Psychometric Properties of the Scale of Economic Abuse-12 in a Non-Service Seeking Sample

Background:  Economic abuse (EA) includes tactics used by abusive partners to undermine the self-sufficiency and economic self-efficacy of survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). Identified impacts include economic instability, material hardship, and increased economic dependence on abusive partners. However, measures of EA have not been tested in non-IPV-service seeking samples.  The current study assessed the psychometric properties of the Scale of Economic Abuse-12 (SEA) in a non-service seeking sample of adult females living the in the community, and evaluates candidate items for a shortened measure for use in general population research.

Method: A quantitative web-based survey was administered to a simple random sample of female community college students from four campuses of a Midwestern community college system (n=435).   The survey included the SEA, which has demonstrated reliability and validity in service seeking samples, with subscales assessing economic control, work sabotage, and economic exploitation.  IPV was measured using the Revised Abusive Behavior Inventory, which includes physical, emotional, and sexual abuse experienced in the last 12 months (1=never to 5=very often).  Economic hardship was measured using the Economic Hardship Index, a checklist of 13 types of material hardship experienced in the past year. Monthly individual income was based on the participants monthly individual income from all sources. Analyses included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and examination of coefficient alpha and correlations with theoretically linked constructs. 

Findings: Within the current sample, the alpha of the overall SEA was .86 and subscale alphas were .81 for ‘economic control,' .68 for ‘work sabotage,' and .68 for ‘economic exploitation,' suggesting issues with reliability for the second two subscales in this population. CFA indicated a poor fit for the three-factor model of the SEA-12 in a general population sample X² (40) =260.43, p<.001, CFI=.85, RMSEA=.11 (90% CI=.10,.13). The results of EFA found a single factor model (the Scale of Economic Abuse-Short, or SEAS).  It retained five items, most from the economic control subscale of the SEA-12. The SEAS had a reliability coefficient of .84 indicating good internal consistency. We examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the SEAS by analyzing the correlations between the SEAS and the ABI total scale and its subscales as well as the EHI and total monthly income.  The SEAS was positively correlated with the ABI-R total scale (r=.60, p<.001), ABI-R Physical IPV subscale (r=.40, p<.001), ABI-R psychological subscale (r=.62, p<.001), ABI-R sexual abuse subscale (r=.44, p<.001), and EHI (r=.24, p=.001).

Conclusion and Implications: The SEAS appears to provide a brief, reliable, and valid tool for measuring experiences of EA in the general population. These findings also demonstrate that women are experiencing EA outside of IPV service seeking populations and that tactics of economic control seem to be central to EA in the general population. Those working in financial empowerment should assess for EA and provide tools to support survivors.  Future work should validate the SEAS in other populations and further investigate EA to inform practice.