, but with two factors extracted. The two factor solution revealed a
clear pattern, with most variables loading substantially on only one component.
Seventeen items loaded on the first factor, which consisted of all the items
involving actions that control access to and use of resources (i.e., resource
acquisition and utilization items), and 11 items loaded onto the second factor,
which included all of the economic exploitation items. One item, “loan out your
money or your shared money without your permission and/or knowledge,” loaded
moderately on both factors. This item was dropped and the analysis was rerun
with the item excluded. The final rotated two factor solution is presented in Table

4.

50

Table 4
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the SEA

 

 

 

 

It e m Commun Components
alities 1 2

1) Decide how you can spend money rather

than letting you spend it how you saw fit. .62 .74 .10
2) Demand to know how money was Spent. .56 .73 .04
3) Demand that you give him receipts and/or

change when you spent money. .48 .73 -.08
4) Keep financial information from you. .46 .72 -.13
5) Do things to keep you from having money of

your own. .47 .68 -.01
6) Make you ask him for money. .45 .69 -.07
7) Keep you from having money you needed to

by food, clothes and other necessities. .49 .64 .12
8) Hide money so that you could not find it. .44 .67 -.01
9) Make important financial decision with out

talking with you about it first. .44 .66 .02
10)Demand you quit yourjob. .37 .64 -.09
11)Take your paycheck, financial aid check, tax

refund check, disability payment or other

support payments from you. .52 .56 .28
12)Keep you from having access to your bank

accounts. .39 .60 .06
13)Steal the car keys or take the car so you

couldn’t go look for a job or go to a job

interview. .36 .57 .06
14)Threaten you to make you leave work. .29 .57 -.07
15)Threaten you or beat you up for paying the

bills or buying things that were needed. .34 .52 .13
16)Beat you up if you said you needed to go to

work. .25 .46 .08
17)Do things to keep you from going to your

job. .25 .41 .17
18)Spend the money you needed for rent or

other bills. .60 -.001 .78
19)Convince you to lend him money but not pay

you back. .55 -.09 .78
20)Refuse to get a job so you had to support

your family alone. .50 -.28 .77
21 )Build up debt under your name by doing

things like use your credit card or run up the

phone bill. .45 -.06 .69

 

 

 

 

51

 

Table 4 (cont’d.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Commun Components
alrttes 1 2
22)Stea| your property. .47 .04 .67
23)Have you ask your family or friends for
money but not let you pay them back. .49 .15 .63
24)Take money from your purse, wallet or bank
account without your permission and/or
knowledge. .50 .16 .62
25)Pay bills late or not pay bills that were in
your name or in both of your names. .52 .21 .61
26)Pawn your property or your shared property. .47 .13 .62
27)Force you to give him money or let him use
your checkbook, ATM card or credit card. .54 .26 .59
28)Gamble with your money or your shared
money. .45 .16 .59
Percent of variance 34 11
Reliability

The internal consistency of the SEA was assessed by examining the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and item-total correlations of the total scale and
each of the two subscales. The total SEA had a reliability coefficient of .926, with
corrected item-total correlations ranging from .411 to .690. The Control and
Exploitation subscales also showed good internal consistency, with alpha
coefficients of .909 and .893, respectively. The corrected item-total correlations
of the Control subscale ranged from .44 to .72, while the coefficients of
Exploitation subscale ranged from .54 to .71(see Table 5).

A correlation matrix was generated that correlated each of the items with
the two subscales. As presented in Table 5, this analysis revealed that all of the
Control items were more highly correlated with the Control subscale than with the

Exploitation subscale, and the Exploitation items were more highly correlated

52

 

with the Exploitation subscale than with the Control subscale. In addition, with the
exception of two Control items (“Do things to keep you from going to your job”
and “Beat you up if you said you needed to go to work.”), the Control and
Exploitation items were more highly correlated with their own subscale than with
the measures of physical or psychological abuse. Taken together, the factor
analysis and correlational analyses strongly supported the existence of two

distinct subscales.

53

 

 

:mom. :80 m 5. won. Km. .888
em; .2. 355 9.25 5 «=3 9.. 9.38 .o. a: 8.. .89 .o :9. 5.8.5 .2
than. .mem. e5. Bu. mam. E685 8. E... v.8 =9. 9.22 .8
twee. .emu. 8m. mew. m8. .3: ._ 58m 8.. 5.; 9.2.3 .85.; mco.m_8e .982: 22.88. 9.32 .8
88. E. .8. 08. m8. 8.. 52. 8.58.... same 83. .3
Lew. 8%. m8. 8m. 8m. 9588 E2 59. 2 $88 9.32 as. a. 83. .2
8mm. torn. oem. 2m. 80. .._ 2... .o: 2:8 8.. .2. 8 >955 8.: .NF

.83. :NR. m5. te. Rm. 85.888:
.850 .o 8520 68. .3 9 880: :9. .68.: 9.. 9.39. EE. =2 83. .:
tuna. term. mum. NR. «5. $89: .58 8.. can; mmcmzo 8ch 3982 E... 2.5 8.. .2. 9.2.8 .8
tame. ion. 50. gm. 8o. .58 was >22: 26.. ...65. 2 9.250 .m

:54. £9. 08. me. «Q. e as 8..
2.9. .. 28m :2 9.58. cm... .859. .68.: 95%. 2:8 :9. 39. 8.80 .m

:Nem. tame. one. man. «8. 45.. so: $88.8 53% 550 .o .556...
£586 £86 9.39 x2 28% 2m .mecmc... £8628 50.. 9.3 s
tome. :8“. 8.... 2m. 80. ea 52. .0 >28. 8.2.... as. 8.. 89. 2 ass 8 a
zoom. town. mam. 2N. Fem. .8. so» :8 8.. .2. .25st .m
.QN. tame. :e. mom. 8e. .Eo; 98. =9. 9.2. o. :9. 5.8.5 .e
sew. teem. 3.. new. «we. so; 2 a 2 888 8. 2mm 8:. 9 8.28m .m
:mwe. twee. mme. mew. See. do. 50> 2 3% ES. 8.. 89. 2 was... on. .N

.83. .88. em. an. «an. 5.22... 8.
m 2 on .o co. m .o. 3.8. cm £238 =9. 8 .8 9.. 9.8 .o 9.9. .8 o... .86 .F
.65.on

10.68 ..<o.m>_..m <wm :0..me .omhzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

meow—28.30 a_comEe: new _So._..Ee=

m 032.

54

03. .0 28:03.... . .5. .0 080.300 ..

 

 

.000. 2.000. 000. 0:. 0.0. 0.0 .050 .0 .5. .0. 3038.. 30> as... 2.. 3:80 .:
L00. Roe. 000. e5. Nee. .>..000.0 00.000 .30> .0 >0000.0 .30> :30; .o.
:08. :08. me. 80. 08. 0.000 ._ >00 .0: .30 >086 E... 0:0. 0. 30> 00:.>:00 .0
team. 2.0%. R0. 0%. Re. 0.000 3.00.
>00 30> .0. .0: .30 >08... .0. 00:0... .0 0.50. .30> .00 30> 0.0... .0
temm. tooe. 000. 000. one. .>0:0:. 00.000 .30> .0 >085 .30> 0...: 0.00.00 .\.
e2. teem. mom. >00. 000. 08.0 >_.:.0. .30> 000030 0. 00: 30> 00 00.. 0 .00 0. 003.0”. .0
.03. .000. 00... E. 0.0. .__.0 22.3 9.. .3 :3. .0 3.8
._00.0 .30> 003 00... 0050. 0500 >0 0E0: .30> .00:3 .000 03 0:30 .0
:00... :05. 0.0. .00. 00... 852.32
.0 0.00 :_ .0 050: .30> :. 0.0.3 .00. 2% >00 .0: .0 0.0. 2.0 >0n. .e
twme. tame. 0:... So. we... .>..000.0 .30> 00.0 .0
2.000. the. wee. Fee. 08. 0.00 ._00.0 .0 0.00
2.2 0.80.0000 .30> 003 E... .0. .0 >080. 5.: 020 0. 30> 00.0". .N
:3. :05. e00. 000. 00... 033055.000 8.85.3
.30> .3055. .:3800 .:00 .0 0:0; 00.30 .30> 80.. >085 00.0.. ..
20.5.2305.
10.60 ._<0.m>...n. <mm ._..o..n.xm. 005200

 

 

 

 

 

 

000:8. 0 0.000

55

Validity

Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the construct
validity of the SEA. Table 6 depicts the correlations among the entire SEA, the two
SEA subscales, the measures of physical abuse, psychological abuse, and
economic health, and demographic variables: age, race (dichotomously coded as
1=white, 2=non-white) and income. The correlation between the subscales was
significant, but of moderate strength (r = .514), indicating that while they are related,
they are measuring unique constructs. It is also important, to note that the SEA was
not Significantly correlated with age, race or income. In fact, the correlations were all
quite low. The lack of correlation between these demographic characteristics and the
SEA suggests that, in this sample, economic abuse scores are not significantly

influenced by these dimensions.

The Relationship between_§conomic Abuse and Physical and Psychological Abuse

 

The construct validity of the SEA was examined by assessing the relationship
between the SEA and measures of physical abuse (modified CTS) and
psychological abuse (PMWI). The SEA was positively correlated with both the
modified CTS and the PMWI (r =.61, p<.01; r = .58, p<.01), indicating that higher
levels of economic abuse are significantly related to higher levels of physical and
psychological abuse. The correlation between the SEA subscales and the modified
CTS and the PMWI were also both positive and significant. Specifically, the Control
subscale was positively correlated with physical and psychological abuse (r = .52, p
< .01; r = .56, p<.01), indicating that the more physical and psychological abuse a

woman experienced, the more her partner controlled her access to and use of

56

mo. .0 €005.50 .. .3. .0 .08....090 z.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00;. 30400. N0 _..- $0.- 00 .. .. .eN _..- 0.00.- 000.- m=2002_
E —..- 0.. _..- mm _..- mm _.... NNO. um _..i mmor mm 0... m0<m
00... mm _..- emor mwo... 00 _. .- 0.. _..- 0m _.... m0<
oo. _. .mom. .5 _.. 35mm. 300%. inwm. _Im
00. _. 35 :4. 3mm? twom. tmnm. Io>wn_
oo. _. town. team. 3000. ._<0_m>_.._n_
oo. _. iv em. 3000. .000..me
00. _. them. ._0th00
co. _. (mm
Mel—002. mO< .Im Io>mn_ ._<0_w>In_ ._._O._n_Xm JOmHZOO <mw
0.3.3.230

0 0.33.

57

economic resources. Similariy, the positive correlation between the Exploitation
subscale of the SEA and the modified CTS and the PMWI suggests that the
women who suffered higher levels of physical and psychological abuse were also
more economically exploited by their partners (r = .54, p<.01; r = .42, p<.01).
While the correlations between the measures of physical and psychological
abuse and the SEA were all positive, the fact that they were of only moderate
strength (ranging from .42 to .60) iS evidence that economic abuse is a unique
construct in need of a separate measure.
The Relationslyip between Economic Abuse and Economic Health

The construct validity of the SEA was further examined by assessing the
relationship between the SEA and economic health. The Economic Health Index
was a 24-item measure developed to assess the degree of economic difficulty
experienced by survivors of abuse since their relationship with their abuser
began. After reliability analysis, 11 of the 24 items were removed due to low item-
total correlations. The resulting 13-item scale demonstrated good internal
consistency, with an alpha coefficient of .86. As Table 7 illustrates, the women in
the sample had experienced a wide range of economic problems since their
relationship began. For example, the overwhelming majority of the women
stmggled to find and maintain affordable housing. Specifically, 80% of women in
the sample indicated that they had had trouble finding an affordable place to live,
while 86% had to stay with family or friends or in a shelter because they could
not find a place of their own. Also, over half (52%) of the women had been

evicted or had a house foreclosed. In addition to housing, many of the women

58

interviewed had trouble paying their bills and providing food and other
necessities for their families. In fact, 53% of the women had gone as far as
pawning or selling their property so they could pay bills or provide food for their

families and 61% had had their telephone, electricity or other utilities shutoff.

 

 

Table 7
Psychometric Properties and Frequencies for the Economic Health Index
Scale Item Item Item CITC* Freq.
M SD Scale (%)
Retained Items
1) Have you had trouble finding an apartment
or house you could afford? .80 .41 .54 80

2) Have you had to stay with friends or family
or in a Shelter because you could not find a
place to live? .86 .34 .42 86
3) Have you had trouble getting a house,
apartment, vehicle or credit card because of

your credit? .83 .37 .46 84
4) Have you been evicted from a place you

were renting or had your house foreclosed? .51 .50 .57 52
5) Has your landlord ever threatened to evict

you because you could not pay your rent? .52 .50 .65 52
6) Have you had trouble buying food or other

necessities for your family? .73 .45 .54 73

7) Have you had to borrow money to pay rent
or other bills because you did not have the

money to pay them when they were due? .80 .41 .49 80
8) Have you asked a community agency for
help to pay your rent or other bills? .75 .44 .55 75

9) Have you sold or pawned your property
because you needed money for rent, bills or

other necessities? .53 .50 .49 53
10) Have you been harassed by

people/businesses you owe money to? .70 .46 .51 70
11) Have you had trouble with your credit

rating? .81 .40 .49 81
12) Has you telephone, electricity or other

utilities ever been turned off? .61 .49 .65 61
13) Has your credit rating made it difficult to

get a phone? .51 .50 .51 52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Table 7 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Item Item M Item SD CITC* Frequency
Scale (%)

Dropped Items

Have you taken on a second job or

worked more hours to make ends

meet? .42 .50 .1 3 42

Have you been on welfare? .73 .45 .29 73

Have you had to file or consider

filing for bankruptcy? .46 .50 .26 46

Have you been in trouble with the .07 .25 .05 7

IRS?

Have you had a checking or .17 .37 .01 17

savings account? .46 .50 .16 46

Have you had a credit card? .19 .40 -.05 19

Have you had a vehicle of your

own? .34 .48 .1 1 34

Have you had to get rid of a vehicle .12 .32 .13 12

because you could not afford it?

Has your car been repossessed?

Have you had to get your furniture

or appliances from a rent-to-own .22 .42 .33 22

store because you did not have the

money to purchase them? .75 .44 .30 75

Have you been able to afford child

care?

Alpha .86

Scale mean 9.0

Scale standard deviation 3.6

 

 

Note. Items were scored 0=No; 1=Yes. *CITC= Corrected Item-Total Correlation

60

 

Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between
economic health and economic abuse, r = .523, p< .01. The relationship between
economic health and the SEA subscales was also examined. First, the results
showed that the Control subscale of the SEA was Significantly positively
correlated with economic health (r = .403. p<.01), indicating that the more
women’s access to and use of resources is controlled by their abusive partner,
the greater the amount of financial hardship they experience. The Exploitation
subscale was also significantly correlated with economic health in the positive
direction (r = .527, p< .01) meaning that as women’s economic resources are
increasingly compromised as a result of their partner’s actions, the degree of
financial difficulties they experience also increases.

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to further explore the
relationship between economic health and economic abuse for the purpose of
assessing the content validity of the SEA. Three models were tested to examine
whether the total SEA and the two subscales significantly predict economic
health after accounting for the effects of the women’s age, race, and income and
the level of physical and psychological abuse they experienced. Model 1
regressed the economic health scores upon the scores for the total SEA.
Variables for this model were entered in three blocks. In the first block the
demographic variables of age, race and income were entered as controls. In the
second block, the scores from the CTS and PMWI were also entered as controls.
The SEA was entered in the third block. Results indicated that this model

accounted for approximately 35% (R2 = .348) of the variance in economic health

61

scores. Beta was .674, indicating that women scoring one standard deviation
higher on economic abuse had, on average, economic health scores that were
.67 standard deviation higher. The R-square change due to the addition of the
SEA was .219, significant at p< .001, meaning that economic abuse accounts for
about 22% of the variance in economic health scores, after the effects of age,

race, income and physical and psychological abuse are removed (see Table 8).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8
Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 1
Predictors Standardized t R2 Change
l3

Block 1:
Age -.068 -.755
Race -.133 -1.53
Income -.145 -1.59 .095
Block 2:
Physical Abuse -.187 -1.74
Psychological Abuse -.143 -1.39 .034
Block 3:
SEA .674* 5.68* .219*
Total R-square .348
Total F 8.53“

 

 

Note: Coefficients were from the final block, with all the variables in the model.
*p < .001

Model 2 regressed the economic health scores upon the Control subscale
for the purpose of assessing the unique contribution of the Control subscale to
the prediction of economic health. Variables for this model were also entered in
three blocks. In the first block, the demographic variables were again entered as
controls. Physical and psychological abuse were entered as controls in the
second block, and the scores from the Control subscale were entered in the third
block. Results indicated that this model accounted for approximately 22% (R2 =

.218) of the variance in the economic health scores. Beta was .4, indicating that

62

 

women scoring one standard deviation higher on economic abuse had, on

average, economic health scores that were .4 standard deviation higher. The R-

square change due to the addition of the Control subscale was .09, significant at

p<.001, indicating that economic control accounts for 9% of the variance in

economic health after controlling for the effects of demographic characteristics

and physical and psychological abuse (see Table 9 ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9
Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 2
Predictors Standardized t R2 Change
l3

Block 1:
Age -.1 16 -1 .19
Race -.159 -1 .67
Income -.138 -1.38 .095
Block 2:
Physical Abuse -.026 -.231
Psychological Abuse -.054 -.483 .034
Block 3:
Control Subscale .400“ 3.32* .09*
Total R-Square .218
Total F 4.47*

 

 

Note: Coefficients were from the final block, with all the variables in the model.

*p < .01

Model 3 regressed the economic health scores upon the Exploitation

subscale of the SEA in order to examine the unique predictive power of the

exploitation subscale. Variables for this model were again entered in three

blocks. Specifically, the demographic variables were entered in the first block,

physical and psychological abuse scores were entered in the second block, and

the Exploitation subscale scores were entered in the third block. Results

indicated that this model accounted for 33% of the variance (R2 = .331) in the

economic health scores ([3 = .561 ). The R-square change due to the addition of

63

 

the Exploitation subscale was .203, significant at p<.001, indicating that
exploitation accounts for an additional 20% of the variance in economic health
after the effects of age, race, and income and physical and psychological abuse

have been removed (see Table 10 ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10
Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 3
Predictors Standardized t R" Change
9
Block 1:
Age -.081 -.893
Race -.166 -1 .90
Income -.115 -1.25 .095
Block 2:
Physical Abuse -.125 -1 .20
Psychological Abuse -.023 -.234 .034
Block 3:
Exploitation Subscale .561* 5.39* .203*
Total R-gruare .331
Total F 7.93“

 

 

Note: Coefficients were from the final block, with all the variables in the model.
*p < .001

Two additional models were tested for the purpose of assessing the
unique contribution of each of the SEA subscales after accounting for the effects
of the other subscale. In Model 4, age, race and income were entered in the first
block, physical and psychological abuse was entered in the second block,
Exploitation was entered in the third block and Control was entered in fourth
block. Results indicated that this model accounted for 37% of the variance (R2 =
.373) in the economic health scores. Again, the Exploitation subscale accounted
for an additional 20% of the variance in economic health after the demographics
and physical and psychological abuse were removed (R2 change = .203,

p<.001). After controlling for the effects of demographics, physical and

64

 

psychological abuse and Exploitation, the Control subscale accounted for an
additional 4% of the variance in economic health (R2 change = .042, p<.05).
Reversing the entry order of the two SEA subscales, a fifth model was
tested in order to examine the unique contribution of the Exploitation subscale to
the explanation of economic health and to address the question of which
subscale, Control or Exploitation, is the best predictor of economic health. AS
Table 12 shows, after the effects of demographics, physical and psychological
abuse and Control were taken into account, Exploitation accounted for an
additional 15.5% of the variance in economic health scores. Examination of the
beta coefficients associated with the two SEA subscales revealed that
Exploitation made the strongest unique contribution to the prediction of economic
health ([3 = .503). The unique predictive power of the Control and Exploitation
subscales is further evidence for the existence of two distinct dimensions of
economic abuse. Furthermore, the significant relationship between economic
abuse and economic health is strong evidence supporting the constmct validity of

the SEA.

65

Table 1 1

Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictors Standardized t R2 Change
l3

Block 1:
Age -.062 -.690
Race -.139 -1.63
Income -.136 -1.51 .095
Block 2:
Physical Abuse -.203 -1.91
Psycholggical Abuse -.118 -1 .16 .034
Block 3:
Exploitation Subscale .503“ 4.84“ .203“
Block 4:
Control Subscale .280“* 2.52““ .042“
Total R-square .373
Total F 7.53“

 

Note: Coefficients were from the final block, with all the variables in the model.

“p < .001; ““p < .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12
Summary of Multiple Regression Results from Model 5
Predictors Standardized t R2 Change
B
Block 1:
Age -.062 -.690
Race -.139 -1.63
Income -.136 -1.51 .095
Block 2:
Physical Abuse -.203 -1.91
Psychological Abuse -.1 18 -1 .16 .034
Block 3:
Control Subscale .280“ 2.52““ .090“
Block 4:
Exploitation Subscale .503“ 4.84“ .155“
Total R-square .373
Total F 8.07“

 

 

Note: Coefficients were from the final block, with all the variables in the model.

“p _<_ .001; ““p< .05

66

 

 

Discussion

Intimate partner abuse of women by male partners occurs at an alarming
rate in our society. Until now the majority of research in the area of intimate
partner abuse has largely focused on physical and psychological forms of abuse.
This is despite considerable documented and anecdotal evidence indicating a
vast array of abusive tactics used by batterers in an attempted to establish power
and maintain control over their partners. The findings of the present study
contribute to our collective understanding of intimate partner abuse in two major
ways: first, by highlighting the extent to which economic abuse occurs in abusive
relationships; and second, by producing the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA), a
measure of economic abuse that can be used to assess the degree of economic
control and/or exploitation experienced by women in abusive relationships.

This is the first study to take a comprehensive, systematic approach to the
investigation of the extent to which women in physically and/or psychologically
abusive relationships also experience economic forms of abuse. In this sample of
women, it was discovered that economic abuse occurred as frequently as
physical and psychological abuse. Specifically, all of the women interviewed had
suffered psychological abuse and 98% had experienced physical abuse during
the last Six months of their relationship, and an astounding 99% of the women
were subjected to some form of economic abuse at some point during their
relationship. In other words, almost all of the women had been involved with
partners who controlled their use of or access to economic resources and/or took

advantage of them economically. These findings provide evidence that economic

67

abuse is a distinct form of abuse commonly experienced by women in abusive
relationships. Furthermore, these findings empirically demonstrate that economic
abuse is a significant component of the broad system of tactics used by abusive
men to gain power and maintain control over their partners. Thus, additional
research is needed to examine the ways in which women experience economic
abuse and the consequences this form of abuse has on women’s lives. With the
development of the SEA, such research is now more likely.

The findings of this study provide initial evidence of the reliability and
validity of the SEA as an instrument that can be used to measure economic
abuse as a distinct form of abuse. This scale is unique in that it is the first to tap a
broad range of economically abusive tactics as a means of assessing the degree
of economic abuse experienced in an abusive relationship. Whereas previous
measures of abuse have included a limited number of items tapping economic
abuse or focused primarily on a specific form of economic abuse, the SEA
includes 28 items, 17 of which capture behaviors that control a woman’s access
to and use of resources and 11 that capture economically exploitive behaviors.
These two dimensions, Economic Control and Economic Exploitation, have been
shown to be meaningfully distinct and useful for predicting the degree of
economic hardship experienced by women with abusive partners. The SEA will
be useful for gaining a more complete picture of the ways in which economic
abuse affects women's lives. Such information is needed to inform the
development of interventions specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of

women impacted by economic abuse.

68

While the SEA has been shown in this study to be a valid and reliable
measure of economic abuse, the study does have limitations, mostly stemming
from an under representation of specific groups of women in the sample. The
vast majority of the women in the sample were either African American or White,
they were primarily low-income women, and all of the women were receiving
services from a domestic abuse organization. As a result, the findings of this
study do not necessarily reflect the experiences of other groups of women. For
example, it is possible that the nature and consequences of economic abuse
differ for women from other ethnic minority groups, middle to high income
earners or non-formal help-seeking women. Thus, caution should be used in
generalizing the findings of this study beyond low income, African American and
White women receiving services from a domestic abuse organization. A study of
economic abuse involving a more diverse sample of women is needed in order to
better understand the unique experiences of various groups of women and to
further assess the validity of the SEA.

The low-income status of the majority of women in this sample raises an
additional concern. With over three-quarters of the women reporting a family
income of under $20,000, it is reasonable to question whether the financial
hardships reported on the EHI represent chronic financial problems stemming
from insufficient income rather than resulting from economic abuse. However,
the relationship between economic health and economic abuse is strongly
supported by both the empirical findings of this study and the women’s personal

accounts. After responding to the economic health items, respondents were

69

 

asked to what they attributed their financial difficulties. Only 5% of the women
stated that their partners were not at all responsible for their financial difficulties,
while 76% stated that their partners were very much or completely responsible
for the economic hardships they had faced. Correlation analyses showed that the
level of economic abuse experienced was significantly correlated with the
women’s attribution of their economic struggles to their partners (r = .296, p<
.01). In other words, women experiencing higher levels of economic abuse
placed greater responsibility for their economic hardships on their partners.
However, it should be noted that because the study is based on cross-sectional
data, a causal link between economic abuse and economic hardship can not be
inferred. Longitudinal studies that examine the effects of economic abuse are
needed.

In addition to the aforementioned demographic characteristics, the sample
was also limited in the number of women who had attended or attempted to
attend school and in women who had children in common with the abuser. The
under-sampling on these characteristics resulted in the exclusion of all items
pertaining to school interference and tactics involving children. Thus, while the
SEA captures a broad range of economically abusive tactics, it is also missing
these important types of economic abuse. This is a potentially significant
omission, given the frequency with which school interference and abuse tactics
involving children are discussed in the literature (Anderson, et al., 2003; Curcio,
1997; Moe 8 Bell, 2004, Ptacek, 1997; Rapheal, 1996; Riger, Ahrens 8

Blickenstaff, 2001; Shepard 8 Pence, 1988; Tolman, 1989; Tolman 8 Rapheal,

70

1997) and cited by both practitioners and survivors. Accordingly, such tactics
need to be taken into consideration in future studies examining economic abuse.
The most significant limitation of the study stems from an inconsistency in
the timeframes used as reference points for the respondents” reports of their
experiences of abuse and economic health. All of the women reported their
economic health and economic abuse from the time their relationship began with
their abusive partner. In comparison, the occurrence of both physical and
psychological abuse were reported for the last six months of their relationships. It
is possible that there were differences in the physical and psychological abuse
women experienced earlier in the relationship, that is, prior to the six month time
frame. Such differences may have changed the women’s scores on the PMWI
and CTS, thus affecting the relationship between these measures and economic
abuse and economic health. While this timeframe inconsistency is not ideal, it
was necessary given the nature of the economic abuse items. More specifically,
many of the original economic abuse items captured events that occur with low
regularity (e.g., signing a lease, buying a car), thus the application of a Six month
timeframe would not have captured women’s full experiences of economic abuse
within their relationships. However, the significance of this limitation is minimized
in the final scale, with the majority of items tapping events that most likely occur
regularly. Therefore, future research could pilot whether the use of a more
specified timeframe effectively captures women’s experiences of economic

abuse as measured by the SEA.

71

Despite these limitations, this study is an important step toward gaining a
fuller understanding of the complexity of intimate partner abuse. Women not only
experience physical and psychological forms of abuse, but they are also being
terrorized and controlled economically by their abusive partners. With the nature
and frequency of economic abuse empirically established, research is now
needed that examines the impact this specific form of abuse has on women’s
Short-term and long-term well-being. Such knowledge can be used to develop
interventions and garner resources for use by women whose physical, emotional
and economic health have been compromised by an economically controlling

and/or exploitive partner.

72

 

APPENDIX

73

 

Interviewer ID#
Participant ID#
Time Interview Started

 

I’d like to begin by asking you some general questions about yourself.

1. What is your race or ethnic background?

2. How old are you?:

 

 

 

AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK ....................... 1
CAUCASIAN/WHITE .................................... 2
HISPANIC/LATINA ....................................... 3
ASIAN AMERICAN ....................................... 4
NATIVE AMERICAN/AMERICAN INDIAN.........5
BIRACIAL (SPECIFY )....6
MULTIRACIAL (SPECIFY )....7

OTHER (SPECIFY ) ........ 8

3. How many minor children do you have? (Under 18):

4. Are you currently a student?

5. What’s your education level?

YES ........................................................ 1
NO ......................................................... 2
LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL ........................ 1
SOME HIGH SCHOOL ................................ 2
HIGH SCHOOUGED .................................. 3
SOME COLLEGE4
COLLEGE GRADUATE ............................... 5
TRADE SCHOOL ....................................... 6
ADVANCED DEGREE ................................. 7

6. In the last six months, have you been employed?

6a. Are you employed right now?
(GO TO #6b)

YES ........................................................ 1
NO ......................................................... 2
YES ........................................................ 1
NO ......................................................... 2

74

 

6b. Do you work part-time, full-time or sporadically (off and on, temporary)?
(FULLTIME = 35 HOURS PER WEEK OR MORE)
PART-TIME ...........................................
FULLTIME
SPORADICALLY....................................
(NotApplicable).....................................

2000..

Now if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you some questions about your relationship with the man who
abused you. Would you mind telling me his name so that I can refer to him by that? NAME:
[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: lf woman is at all uncomfortable with
giving you his/her name, offer to refer to the person as “your boyfriend,” etc] If you don’t want to
answer any of these questions, just let me know or if you want to stop at any time, just let me
know.

 

 

7. What was your relationship with at the time the abuse occurred?
MARRIED, LIVING TOGETHER .................... 1
MARRIED. SEPARATED .............................. 2
DIVORCED ................................................ 3

GIRUBOYFRIEND, LIVING TOGETHER ......... 4
GIRUBOYFRIEND, NOT LIVING TOGETHER..5

 

EX-GIRLFRIEND, EX—BOYFRIEND ................. 6

DATING, BUT NOT GIRUBOYFRIEND ............ 7

OTHER (SPECIFY )..8
8. How long have you been/were you in a relationship with ?

 

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF MONTHS)

 

Now I have a list of some of the emotional things some men do to annoy or hurt their partners
and ex-partners. (HAND PARTICIPANT YELLOW CARD) These may or may not have ever
happened in your relationship. On this card are the answers that I’d like you to give me. I’ll be
asking you about a list of things. After I ask you each question. please tell me, to the best of
your recollection, what statement on this card gives the best summary of how frequently, if at
all, each thing happened in the last six months of your relationship with

 

1=NEVER

2= RARELY

3= OCCASIONALLY

4= FREQUENTLY

5= VERY FREQUENTLY

8= NOT APPLICABLE

9= DECLINED TO ANSWER

How often, if at all, did

 

9. Call you names.

75

10. Swear at you.
11. Yell and scream at you.
12. Treat you like an inferior.

13. Monitor your time and make
you account for your whereabouts.

14. Use money or make important
financial decisions without talking to you about it.

15. Was jealous or suspicious of your friends.

16. Accuse you of having an affair with another man.

17. Interfere in your relationships with other family members.

18. Try to keep you from doing things to help yourself.

19. Restrict your use of the telephone.

20. Tell you your feelings were irrational or crazy.

21. Blame you for his problems.

22. Try to make you feel crazy.
Now I have a list of different types of violence that some women have experienced from their
partners and ex-partners. Using this card (HAND PARTICIPANT BLUE CARD), could you tell

me, to the best of your recollection, how many times in the last six months of your relationship
did any of the following things to you:

 

1 = NEVER/NONE
2 = ONCE/ONE

3 = ONCE A MONTH OR LESS (2 TO 4 TIMES)
4 = Two TO THREE TIMES A MONTH

5 = ONE OR TWO TIMES A WEEK

6 = 3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK

7 = MORE THAN 4 TIMES A WEEK

8 = NOT APPLICABLE

9 = DECLINED TO ANSWER

23. Broke your glasses or tore your clothing?
24. Pushed or shoved you?

76

25. Grabbed you?

26. Slapped you with an open hand?
27. Pulled your hair?

28. Bit you?

29. Hit you with a fist?

30. Kicked you?

31. Thrown something at you?

32. Hit you with an object, aside from throwing something at you?
33. Tried to hit you with an object?
34. Twisted your arm or leg?

35. Drove recklessly to scare you?
36. Choked or strangled you?

37. Smothered you?

38. Burned you?

39. Tied you up or physically restrained you?
40. Beat you up?

41. Forced sexual activity?

42. Threatened you with a knife?

43. Threatened you with a gun?

44. Stabbed you?

45. Shot you?

46. Anything I haven’t mentioned?
(explain: )

77

 

In this section of the interview, I am going to go through a list of things some men do to hurt
their partner or ex-partner financially. Using this card, (HAND PARTICIPANT GREEN CARD),
could you tell me, to the best of your recollection, how frequently, has done
any of the following things since your relationshigbegafl.

1=NEVER

2= HARDLY EVER

3= SOMETIMES

4= OFTEN

5= QUITE OFTEN

8= NOT APPLICABLE

9= DECLINED TO ANSWER

Sometimes some men will try to keep their partner/ex-partners from getting a job. In this first set of
questions, I am going to ask you about some things may or may not have done to
keep you from working. I will start with a general question and then ask you about several specific
things may have done.

Since your relationshm, how often, if at all, did
47. Not let you have a job.

 

48. Keep you from sleeping
the night before a job interview.

49. Not watch the children so you
could look for a job or go to a job interview.

50. Hide the job section of the newspaper.

51. Hide or steal your identification, social security
card or birth certificate to keep you from getting a job.

52. Steal the car keys or take the car so you
couldn’t go look for a job or go to a job interview.

53. Call you names or put you down
before an interview.

78

 

Once you had a job, may or may not have done things to keep you from going to

work from day to day. In this next set of questions, I am going to ask you about some things
may have done to keep you from going to work. Again, I will start with a general

question and then ask you about several Specific things may have done.

Since your relationship b_egan, how often, if at all, did

(IF SHE NEVER WORKED DURING THE RELATIONSHIP, MARK ALL 8)

 

54. Do things to keep you from going to yourjob.
55. Demand that you stay home from work.

56. Sabotage the car so you couldn't go to work.

57. Cause visible physical injuries to keep
you from going to work.

58. Not watch the children so you
couldn't go to work.

59. Refuse to give you a ride to work.

60. Steal the car keys or take the car so you
couldn’t go to work.

61. Physically restrain you from going to work.

62. Threaten you to keep you from going to work.

63. Shut off the alarm clock to keep you from
going to work.

64. Hide your purse, wallet or money to keep you
from going to work.

65. Hide or destroy your clothes to keep you
from going to work.

66. Beat you up if you said you needed to go to work.

67. Hurt or neglect your children
while you were at work.

79

 

 

Now this next set of questions is about things may or may not have done to
bother you at work or make you stop working.

Since your relationship b_egan, how often, if at all, did
(IF SHE NEVER WORKED DURING THE RELATIONSHIP, MARK ALL 8)

 

68. Do things to make you leave work
during the day.

69. Do things to force you to quit or make
you lose your job.

70. Lie about your children’s health or safety
to make you leave work.

 

71. Come to your work to harass you.

72. Call you at work to harass you.

73. Bother your coworkers or boss.

 

74. Embarrass you in front of your
coworkers or boss.

75. Lie to your coworkers or boss about you.
76. Threaten you to make you leave work.
77. Physically force you to leave work.

78. Threaten your coworkers or boss.

79. Demand that you quit your job.

In this next part, I am going to ask you about things may or may not have done to
interfere with your ability to go to school. This could be any type of education or training program.
Since your relationship began, how often, if at all, did

 

80. Not let you go to school.

81. Do things to keep you from getting
into school.

82. Do things to make it difficult for you
to go to school.

83. Keep you from taking the tests necessary
to start school.

80

84. Keep you from having money to pay for school.
(IF SHE NEVER WENT TO SCHOOL DURING THE RELATIONSHIP, MARK ALL 8)
85. Destroy your books or homework.

86. Sabotage the car SO that you couldn’t go
to school.

87. Cause visible physical injuries to keep you
from going to school.

88. Not watch the children so that you
couldn’t go to school.

89. Refuse to give you a ride to school.

90. Steal the car keys or take the car so that
you couldn’t go to school.

91. Physically restrain you from going to school.

92. Demand that you stay home from school.

93. Threaten you to keep you from
going to school.

94. Shut off the alarm clock to keep you
from going to school.

95. Hide your purse, wallet or money to keep
you from going to school.

96. Hide or destroy your clothes to keep you
from going to school.

97. Do things to force you to quit or get kicked
out of school.

98. Lie about your children’s health or safety to
make you leave school.

99. Come to school to harass or watch you.

100. Bother your school friends or instructors.

81

 

101. Embarrass you in front of your school
friends or instructors.

102. Lie to your school friends or instructors
aboutyou.

103. Threaten you to make you leave school.
104. Physically force you to leave school.

105. Demand that you quit going to school.

 

That is all of the questions I have about ’s interference with work and school. Now I
am going to ask you about other things may or may not have done to keep you
from having money or other resources of your own.

Since your relationslunggQ, how often, if at all, did

 

106. Do things to keep you from having
money of your own.

107. Keep you from building credit by doing things
like put your property in only his name, not let you get a credit card
of your own or keep you from having your own bank account.

108. Keep you from collecting child support from
your children's father(s).

109. Threaten you if you tried to collect
child support (For example, threatened to physical hurt you,
threatened to leave the state, threatened to quit his job, etc).

110. Refuse to pay child support for
your children.

111. Keep you from getting a credit card of your own.

112. Take your paycheck, financial aid check, tax refund check,
disability payment or other support payments from you.

113. Keep you from going on welfare for help with
bills, food or medical care.

114. Keep you from having your own checking or
savings account.

115. Keep you from getting a car of your own.

82

116. Demand that the car be in his name only.

117. Demand that the lease or mortgage be
in his name only.

In this next section I am going to be asking you about things may or may not have
done to control your use of money or other resources.

Since your reLationshkLbegQ, how often, if at all, did

 

118. Decide when and how you could use your
cash, bank accounts or credit cards.

119. Decide how you could spend money rather
than letting you spend it how you saw fit.

120. Demand to know how money was spent.

121. Go shopping with you to watch what you spent
or pay the cashier himself.

122. Demand that you give him receipts and/or
change when you spent money.

123. Watch you closely when you wrote out checks
to pay the bills or buy things you needed.

124. Keep you from having the money you needed
to pay the rent, or other bills.

125. Keep you from having the money you needed
to buy food, clothes or other necessities.

126. Hide money so that you could not find it.

127. Keep you from having access to your bank account(s).
128. Keep you from driving the car.

129. Keep you from using the checkbook.

130. Keep you from using your credit cards.

131. Keep financial information from you.

83

 

132. Make important financial decisions without
talking with you about it first.

133. Give you an allowance.
134. Make you ask him for money.

135. Demand that you go on welfare.

Now I am going to ask you about things may or may not have done to interfere
with your ability to maintain or save up your money and other resources

Since your Monshm, how often, if at all, did

 

136. Take money from you without your permission
and/or knowledge.

137. Damage, destroy or steal your property,
such as your clothes, household items or car.

138. Damage your credit by doing things like put property in your
name and then refuse to pay the bill or prevent you
from paying the bill.

139. Take money from your purse, wallet or bank
account without your permission and/or knowledge.

140. Use your checkbook, ATM card, and/or
credit card without your permission and/or knowledge.

141. Force you to give him money or let him
use your checkbook, ATM card or credit card.

142. Damage or destroy household items.

143. Steal your property.

144. Cause damage to your house or apartment.
145. Intentionally cause damage to your car.

146. Damage or destroy your personal
possessions.

84

 

147. Pay bills late or not pay bills that
were in your name or in both of your names.

148. Build up debt under your name by doing
things like use your credit card or run up the phone bill.

149. Build up debt under your name by doing things
like putting a car, apartment/house or credit cards in your name.

150. Make sure your money went into your joint bank
account and then spend it on whatever he wanted
without discussing it with you.

151. Buy you expensive gifts with your
own money.

152. Use your money to pay the bills or buy things
that were needed and spent his however he wanted.

153. Use your money to pay the bills and buy things
because he did not have any money of his own.

154. Refuse to get a job so you had to support your
family alone.

155. Demand that you get a job or work more hours.
156. Gamble with your money or your shared money.

157. Have you ask your family or friends for money
but not let you pay them back.

158. Convince you to lend him money,
but not pay it back.

159. Loan out your money or your shared
money without your permission and/or knowledge.

160. Pawn your property or your shared
property.

161. Have your utilities shutoff (For example,
electricity, phone, cable tv).

162. Spend the money you needed for rent or
other bills.

85

163. Buy drugs and alcohol with the money
needed for necessities such as food or rent.

164. Buy luxury items such as a new car, TV or CD’S
rather than paying for household necessities such
as food and rent.

165. Make you drive him around.

166. Threaten you or beat you up for paying the
bills or buying things that were needed.

Are there any other things did to control your ability to get, use or keep money or
other economic resources that you think should be included in this survey?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue on to Next Page

86

In this final section, I am going to ask you about your financial situation since your relationship with
began. These are all yes or no questions, so I just need you to tell me

 

 

whether or not each thing has happened since your relationshmmh begm [TO THE
PRESENT]
167. Have you taken on a second job or worked more

hours to make ends meet? YES NO N/A
168. Have you had trouble finding an apartment or house

you could afford? YES NO N/A
169. Have you had to stay with friends or family or in a

shelter because you could not find a place to live? YES NO N/A
170. Have you had trouble getting a house, apartment,

vehicle or credit card because of your credit? YES NO N/A
171. Have you been evicted from a place you were

renting or had your house foreclosed? YES NO N/A
172. Has your landlord ever threatened to evict you

because you could not pay your rent? YES NO N/A
173. Have you had trouble buying food or other

necessities for your family? YES NO N/A

174. Have you had to borrow money to pay rent or other
bills because you did not have the money to pay

them when they were due? YES NO N/A
175. Have you asked a community agency for help to pay

your rent or other bills? YES NO N/A
176. Have you sold or pawned your property because

you needed money for rent, bills or other necessities? YES NO N/A
177. Have you been on welfare? YES NO N/A
178. Have you had to file or consider filing for

bankruptcy? YES NO N/A
179. Have you been in trouble with the IRS? YES NO N/A
180. Have you been harassed by people/businesses you

owe money to? YES NO N/A
181. Have you had trouble with your credit rating? YES NO MA
182. Have you had a checking or savings account? YES NO N/A
183. Have you had a credit card? YES NO N/A
184. Have you had a vehicle of your own? YES NO N/A
185. Have you had to get rid of your vehicle because you

could not afford it? YES NO N/A
186. Has your car been repossessed? YES NO N/A

187. Have you had to get your furniture or appliances
from a rent-to-own store because you did not have

the money to purchase them? YES NO N/A
188. Has your telephone, electricity or other utilities ever

been turned off? YES NO N/A
189. Have you been able to afford childcare? YES NO N/A
190. Has your credit rating made it difficult to get a

phone? YES NO N/A

87

191. Thinking about those things you just said “yes” to, [that is, the financial struggles you
have faced since your relationship began] how much do you think had to do with
any of those things?

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Be sure to find out if his impact was intentional or unintentional) _

 

 

 

 

192. (HAND PARTICIPANT PINK CARD), Now, if you had to put a number on it, how much do
you think had to do with any of those things?

1=NONE/NOT AT ALL
2=VERY LITTLE
3=SOMEWHAT

4=VERY MUCH
5=COMPLETELY

8=NOT APPLICABLE
9=DECL|NED TO ANSWER

193. [HAND HER THE ORANGE CARD). Looking at this card, which number would you say
is the closest to your family income last year?

1 = $0 — 5,000

2 = $5,001 - $10,000
3 = $10,001 - $15,000
4 = $15,001 — $20,000
5 = $20,001 - $30,000
6 = $30,001 — $50,000
7 = above $50,000

Thank you for answering all of these questions. Do you have any questions for me before we end
the interview? (ANSWER QUESTIONS, PAY HER AND THEN THANK HER FOR HER TIME).

Time Interview Ended

 

88

References

Adams, 0., & McCormick, A. J. (1982). Men unleaming violence: A group
approach based on the collective model. In M. Roy (Ed.), The Abusive
Partner: An Analysis of Domestic Battering (pp. 170-197). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Aguilar, R. J., & Nightingale, N. N. (1994). The impact of specific battering
experiences on the self-esteem of abused women. Journal of Family
Violence, 9(1), 35-45.

Aguirre, B. E. (1985). Why do they return? Abused wives in shelters. Social
Work, 30(4), 350-354.

Allard, M. A., Colten, M. E., Lalbelda, R., & Cosenza, C. (1997). "In harm's way?
Domestic violence, AFDC receipt and welfare reform in Massachusetts ".
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby,
N. (2003). Why Doesn't She Just Leave?": A Descriptive Study of Victim
Reported lmpediments to Her Safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3),
1 51 -1 55.

Arias, l., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for adjustment
and commitment to leave violent partners. Violence and Victims, 14(1),
55-67.

Bancroft, L. (2002). Why does he do that?: Inside the minds of angry and
controlling men. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Barnett, O. W., & LaViolette, A. D. (1993). It could happen to anyone : why
battered women stay. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.

Brandwein, R. A. (Ed.). (1999). Battered women, children, and welfare reform:
The ties that bind. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Brandwein, R. A., & Filiano, D. M. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: The voices
of battered women. Affilia, 15(2), 224-243.

Bartlett, MS. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square
qpproximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296-298.

Brewster, M. P. (2003). Power and Control Dynamics in Prestalking and Stalking
Situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4), 207-217.

89

Brooks, M. G., & Buckner, J. C. (1996). Work and welfare: Job histories, barriers
to employment, and predictors of work among low-income single mothers.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4), 526-537.

Brown, G. W., & Moran, P. M. (1997). Single mothers, poverty and depression.
Psychological Medicine, 27(1), 21 -33.

Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence,
outcomes, and policy implications. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1077-
1 087.

Browne, A., Salomon, A., Bassuk, S. S., & Raphael, J. (1999). The impact of
recent partner violence on poor women's capacity to maintain work.
Violence Against Women, 5(4), 393-426.

Brush, L. D., & Raphael, J. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-
work transition. Violence Against Women, 6(10), 1039-1065.

Campbell, R. (2002). Emotionally Involved: The impact of researching rape.
New York: Routledge.

Cascardi, M., O'Leary, K. 0., Lawrence, E. E., & Schlee, K. A. (1995).
Characteristics of women physically abused by their spouses and who
seek treatment regarding marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 616-623.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.

Chalmers, L., & Smith, P. (1984). Wife battering: psychological, social, and
physical isolation and counteracting strategies. Review of Canadian
Studies, 1(2), 221-244.

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Bethea, L., King, M. R., & McKeown, R. E. (2000).
Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate
partner violence. Arch Fam Med, 9(5), 451-457.

Correia, A. & Rubin, J. (2001). Housing and battered women: A case study of
Domestic Violence Programs in Iowa. VAWnet - Applied Research Paper
Series. November, 2001. Available on http://www.vawnet.org.

Curcio, W. (1997). The Passaic County study of AFDC recipients in a welfare-to-
work program: A preliminary analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

90

Davies, J., & Lyon, E. (1998). Safety planning with battered women. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Davis, M. F. (1999). The economics of abuse: How violence perpetuates
women's poverty. In A. Brandwein Ruth (Ed.), Battered Women, Children,
and Welfare Reform: The Ties that Bind (pp. 17-30). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives : a case against the
patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

Dukes, R. L., Borega, K. N., Clayton, S. L., Dukes, C. K., Fox, 0., McCombs, J.,
Miller, T. L., & Rodgers, S. E. (2002). Tainted love: Content analysis of
documents written by accused spousal abusers to their victims.
Psychological Reports, 90(2), 679-684.

Dunn, J. R., & Hayes, M. V. (2000). Social inequality, population health, and
housing: a study of two Vancouver neighborhoods. Social Science and
Medicine, 51(4), 563-587.

Enders, C. K. (2003). Using the expectation maximization algorithm to estimate
coefficient alpha for scales with item-level missing data. Psychological
Methods, 8(3), 322-337.

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S.
(1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 107-120.

Fox, J. A. (1998). Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current
or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends: US Department of
Justice.

Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental
disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14(2), 99-132.

Gondolf, E. W., & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors : an
alternative to treating learned helplessness. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books.

Greenfeld, L. A., & Rand, M. R. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of data
on crime by current or former spouses, boyfi'iends, and girlfriends: US.
Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hall, L. A., Williams, C. A., & Greenberg, R. S. (1985). Supports, stressors, and

depressive symptoms in low-income mothers of young children. American
Journal of Public Health, 75(5), 518-522.

91

 

Hass, G. A., Dutton, M. A., & Orloff, L. E. (2000). Lifetime prevalence of violence
against Latina immigrants: Legal and policy implications. International
Review of Victimology, 7(1-3), 93-113.

Hofeller, K. H. (1982). Social, psychological, and situational factors in wife abuse.
Palo Alto, Calif.: R & E Research Associates.

Hudson, W. W., & McIntosh, S. R. (1981 ). The Assessment of Spouse Abuse:
Two Quantifiable Dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43(4),
873-885.

Johnson, I. M. (1992). Economic, situational, and psychological correlates of the
decision-making process of battered women. Families in Society, 73(3),
168-1 76.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31 -36.

Katz, J., Arias, l., & Beach, R. H. (2000). Psychological abuse, self-esteem, and
women's dating relationship outcomes: A comparison of the self-
verification and self-enhancement perspectives. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 24(4), 349-357.

Kerouac, S., Taggart, M. E., Lescop, J., & Fortin, M. F. (1986). Dimensions of
health in violent families. Health Care Women Int, 7(6), 413-426.

Khan, F. l., Welch, T. L., & Zillmer, E. A. (1993). MMPI-2 profiles of battered
women in transition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60(1), 100-1 1 1.

Labell, L. S. (1979). Wife abuse: A sociological study of battered women and
their mates. Victimology: An International Journal, 4(2), 258-267.

Langley, R., & Levy, R. C. (1977). ere beating: The silent crisis. Toronto: Clarke,
Irwin & Company.

Lloyd, S. (1997). The effects of domestic violence on women's employment. Law
and Policy, 19(2), 139-167.

Lloyd, 8., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence on female
employment. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 370-392.

Lynch, J. W., Kaplan, G. A., & Shema, S. J. (1997). Cumulative impact of

sustained economic hardship on physical, cognitive, psychological, and
social functioning. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(26), 1889-1895.

92

 

Marshall, L. L. (1996). Psychological abuse of women: Six distinct clusters.
Journal of Family Violence, 11(4), 379-409.

Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. San Francisco: Glide Publications.

McCaIlum, D. M., Arnold, S. E., & Bolland, J. M. (2002). Low-income African-
American women talk about stress. Journal of Social Distress and the
Homeless, 11(3), 249-263.

McCauley, J., Kern, D. E., Kolodner, K., Dill, L., Schroeder, A. F., DeChant, H.
K., Ryden, J., Bass, E. B., & Derogatis, L. R. (1995). The ”Battering
Syndrome": Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Domestic Violence
in Primary Care lntemal Medicine Practices. Ann lntem Med, 123(10),
737-746.

McLeod, J. D., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Socioeconomic status differences in
vulnerability to undesirable life events. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 31(2), 162-172.

Melbin, A., Sullivan, C. M., & Cain, D. (2003). Transitional supportive housing for
women with abusive partners: Battered women's perspectives and
recommendations. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 18(4), 445-
460.

Moe, A. M., & Bell, M. P. (2004). Abject Economics: The Effects of Battering and
Violence on Women's Work and Employability. Violence Against Women,
10(1), 29-55.

Murphy, C. M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts
physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57(5), 579-582.

Okun, L. (1986). Woman abuse : facts replacing myths. Albany: State University
of New York Press.

Okun, L. (1988). Termination or resumption of cohabitation in women battering
relationships: A statistical study. In G. T. Hotaling & D. Finkelhor (Eds.),
Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 107-
119). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

O'Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention
in domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 3-23.

Orava, T. A., McLeod, P. J., & Sharpe, D. (1996). Perceptions of control,

depressive symptomatology and self-esteem of women in transition from
abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11(2), 167-186.

93

 

Pagelow, M. D. (1981 ). Woman-battering: victims and their experiences (Vol.
129). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Pahl, J. (1983). The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within
marriage. Sociological Review, 31(2), 237-262.

Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., & Griswold, E. A. (1999). Child support and domestic
violence: The victims speak out. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 427-448.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and control - Tactics of men who batter:
Men 's curriculum for spouse abuse interventions: Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project, Duluth, Minnesota.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter. New
York: Springer Publishing.

Ptacek, J. (1997). The tactics and strategies of men who batter: Testimony from
women seeking restraining orders. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence
Between Intimate Partners: Patterns, Causes, and Effects (pp. 104-123).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ptacek, J. (1998). Why do men batter their wives?, Bergen, Raquel Kennedy
(Ed). (1998). Issues in intimate violence. (pp. 181 195). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rand, M. R. (1997). Violence related injuries treated in hospital emergency
departments: US. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: domestic violence and welfare receipt:
Chicago, IL: Taylor Institute.

Raphael, J., & Tolman, R., M. (1997). Trapped by poverty, trapped by abuse:
new evidence documenting the relationship between domestic violence
and welfare: Chicago, IL: Taylor Institute.

Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001: US. Department
of Justice.

Rhodes, N. R., & McKenzie, E. B. (1998). Why do battered women stay?: Three
decades of research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(4), 391 -406.

Riger, S., Ahrens, C., & Blickenstaff, A. (2001). Measuring interference with
employment and education reported by women with abusive partners:
Preliminary data. In K. D. O'Leary & R. D. Maiuro (Eds), Psychological
Abuse in Violent Domestic Relations. (pp. 119-133). New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Co.

94

 

Riger, S., Ahrens, C., Blickenstaff, A., & Camacho, J. (1999). Obstacles to
employment of women with abusive partners: A summary of select
interview data (A Great Cities Institute Working Paper). Chicago: Great
Cities Institute University of Illinois at Chicago.

Rodenburg, F. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993). The measure of wife abuse: Steps
toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique.
Journal of Family Violence, 8(3), 203-228.

Roy, M. (1982). Four thousand partners in violence: A trend analysis. In M. Roy
(Ed.), The Abusive Partner: An Analysis of Domestic Battering (pp. 17—35).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An
investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571.

Sable, M. R., Libbus, M. K., & Huneke Diane, e. a. (1999). Domestic violence
among AFDC recipients: implications for welfare-to-work programs. Affilia,
14(2), 199-216.

Sackett, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different forms of
psychological abuse on battered women. Violence and Victims, 14(1),
105-1 17.

Schechter, S., & Gary, L. T. (1988). A framework for understanding and
empowering battered women. In M. B. Straus (Ed.), Abuse and
victimization across the life span. (pp. 240-253). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Schecter, S. (1982). Women and male violence : the visions and struggles of the
battered women 's movement. Boston: South End Press.

Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering on the employment
status of women. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 3(2), 55-61.

Shepard, M. F., & Campbell, J. A. (1992). The Abusive Behavior Inventory: A
Measure Of Psychological and Physical Abuse. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7(3), 291-305.

Short, L. M., McMahon, P. M., Davis Chervin, 0., Shelley, G. A., Lezin, N., Sloop,
K. S., & Dawkins, N. (2000). Survivors' identification of protective factors
and early warning signs for intimate partner violence. Violence Against
Women, 6(3), 272-285.

95

 

Snyder, D. K., & Scheer, N. S. (1981 ). Predicting disposition following brief
residence at a shelter for battered women. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 9(5), 559-566.

Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52(2), 501-514.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk
factors and adaptions to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick:
Transaction.

Street, A. E., & Arias, l. (2001). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic stress
disorder in battered women: Examining the roles of shame and guilt.
Violence and Victims, 16(1), 65-78.

Stronks, K., Van de Mheen, H., Van den Bos, J., & Mackenbach, J. P. (1997).
The interrelationship between income, health and employment status.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3), 592-600.

Stronks, K., Van de Mheen, H. D., & Mackenbach, J. P. (1998). A higher
prevalence of health problems in low income groups: does it reflect
relative deprivation? J Epidemiol Community Health, 52(9), 548-557.

Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: Empirical
evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 236-250.

Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1983). The decision to leave an abusive
relationship: Economic dependence and psychological commitment.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(4), 785-793.

Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1984). Factors related to the decision to leave an
abusive relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 837-844.

Sullivan, C., M., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. S. (1991 ). Index of Psychological
Abuse: Development of a measure. Paper presented at the 99th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Sullivan, C. M., Tan, 0., Basta, J., Rumptz, M. H., & Davidson, W. S. (1992). An
advocacy intervention program for women with abusive partners: initial
evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(3), 309-332.

Sutherland, C. A., Bybee, D. I.‘, & Sullivan, C. M. (2002). Beyond bruises and

broken bones: the joint effects of stress and injuries on battered women's
health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(5), 609-636.

96

 

Sutherland, C. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. l. (2001). Effects of intimate
partner violence versus poverty on women's health. Violence Against
Women, 7(10), 1122-1143.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (4th edition).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate
partner violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women
Survey. Washington, DC: US. National Institute of Justice.

Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological
maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3),
1 59-1 77.

Tolman, R. M. (1992). Psychological abuse of women. In R. T. Ammerrnan & M.
Hersen (Eds), Assessment of family violence: A clinical and legal
sourcebook. (pp. 291-310). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the lives Of women
receiving welfare: mental health, substance dependence, and economic
well-being. Violence Against Women, 7(2), 141 -1 58.

Vitanza, S., Vogel, L. C. M., & Marshall, L. L. (1995). Distress and symptoms of
posttraumatic stress disorder in abused women. Violence and Victims,
10(1), 23-34.

VonDeLinde, K. (2002). How are domestic violence programs meeting the
economic needs of battered women in Iowa? An assessment and
recommendations: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Walker, L. E. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row.

Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer.

Yllo, K. (1984). The status of women, marital equality, and violence against
wives: a contextual analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 5(3), 307-320.

97

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIjjIII[Iljjljlljjjlll