Understand a synthesis matrix

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517706761

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2020, Vol. 35(15-16) 3011 –3033

© The Author(s) 2017 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0886260517706761

journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Article

Developing and Validating the Scale of Economic Self-Efficacy

Gretchen L. Hoge, PhD, MSW,1 Amanda M. Stylianou, PhD, LCSW,2 Andrea Hetling, PhD,1 and Judy L. Postmus, PhD, ACSW1

Abstract Experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and financial hardship are often intertwined. The dynamics of an abusive relationship may include economic abuse tactics that compromise a survivor’s ability to work, pursue education, have access to financial resources, and establish financial skills, knowledge, and security. An increasingly common goal among programs serving IPV survivors is increasing financial empowerment through financial literacy. However, providing financial education alone may not be enough to improve financial behaviors. Psychological factors also play a role when individuals make financial choices. Economic self-efficacy focuses on the individual’s perceived ability to perform economic or financial tasks, and may be considered a primary influence on one’s ability to improve financial decisions and behaviors. The current study tests the reliability and validity of a Scale of Economic Self-Efficacy with a sample of female survivors of IPV. This study uses a calibration and validation analysis model including full and split- sample exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, assesses for internal consistency, and examines correlation coefficients between economic self- efficacy, economic self-sufficiency, financial strain, and difficulty living with income. Findings indicate that the 10-item, unidimensional Scale of Economic

1Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA 2Safe Horizon, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author: Gretchen L. Hoge, Center on Violence Against Women & Children, School of Social Work, Rutgers University, 390 George St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. Email: [email protected]

706761 JIVXXX10.1177/0886260517706761Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceHoge et al. research-article2017

3012 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

Self-Efficacy demonstrates strong reliability and validity among this sample of IPV survivors. An ability to understand economic self-efficacy could facilitate individualized service approaches and allow practitioners to better support IPV survivors on their journey toward financial empowerment. Given the increase in programs focused on assets, financial empowerment, and economic well-being, the Scale of Economic Self-Efficacy has potential as a very timely and relevant tool in the design, implementation, and evaluation of such programs, and specifically for programs created for IPV survivors.

Keywords economic self-efficacy, financial knowledge, intimate partner violence, domestic violence, women, personal finance, financial management

Introduction

Experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and financial hardship are often intertwined. The dynamics of an abusive relationship may include economic abuse tactics that compromise a survivor’s ability to work, pursue education, have access to financial resources, and establish financial skills, knowledge, and security (Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008). Thus, an increas- ingly common goal among programs serving IPV survivors is increasing financial empowerment through financial literacy.

Financial educators and behavioral economists have recognized the role psychological factors play when individuals make financial choices (The Social Research Centre, 2011) and, hence, have deduced that providing financial education alone may not be enough to improve financial behaviors (Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002; Rothwell, Khan, & Cherney, 2015; Schuchardt et al., 2009; Sherraden, 2013; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Zweig, 2007). Self-efficacy, an individual’s confidence in her or his perceived ability to perform a specific task or behavior, is also needed to change one’s behav- ior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Researchers have found that higher levels of economic self-efficacy (ESE), or the perceived ability to perform economic or financial tasks, have translated into positive financial behavior (Danes, Huddleston-Casas, & Boyce, 1999; Vitt et al., 2000). An understanding of an individual’s sense of ESE can aid educators in strengthening approaches to building financial empowerment.

Although a validated and widely used scale is available to measure gen- eral self-efficacy, there is no comprehensive measure of ESE that has been tested in the field of IPV. Hence, the aim of this research was to test the reli- ability and validity of the Scale of Economic Self-Efficacy, a measure that

Hoge et al. 3013

focuses on perceived confidence in one’s ability to complete specific finan- cial tasks, among a sample of female IPV survivors.

Background

IPV, Economic Self-Efficacy, and Financial Empowerment

An estimated two million women per year are victims of IPV in the United States (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). IPV includes threatened, attempted, or completed physical, psychological, sexual, and economic abusive tactics used by the perpetrator to gain power and control over the survivor. In situa- tions where economic abuse is present, perpetrators use tactics to control a survivor’s access to financial resources, to prevent her from improving her financial situation, and to exploit her financial resources (Adams et al., 2008; Postmus, Plummer, & Stylianou, 2016; Sanders, 2015). Survivors report that financial dependency on an abusive partner is a primary reason they stay in or return to abusive relationships (Anderson & Saunders, 2003; Barnett, 2000; Kim & Gray, 2008).

While IPV occurs among all socioeconomic backgrounds, low-income women are more often subject to abuse than middle or upper-income women (Meier, 1997; Tolman & Raphael, 2000). According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 9.7% of women with annual household incomes less than US$25,000 had experienced IPV in the past 12 months compared with 2.8% of women in the highest income category of US$75,000 or more (Breiding, Chen, & Black, 2014). Although women are more likely than men to be victims of IPV, they are also more likely than men to live longer, have shorter work tenures, and to earn less money putting women at higher risk than men for having financial difficulties (Weir & Willis, 2000). In addition, while research documents low levels of financial literacy across the gender divide, financial illiteracy is more prevalent among women than men (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2008).

When applying the concept of ESE and self-efficacy judgments (Bandura, 1977) in the context of IPV, and in particular with low-income women expe- riencing IPV, a survivor’s determination of her capacity to manage financial resources is based on various experiences. This will be affected by whether she has had previous experience in managing household finances or whether she has observed successful financial management by others. Her feelings will also be influenced by whether she has received encouragement from significant others to manage the household’s finances, as well as her somatic experiences while engaging in financial behaviors. It is also important to con- sider how these experiences may vary in different cultural contexts, where

3014 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

cultural norms or language proficiency may influence a survivor’s involve- ment in financial management.

In an economically abusive relationship, a survivor’s perception of her ESE may be limited in a number of ways in relation to the influences described above. For example, a survivor is often restricted from accessing financial resources (Brewster, 2003; VonDeLinde, 2002; Wettersten et al., 2004), which limits her experience in performing financial behaviors. The perpetra- tor may also manage finances without input or agreement from the survivor (Anderson et al., 2003; Brewster, 2003), which limits her vicarious experi- ence of financial management behaviors. In addition, the perpetrator may utilize psychological abuse tactics to verbally undermine the survivor’s con- fidence in managing household finances. Finally, a survivor’s somatic expe- riences, including anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress symptoms, may create a negative emotional response to financial discussions or behaviors.

Advocates in the IPV field might increase a survivor’s ESE by providing financial knowledge and experiences in which the survivor can practice engaging in and observing financial behaviors in a supportive environment (Christy-McMullin, 2003; Correia, 2000; Sanders & Schnabel, 2006). In doing so, advocates can support survivors in learning financial management skills to empower survivors and increase survivors’ sense of confidence about their ability to manage their own finances (Sanders, 2007). A compre- hensive measure of ESE would serve IPV advocates and others to identify survivors who need support specifically in the area of improving financial knowledge and behavior to move toward financial independence.

Measuring Economic Self-Efficacy

According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy, or an individual’s perceived ability to complete a task, is the prime factor for influ- encing behavior. Self-efficacy has a powerful impact on behavior because self-efficacy is a strong conviction of competence based on the individual’s evaluation of various sources of information about her abilities (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy literature focuses on two types of self-efficacy: global and task specific. Global self-efficacy is conceptualized as a general sense of self-efficacy that refers to a broad and stable sense of personal competence to deal effectively with a variety of situations (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). In contrast, task specific self-efficacy focuses on a specific behavior and the individual’s sense of competency in carrying out that specific behavior. Bandura (1997) advocates for a behavior-specific approach to the study of self-efficacy, arguing that a measure of general self-efficacy is inadequate for

Hoge et al. 3015

tapping an individual’s efficacy in managing tasks associated with a specific behavior. Therefore, to understand an individual’s perceived competence in managing her financial resources and addressing financial challenges, a mea- sure of ESE must focus specifically on tasks related to financial management behaviors.

Studies on financial literacy and empowerment programs have utilized a number of measures of ESE. These have included combinations of various scales with limited questions (Dietz, Carrozza, & Ritchey, 2003; Dulebohn & Murray, 2007), indexes comprised of limited questions related to financial confidence (Loke, Choi, & Libby, 2015), as well as a single scale including questions related to both general and ESE (Lown, 2011). There have been few studies published specifically on the measurement of ESE. The first study that aimed to create a measure of ESE (Lown, 2011) created and vali- dated a measure of Financial Self-Efficacy (FSE) to help educators and coun- selors better understand, guide, and motivate their students and clients. The developed instrument was based on the 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES: Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The GSES was modified by incorpo- rating specific references to financial management in six out of the original 10 statements. The scale was then validated among employees of a large state university as part of a larger study on financial planning. Among this sample, the principal components factor analysis resulted in two distinct factors. The first factor consisted of the six FSE items while the second factor consisted of the four general self-efficacy items. The final scale included the six items from the FSE subscale (e.g. progress toward my financial goals, stick to spending plan, lack confidence in managing finances), and demonstrated strong internal reliability in the study. However, the four items from the GSES that were not modified to include financial specific behavior language were dropped from the scale. This separation of FSE items from general self- efficacy items supported Bandura’s (1997) argument that general self-effi- cacy items do not measure the same construct as behavior-specific items. However, it was undetermined as to whether those four items would have remained in the scale if they had also been modified to target specific finan- cial tasks.

The second study (Weaver, Sanders, Campbell, & Schnabel, 2009) created and validated the Domestic Violence–Financial Issues Scale (DV-FI). The DV-FI is an assessment of the financial issues facing female survivors of IPV. The DV-FI includes a subscale measuring ESE with items related to confi- dence in achieving financial goals (e.g., I am confident I can meet my goals for becoming financially secure, I am confident I can meet my goals for elim- inating credit card debt). Although this scale provides important information on assessing a survivor’s confidence with specific financial domains, such as

3016 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

managing credit and obtaining employment and educational opportunities, it is not a comprehensive measure of ESE. Indeed, in one study with IPV survi- vors from lower socioeconomic status, this subscale poorly captured ESE since survivors reported being “confident in eliminating credit card debt” as they did not have credit cards to incur any debt (Postmus & Plummer, 2010). A comprehensive measure of ESE must be specific enough that it can accu- rately measure the survivor’s confidence in engaging in financial behaviors, but cannot be so specific that the behaviors are not applicable to all IPV sur- vivors. For example, not all survivors are focused on gaining employment or educational opportunities. Similarly, questions cannot be too general that par- ticipants are answering items based on general notions of self-efficacy rather than ESE.

A third study developed and validated a measure of FSE for the purposes of examining gender-related attitudes toward financial management among female entrepreneurs (Amatucci & Crawley, 2011). The authors built their FSE construct by combining items capturing “managing money” in anentre- preneurial self-efficacy scale (Wilson, Kickul & Marlino, 2007) and “imple- menting financial” items from another entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale (McGee, Peterson, Mueller & Sequeira, 2009) (i.e., How would you rate your skills in financial management? How confident do you feel about your skills in financial management? How confident do you feel about your abilities to undertake the successful financial management of your company?) The use of this measure of ESE is limited in scope due to issues of both specificity and generalization in item construction. The third item limits the use of this measure to business owners, while the first and second items are broad in nature and may be interpreted differently by different respondents. In addi- tion, the first item measures perceived skills, whereas the second and third items measure perceived confidence. Furthermore, the sample that was used in creating this measure was comprised of female business owners who were primarily aged above 40 years and mostly had a college degree, with about one-third holding a graduate degree. This is a demographic that may enjoy a more stable financial reality than those starting out financially, or those who experience extreme financial challenges. As such, this measure of ESE does not prove generalizable for broader samples.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a fully modified version of the GSES (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) with a sample of female survivors of IPV. The research questions for this study included the following:

Research Question 1: What are the psychometric properties of the Scale of ESE among a culturally diverse group of female survivors of IPV?

Hoge et al. 3017

Research Question 2: How strongly does the Scale of ESE correlate with other financial measures including economic self-sufficiency, financial strain, and difficulty with income?

Method

This current study is part of a larger study that included longitudinal, random- ized control methods to evaluate the impact of the “Moving Ahead Through Financial Management” economic empowerment program designed for sur- vivors of IPV. The Allstate Foundation in partnership with the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) created the curriculum to help survivors identify the signs of economic abuse and its impact in their lives, to increase their financial knowledge and ability to manage their finances, and to aid them in securing the confidence necessary to rebuild their financial foundation (www.clicktoempower.org).

This larger study recruited 457 participants from 14 agencies serving sur- vivors of IPV in seven states across the Northwest, Midwest, and Texas regions of the United States and the territory of Puerto Rico. The agencies were located in urban and suburban locations of varied socioeconomic levels, and served both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking survivors. Staff advertised the study within their agencies and conducted initial eligibility screenings of potential participants prior to scheduling their first interview. A participant needed to be a woman who (a) had experienced some form of IPV in the 12 months leading up to the screening, (b) was 18 years of age or older at the time of the screening, (c) had not attended a financial literacy class in the 2 years prior to the screening, (d) was committed to attend the curriculum group if randomly selected to participate, and (e) was committed to partici- pate in study interviews whether or not they were randomly selected to par- ticipate in the curriculum group. Women who met the eligibility criteria and expressed interest to the advocate in participating in the study completed a contact sheet that requested personal information, including safe phone num- bers and email addresses they identified as safe. Once completed, the contact sheets were collected by the advocates in each domestic violence agency and sent to the research team. One of the research team members then contacted the women to set up the face-to-face interview dates.

Each member of the research team had experience working with IPV survi- vors and was trained on the research protocol. Precautions were taken to ensure that both phone and in-person contact with survivors was conducted in a safe and sensitive manner. The initial pretest interview was conducted in person at the agency from which the participant was recruited, and lasted approximately 1 hr. The survey instrument covered a wide range of measures related to economic

3018 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

and emotional well-being, as well as demographic variables of interest. The sur- vey was read aloud by the researcher and then participant answers were entered directly into an online version of the survey through SNAP©, a web-based sur- vey tool. Paper and pencil surveys were used in situations where Internet access was unavailable, and data were then entered into the web-based format immedi- ately following survey administration. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to all interaction with study participants, and all participants com- pleted the informed consent process prior to participation. Participants received a US$20 VISA gift card for their participation in the pretest survey.

Analytic Sample

This current study uses data from the pretest (Time 1) interviews with the full sample of 457 survivors of IPV. Data from the pretest were selected for this analysis, as this study focuses solely on scale creation and does not examine the impact of the financial empowerment intervention. Little’s Missing Completely at Random (Little, 1988) was run to assess for missing data for each individual item in the Scale of ESE. This test indicated that missing data on these items was missing completely at random, χ2(72) = 74.965, p > .1. Listwise deletion was thus used to remove any case with missing data on items in this scale, resulting in an analytic sample of 447 participants, out of the original 457 sample members.

Table 1 demonstrates the percentages, means and standard deviations of the demographic variables for the total analytic sample of 447, as well as for the randomly split sample halves used in analysis. For the overall sample, mean age was 36 years (SD = 9.14). The sample consisted primarily of women of color with 54.3% of the sample identifying as Latina/Hispanic; 20.2% as Black or African American, non-Hispanic women; 17.5% as White, non-Hispanic women; and 8.0% as “Other.” Approximately half (51.7%) of the respondents were born in the United States. Almost half (48.1%) reported an annual income under US$10,000. Just over 45% of the participants were employed either part or full-time. Just over 20% of the respondents reported currently being involved in an abusive relationship. About 81% of the women reported being financially responsible for children under the age of 18 years. No statistically significant differences were found between the randomly split sample halves on any of these demographic variables.

Measures

The survey instrument was comprised of several validated or revised scales. The survey was available in both English and Spanish. A member of the

Hoge et al. 3019

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Total and Randomly Split Analytic Sample.

Variable

% or M (SD)

Total Analytic Sample (n = 447)

Calibration Sample (n = 230)

Validation Sample (n = 217)

Age, M (SD) 36.3 (9.14) 36.7 (9.29) 35.9 (8.98) Time obtaining services Less than 3 months 48.0 46.6 49.5 3 months-6 months 34.7 36.4 32.9 More than 6 months 17.3 17.0 17.6 Services received (%) Emergency/short-term

housing 14.1 14.3 13.8

Individual counseling 59.1 59.6 58.5 Legal advocacy 28.9 26.5 31.3 Support groups 58.8 55.7 62.2 Services for children 32.0 30.4 33.6 Advocacy/case-

management 26.6 28.7 24.4

Marital status Married/civil union 17.9 19.2 16.6 Separated/divorced 45.3 43.6 47.0 Single 35.9 35.4 36.4 Currently in abusive

relationship 20.1 22.8 17.2

Race/ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 17.5 19.7 15.2 Black or African

American, non-Hispanic 20.2 19.7 20.7

Latina or Hispanic 54.3 52.4 56.2 Other 8.0 8.2 7.9 Born in the United States 51.7 51.8 51.6 Employed (full- or part-

time) 45.1 41.1 49.6

Financially responsible for children

80.7 77.3 84.3

Has health insurance 55.3 55.9 54.6 Receiving social services 71.4 68.7 74.2 Annual income less than

US$10,000 48.1 45.8 50.5

3020 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

research team who was a native Spanish-speaker with English fluency trans- lated the survey from English to Spanish. Various members of the research team who were native English speakers with Spanish fluency then reviewed the Spanish survey for accuracy. Any discrepancies or clarifications in trans- lation were discussed between these members of the research team and a final Spanish version was decided upon for use with Spanish-speaking partici- pants. For this article, the Scale of ESE, the Scale of Economic Self- Sufficiency, the Financial Strain Survey, and an item measuring difficulty living on annual income were examined.

Economic self-efficacy. Based on Bandura’s (1997) recommendation of utiliz- ing task specific measures of self-efficacy, all 10 items of the GSES (Schwar- zer & Jerusalem, 1995) were modified to focus specifically on financial behaviors. Each item was altered to include economic language. For exam- ple, the first item of the GSES states, “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.” The item was rephrased to measure ESE by changing the item to state, “I can always manage to solve difficult financial problems if I try hard enough.” Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strong agree) on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The authors aimed to revise the GSES to design a comprehensive measure of ESE that would be specific enough to accurately measure a survivor’s confidence in engaging in financial behaviors, but not so specific that the financial behav- iors would not be applicable to all IPV survivors.

The GSES (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) has shown to be a reliable and valid scale when measuring self-efficacy and has been used with many differ- ent sample groups such as teachers and college students (Brafford & Beck, 1991; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). It has also been used in different languages including German, Spanish, and Chinese (Schwarzer, Basler, Kwiatek, Schroder, & Zhang, 2008). Among this sample, the scale demonstrated ade- quate internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. Table 2 provides means and standard deviations for individual items and the overall scale for the analytic sample.

Economic self-sufficiency. Economic self-sufficiency (Gowdy & Pearlmutter, 1993) was included to measure respondents’ ability to accomplish specific financial tasks in the past month. Participants rated the frequency with which they had accomplished these tasks over the past month by using a 5-point scale with answers ranging from 1 (no, not at all) to 5 (yes, all of the time). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was run with this sample and the num- ber of items was reduced from 15 to 14, including three subscales: Ability to Manage Daily/Immediate Financial Needs (seven questions, α = .80), Ability

Hoge et al. 3021

to Have Discretionary Funds (three questions, α = .74), and Ability to Main- tain Independent Living (four questions, α = .64). This revised scale was renamed Scale of Economic Self-Sufficiency-14 (SESS-14) (Hetling, Hoge & Postmus, 2016).

Financial strain. The Financial Strain Survey (Aldana & Liljenquist, 1998; Hetling, Stylianou & Postmus, 2015) is an18-item scale that measures five areas of financial strain including Poor Financial Education (three items), Poor Relationships (four items), Physical Symptoms (four items), Poor Credit Card Use (three items), and Unable to Meet Financial Obligations (four items). Participants were asked to indicate how often the items applied to them over the past 12 months. Participants indicated such frequency using a 5-point scale with answers ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Items 1, 2, 3, and 15 were recoded as they were negatively worded items. In this sample

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Scale of Economic Self-Efficacy Items (N = 447).

Item M (SD)

I can solve most financial problems if I invest the necessary effort.

3.67 (.90)

I can always manage to solve difficult financial problems if I try hard enough.

3.51 (1.1)

If I am in financial trouble, I can usually think of something to do.

3.50 (.94)

If I have a financial problem, I can find ways to get what I need.

3.43 (1.05)

When I am confronted with a financial problem, I can usually find several solutions.

3.19 (1.01)

No matter what financial problem comes my way, I’m usually able to handle it.

3.17 (.99)

Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen financial situations.

3.15 (1.07)

I can remain calm when facing financial difficulties because I can rely on my financial abilities.

2.91 (1.08)

I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected financial events.

2.83 (1.05)

It is easy for me to stick to and accomplish my financial goals.

2.77 (1.07)

Note. Scale of 1-5: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, or 5 = strongly agree. Participants were asked, “Please choose the answer that best represents your experience in the last month.”

3022 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

of female survivors of IPV, the overall scale (Financial Strain, α = .84) and most subscales demonstrated high internal reliability (Poor Financial Educa- tion, α = .81, Poor Relationships, α = .80, Physical Symptoms, α = .87, Poor Credit Card Use, α = .54, and Unable to Meet Financial Obligations, α = .82).

Difficulty living on income. To measure the participant’s perceived difficulty living on annual household income, participants were asked, “Over the past 12 months, how difficult was it for you to live on your annual household income?” Response options ranged from 1 (not at all difficult) to 5 (extremely difficult).

Data Analysis

A four-part process was used to explore and confirm the factor structure of the Scale of ESE among survivors of IPV and to test the reliability and con- current validity of the scale.

First, EFA, using Principal Axis Factoring extraction and Direct Oblimin rotation, was used to examine the factor structure of the Scale of ESE for the total analytic sample of 447 participants using SPSS 21.0 data analysis pack- age. Oblique rotation was utilized based on the assumption that the factors would be highly correlated (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).

Second, the overall sample was randomly split for the purposes of further validation of the factor structure of the Scale of ESE. This random split resulted in a subsample of 230 participants used for the purposes of calibration of the factor structure through repeat EFA, and a subsample of 217 participants used for factor structure validation through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Similar to the EFA run on the total analytic sample, Principal Axis Factoring extraction and Direct Oblimin rotation were used to examine the factor struc- ture of the ESE scale with the calibration sample. CFA was then run on the vali- dation subsample using structural equation modeling in AMOS Graphics.

Third, the internal consistency of the ESE scale was examined. This was assessed by examining the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall scale among the total analytic sample (n = 447).

Fourth, concurrent validity was tested for the total analytic sample through correlation analyses between the Scale of ESE, the SESS-14, the Financial Strain Survey, and the item measuring participants’ difficulty with income. These scales and items were chosen based on their conceptual similarity with the Scale of ESE. The correlation between the Scale of ESE and the SESS-14 was hypothesized to be positive, whereas negative correlations were the expected result among the Scale of ESE and the Financial Strain Survey and the item measuring participants’ difficulty with income.

Hoge et al. 3023

Results

Phase 1: EFA With the Overall Sample

The EFA resulted in a one-factor solution, utilizing all of the original 10 items, Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) = .906; χ2(45) = 859.940, p < .001, which accounted for 49.12% of the total variance. The oblique rotated factor matrix indicated that all items loaded moderate to high, ranging from .577 to .747. Table 3 presents the factor matrix loadings of the items.

Table 3. Factor Matrix Factor Loadings.

Item

Factor Loading

Total Sample (n = 447)

Calibration Subsample (n = 230)

1. I can always manage to solve difficult financial problems if I try hard enough.

.602 .583

2. If I have a financial problem, I can find ways to get what I need.

.577 .590

3. It is easy for me to stick to and accomplish my financial goals.

.591 .584

4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected financial events.

.708 .722

5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen financial situations.

.711 .709

6. I can solve most financial problems if I invest the necessary effort.

.628 .620

7. I can remain calm when facing financial difficulties because I can rely on my financial abilities.

.671 .630

8. When I am confronted with a financial problem, I can usually find several solutions.

.705 .694

9. If I am in financial trouble, I can usually think of something to do.

.639 .626

10. No matter what financial problem comes my way, I’m usually able to handle it.

.747 .708

% of total variance explained 49.12 47.79

3024 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

Phase 2: EFA and CFA With Randomly Split Sample

Calibration: EFA. The EFA of the calibration subsample (n = 230) resulted in a one factor solution in the split-sample calibration analysis, including all of the original 10 items, KMO = .904, χ2(45) = 1778.95, p < .001. This factor structure accounted for 47.79% of the total variance. The oblique rotated fac- tor matrix for this analysis indicated that all items loaded moderate to high, with factor loadings ranging from .583 to .722, similar to the result of the analysis run on the total analytic sample. The factor matrix loadings of indi- vidual items from this analysis are also presented in Table 3.

Validation: CFA. A CFA was run to further validate the factor structure of the Scale of ESE using the validation subsample (n = 217). The unidimensional, 10-item factor structure accepted in the process of calibration through EFA was tested. The initial model showed a modestly good fit to the data, χ2 = 125.203, comparative fit index (CFI) = .902, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .899, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .109, Tucker– Lewis index (TLI) = .874. However, upon review of modification indices, it was found that error terms for Items 1 and 2, Items 4 and 5, and Items 8 and 9 were correlated. It was determined that these error correlations also had substantive validity. As such, post hoc analysis was run to determine whether a model including these error term correlations would result in a statistically significant improvement in model fit. Since these models were nested, Δχ2 was evaluated to determine whether the modified model was a statistically significantly different from the initial model. As Table 4 shows, the one-fac- tor model including modifications based on post hoc analysis provides a sta- tistically significantly improved fit to the data (χ2 = 74.775, CFI = .954, GFI = .938, RMSEA = .079, TLI = .935, Δχ2(3) = 50.428, p < .001).

Phase 3: Reliability

The internal consistency of the Scale of ESE among this sample was assessed by examining the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The overall Scale of ESE demonstrated a good level of internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s reli- ability coefficient of .88.

Phase 4: Concurrent Validity

Correlations were used to examine the concurrent validity of the Scale of ESE. Table 5 depicts the correlations among the Scale of ESE, the overall scale and three subscales of the SESS-14, the overall scale and five subscales of the Financial Strain Survey, and the item measuring perceived difficulty living on

Hoge et al. 3025

annual income. The Scale of ESE was negatively correlated with the overall Financial Strain Survey and all five of its subscales (Financial Strain, r = −.500, p < .01; Physical Subscale, r = −.370, p < .01; Poor Education Subscale, r = −.376, p < .01; Poor Relationships Subscale, r = −.255, p < .01; Poor Credit Card Use Subscale, r = −.114, p < .05; and Unable to Meet Obligations Subscale, r = −.401, p < .01). The Scale of ESE was also negatively correlated with the diffi- culty with income item (r = −.285, p < .01). The Scale of ESE was positively correlated with the overall SESS-14 scale and all three of its subscales (SESS-14 scale, r = .497, p < .01; Ability to Manage Immediate Financial Needs Subscale, r = .553, p < .01; Ability to Have Discretionary Funds Subscale, r = .392, p < .01; Ability to Maintain Independent Living, r = .224, p < .01).

Discussion

This study indicates that the Scale of ESE is an appropriate tool for under- standing and measuring ESE among IPV survivors. Examination of the Scale of ESE using the full sample EFA, as well as through EFA calibration and

Table 4. Overall Fit Statistics for Economic Self-Efficacy Confirmatory Factor Analyses (N = 217).

Measures of Fit

Models

One-Factor Modified One-Factor

ESE ESE

Discrepancy χ2 125.203 74.775 df 35 32 p value .000 .000 Discrepancy / df 3.577 2.337 GFI .899 .938 AGFI .842 .894 TLI .874 .935 CFI .902 .954 RMSEA (CI) .109 [.089, .130] .079 [.056, .102] ECVI (CI) .765 [.624, .941] .559 [.460, .694] BIC 167.349 198.512 AIC model 165.203 120.775 AIC saturated 110.000 110.000

Note. ESE = Economic Self-Efficacy Scale; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; ECVI = expected cross- validation index; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; AIC = Akaike information criterion.

3026

T a b

le 5

. C

o rr

el at

io ns

B et

w ee

n Ec

o no

m ic

S el

f- Ef

fic ac

y, E

co no

m ic

S el

f- Su

ffi ci

en cy

, F in

an ci

al S

tr ai

n, a

nd D

iff ic

ul ty

W it h

In co

m e.

Ec o no

m ic

Se

lf- Ef

fic ac

y Ec

o no

m ic

S el

f- Su

ffi ci

en cy

ES S

Su bs

ca le

1 ES

S Su

bs ca

le 2

ES S

Su bs

ca le

3 Fi

na nc

ia l

St ra

in FS

Su

bs ca

le 1

FS

Su bs

ca le

2 FS

Su

bs ca

le 3

FS

Su bs

ca le

4 FS

Su

bs ca

le 5

Ec o no

m ic

S el

f- Ef

fic ac

y 1

Ec

o no

m ic

S el

f- Su

ffi ci

en cy

( ES

S) .4

97 **

1

ES S

Su bs

ca le

1 —

Im m

ed ia

te F

in an

ci al

N

ee ds

.5 53

** .9

09 **

1

ES S

Su bs

ca le

2 —

D is

cr et

io na

ry F

un ds

.3 92

** .7

33 **

.5 89

** 1

ES

S Su

bs ca

le 3

— In

de pe

nd en

t Li

vi ng

.2 24

** .7

74 **

.4 95

** .4

21 **

1

Fi na

nc ia

l S tr

ai n

(F S)

− .5

00 **

− .4

10 **

− .4

82 **

− .2

61 **

− .1

77 **

1

FS S

ub sc

al e

1— Ed

uc at

io n

− .3

76 **

− .3

60 **

− .3

46 **

− .2

68 **

− .2

54 **

.4 35

** 1

FS

S ub

sc al

e 2—

R el

at io

ns hi

ps −

.2 55

** −

.1 39

** −

.2 27

** −

.0 35

.0 09

.6 93

** .0

62 1

FS

S ub

sc al

e 3—

Ph ys

ic al

− .3

70 **

− .2

76 **

− .3

12 **

− .1

97 **

− .1

19 *

.8 05

** .1

66 **

.4 33

** 1

FS

S ub

sc al

e 4—

C re

di t

C ar

d U

se −

.1 14

* .0

84 .0

19 .0

93 *

.1 32

** .3

30 **

− .0

57 .1

73 **

.2 16

** 1

FS

S ub

sc al

e 5—

M ee

ti ng

O bl

ig at

io ns

− .4

01 **

− .4

69 **

− .5

24 **

− .3

17 **

− .2

37 **

.7 45

** .2

14 **

.3 26

** .3

10 **

.1 31

** 1

D iff

ic ul

ty w

it h

in co

m e

− .2

85 **

− .3

12 **

− .3

13 **

− .2

70 **

− .1

72 **

.4 41

** .1

53 **

.2 23

** .3

74 **

.0 96

* .4

49 **

*p <

.0 1.

* *p

< .0

01 .

Hoge et al. 3027

CFA validation using randomly split samples produced the same 10-item uni- dimensional scale, indicating strong validity with this sample of IPV survi- vors. Examination of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency indicated strong reliability of this scale. Correlation of the overall ESE scale with other relevant economic concepts also produced results indicating a strong level of concurrent validity for this scale. In examining correlations of conceptually related concepts, results show that ESE is correlated with other key financial variables that may be indicators of one’s ability to move for- ward financially.

Our results are tempered by study limitations related to external validity. First, sampling procedures limit the generalizability of the findings to all IPV survivors. Study participants were currently receiving services from a domes- tic violence agency and self-selected to participate in the research project. These characteristics indicate an ability to seek out resources that may differ from survivors who are not connected to services or from survivors who chose not to participate in the study. Volunteering to participate in the study may also signal that study participants may have a stronger interest in improv- ing financial behaviors in comparison to survivors who were not interested in the study.

Second, descriptive statistics of the sample illustrated that the sample was primarily low-income women of color. Over half the women in the sample (54.3%) identified as Latina or Hispanic, and over 20.2% identified as Black or African American. In addition, close to half of the participants were for- eign-born (48.3%). On one hand, this suggests that the concepts being stud- ied may have cultural relevance for diverse groups. On the other hand, although these demographics are reflective of domestic violence agency cli- ents, further research is needed to test the measure among more diverse sociodemographic samples. Given the number of participants who identified as Latina or foreign-born, level of acculturation or cultural factors such as English language literacy, cultural beliefs and practices regarding gender and finances, or previous access to and use of financial institutions in one’s coun- try of origin could also have had an impact on ESE. However, it should also be taken into consideration that there might be notable differences in these areas among the cultural groups classified as Latina or Hispanic. Furthermore, almost half (48.1%) of study participants reported earning less than US$10,000 annually, and 71.4% reported receiving some form of social ser- vices. Although, this may indicate relevance of these financial concepts for those experiencing financial hardship, it does limit the ability to generalize to varied financial backgrounds. Further research is needed to test the reliability and validity of the Scale of ESE with different ethnic, socioeconomic, and community samples of IPV survivors, as well as with non-IPV samples, and

3028 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

those with greater resources to better understand how the scale functions in diverse populations. Since the current study used data from the pretest period of the longitudinal study, further testing of the scale across later time periods is needed to confirm the reliability and validity of the scale over time.

Conclusion and Use of Scale

Despite study limitations and the need for further research, the strong validity of the Scale of ESE in our study suggests that it should be used in practice set- tings to understand ESE. For practitioners working with IPV survivors, an ability to understand ESE could facilitate more individualized approaches to financial empowerment. This might involve financial counseling or specific activities aimed at increasing confidence in managing finances and other financial tasks. Practitioners might also facilitate discussion of any psycho- logical distress that a survivor may have experienced related to finances that could have affected their confidence in this area. By incorporating an under- standing of ESE along with a measure of financial literacy or knowledge, practitioners and advocates would be in a better position to gauge a survivor’s capacity for financial management and support them on their journey toward financial empowerment. Moreover, given the increase in programs focused on assets, financial empowerment, and financial well-being for other popula- tions, the Scale of ESE has potential as a very timely and relevant tool in the design and implementation of financial literacy programs in general, particu- larly those developed for women.

The study findings also support the use of the Scale of ESE for research and evaluation concerning policy and programming aimed at improving micro-level financial outcomes. Evaluations of new and existing programs could use the Scale of ESE to measure impact. In both the research and policy communities, we see an increased focus on behavioral change and a growing understanding that behavioral change is affected by more than just knowl- edge. Future evaluations need validated measures on individual outcomes beyond the acquisition of new financial knowledge. The Scale of ESE pro- vides a robust measure of one critical aspect of improving financial behav- iors: a task specific measure of self-efficacy. Thus, by including the Scale of ESE in future evaluations and research, we expand our understanding of pro- grams’ ability to instill new knowledge on related topics, as well as increase ESE and potentially change financial behaviors.

Authors’ Note

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily repre- sent the official position or policies of The Allstate Foundation.

Hoge et al. 3029

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of all the survivors, agencies, advocates, and members of the research team who made this study possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by The Allstate Foundation, Economics Against Abuse Program.

References

Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 563-588.

Aldana, S.G., & Liljenquist, W. (1998). Validity and reliability of a financial strain survey. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 9, 11-19.

Amatucci, F. M., & Crawley, D. C. (2011). Financial self-efficacy among women entrepreneurs. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3, 23-37.

Anderson, D., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empiri- cal review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 163-191.

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 impediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 151-155.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive the- ory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Macmillan. Barnett, O. W. (2000). Why battered women do not leave, Part 1: External inhibiting

factors within society. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 343-372. Brafford, L. J., & Beck, K. H. (1991). Development and validation of a condom self-effi-

cacy scale for college students. Journal of American College Health, 39, 219-225. Breiding, M. J., Chen, J., & Black, M. C. (2014). Intimate partner violence in the

United States—2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Brewster, M. P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situ- ations. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 207-217.

Christy-McMullin, K. (2003). Asset-building policies and safety for women: Stretching social work’s conceptual framework. The Social Policy Journal, 2, 19-37.

3030 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

Correia, A. (2000). Strategies to expand battered women’s economic opportunities (Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, Vol. 9, pp. 4-30). Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Danes, S. M., Huddleston-Casas, C., & Boyce, L. (1999). Financial planning cur- riculum for teens: Impact evaluation. Financial Counseling and Planning, 10, 25-37.

Dietz, B.E., Carrozza, M.A., & Ritchey, P.N. (2003). Does financial self-efficacy explain gender differences in retirement saving strategies? Journal of Women & Aging, 15, 83-96.

Dulebohn, J. H., & Murray, B. (2007). Retirement savings behavior of higher educa- tion employees. Research in Higher Education, 48, 545-582.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gowdy, E. A., & Pearlmutter, S. (1993). Economic self-sufficiency: It’s not just money. Affilia, 8, 368-387.

Hetling, A., Hoge, G.L., & Postmus, J.L. (2016). What is economic self-sufficiency? Validating a measurement scale for policy, practice, and research. Journal of Poverty, 20, 214-235.

Hetling, A., Stylianou, A.M., & Postmus, J.L. (2015). Measuring financial strain in the lives of survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1046-1064.

Kim, J., & Gray, K. A. (2008). Leave or stay? Battered women’s decision after inti- mate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1465-1482.

Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.

Loke, V., Choi, L., & Libby, M. (2015). Increasing youth financial capability: An evaluation of the MyPath Savings Initiative. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 49, 97-126.

Lown, J.M. (2011). Development and validation of a financial self-efficacy scale. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 22, 54-63.

Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2008). Planning and financial literacy: How do women fare? The American Economic Review, 98(2), 413-417.

McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L., & Sequeira, J.M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33, 965-988.

Meier, J. (1997). Domestic violence, character, and social change in the welfare reform debate. Law & Policy, 19, 205-263.

Postmus, J. L., & Plummer, S. B. (2010). Validating the Allstate Foundation’s national model on helping survivors of violence achieve economic self-sufficiency: Final

Hoge et al. 3031

Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. School of Social Work, Center on Violence Against Women & Children.

Postmus, J. L., Plummer, S. B., & Stylianou, A. M. (2016). Measuring economic abuse in the lives of survivors: Revising the Scale of Economic Abuse. Violence Against Women, 22, 692-703.

Rothwell, D. W., Khan, M. N., & Cherney, K. (2015). The mediating role of financial self-efficacy in the financial capability of low-income families. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2646966

Sanders, C. K. (2007). Domestic violence, economic abuse, and implications of a program for building economic resources for low-income women. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University.

Sanders, C. K. (2015). Economic abuse in the lives of women abused by an intimate partner: A qualitative study. Violence Against Women, 21, 3-29.

Sanders, C. K., & Schnabel, M. (2006). Organizing for economic empowerment of battered women: Women’s savings accounts. Journal of Community Practice, 14, 47-68.

Schuchardt, J., Hanna, S. D., Hira, T. K., Lyons, A. C., Palmer, L., & Xiao, J. J. (2009). Financial literacy and financial research priorities. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 20, 84-95.

Schwarzer, R., Basler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schroder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (2008). The assessment of optimistic self beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Applied Psychology, 46, 69-88.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER- NELSON.

Sherraden, M. (2013). Building blocks of financial capability. In J. Birkenmaier & M. Sherraden (Eds.), Financial education and capability: Research, education, policy, and practice (pp. 3-43). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

The Social Research Centre. (2011). Adult financial literacy in Australia, December 2011: Full report of the results from the ANZ 2011 Survey. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of intimate partner violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Tolman, R.M., & Raphael, J. (2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 655-682.

Vitt, L. A., Anderson, C., Kent, J., Lyter, D. M., Siegenthaler, J. K., & Ward, J. (2000). Personal finance and the rush to competence: Financial literacy educa- tion in the U.S. Middleburg, VA: Institute for Socio-Financial Studies.

3032 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(15-16)

VonDeLinde, K. M. C. (2002). How are domestic violence programs meeting the eco- nomic needs of battered women in Iowa? An assessment and recommendations (Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence Publication No. 16). Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Weaver, T. L., Sanders, C. K., Campbell, C. L., & Schnabel, M. (2009). Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the Domestic Violence—Related Financial Issues Scale (DV-FI). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 569-585.

Weir, D. R., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Prospects for widow poverty. In O. Mitchell, P. B. Hammond, & A. Rappaport (Eds.), Forecasting retirement needs and retirement wealth (pp. 208-234). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wettersten, K. B., Rudolph, S. E., Faul, K., Gallagher, K., Trangsrud, H. B., Adams, K., . . .Terrance, C. (2004). Freedom through self-sufficiency: A qualitative examination of the impact of domestic violence on the working lives of women in shelter. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 447-462.

Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship educa- tion. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31, 387-406.

Worthington, R.L., & Whittaker, T.A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838.

Zweig, J. (2007). Your money and your brain: How the new science of neuroeconom- ics can help make you rich. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.

Author Biographies

Gretchen L. Hoge, PhD, MSW, is a research consultant for the Center on Violence Against Women and Children in the School of Social Work at Rutgers University. Her research focuses on the experiences of survivors of intimate partner violence across cultures and in the context of immigration. Her recent focus has been on immi- grant survivors’ experiences in pursuing economic self-sufficiency after leaving an abusive relationship.

Amanda M. Stylianou, PhD, LCSW, focuses her career on improving services at the intersection of trauma, health, and poverty. In her role as senior director of Research and Program Development at Safe Horizon, the nation’s leading victim services agency, she works with her team to ensure the organization is providing the most effective and efficient services to clients throughout the New York City. Her current research focuses on understanding the needs of victims/survivors of domes- tic violence and human trafficking and on understanding and evaluating practices in the field.

Andrea Hetling (PhD, University of Maryland, College Park) is an associate profes- sor and chancellor scholar at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. Her research focuses on the implementation and effi- cacy of U.S. social policies that target disadvantaged or marginalized groups. Her projects focus on families and women living in poverty and on survivors of intimate

Hoge et al. 3033

partner violence. She is a Research Academy member of the National Association of Welfare and Research Statistics and a Research Affiliate of the National Poverty Center.

Judy L. Postmus is an associate professor at the School of Social Work, Rutgers University. Her research is on physical, sexual, and economic victimization experi- ences of women with her most recent attention given to understanding how an eco- nomic empowerment curriculum improves fiscal and mental health functioning of battered women. She is also the director of the Center on Violence Against Women & Children. She has given many local, national, and international presentations on the impact of policies and interventions on survivors of violence. Her work is strongly influenced from her 20 years as a practitioner and administrator.