Validation of the Scale of Economic Abuse-2 in a Sample of Caregivers in Home Visitation Programs

Background and Purpose: Caregivers enrolled in home visitation (HV) programs experience high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV). Economic abuse (EA) is an understudied form of IPV, especially with HV populations. EA has negative impacts on survivors’ economic wellbeing (e.g., increased risks of debt and material hardship), mental health, and quality of life. Forms of EA continue to be developed conceptually and in terms of practice implciations.The Scale of Economic Abuse – Revised (SEA2; Adams et al., 2020) captures experiences of EA, including through sub-scales of economic restriction and economic exploitation. This measure has yet to be tested with caregivers enrolled in HV programs to see if it appropriately captures their experiences of dynamics of EA. Therefore, this study aimed to: estimate the prevalence of economic abuse among caregivers in HV programs (RQ1); assess the factor structure of the SEA2 in this sample (RQ2); test the validity and reliability of the SEA2 (RQ3); assess links between the SEA2 and relevant outcomes (RQ4).

Methods: A sample of 203 racially diverse caregivers receiving HV services across Illinois completed an online survey, after being recruited through their HV program. The survey included the SEA2 and measures of IPV, mental health, material hardship, and social support, among other topics, and was available in English, Spanish, and Arabic. Survey items included caregiver and household demographics (race, age, education, employment, relationship status, income), and economic and relational indicators, such as material dependence on a partner, outstanding debts, credit issues, and suicidiality. We used descriptive analysis (RQ1); exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for RQ2; correlations, Chronbach’s alpha, and CFA to assess validity and reliability in RQ3; and a modified Poisson analysis to test links between EA and key economic and relational indicators for RQ4.

Results: Nearly half (47%) of caregivers who had been in a relationship in the past year reported experiencing any EA. The EFA showed three factors, and the 3-factor CFA solution was well fit to these data. Only one of the original SEA2 subscales, economic restriction, was replicated. The items on the original economic exploitation subscale split into economic exploitation and economic burden – a new domain of EA in this population. The full scale and three subscales showed adequate validity and reliability, along with associations with economic and relational outcomes.

Conclusion and Implications: The SEA2 is valid and reliable for use with caregivers enrolled in HV programs. Screening for EA as part of IPV screening practices with caregivers is critical, as is identifying community partnerships to address economic and relational impacts of EA. Our study also identified a distinct, novel form of EA for caregivers enrolled in HV programs: economic burden. We present a working defintiion of economic burden as a form of EA for caregivers with young children and identify future social work research directions for this specific form of abuse. It is critical for practices, policies, and research related to the Grand Challenge to Stop Family Violence to incorporate and further develop EA-related work.