Broke, Hungry, and Behind: Psychometric Validation of a Three-Factor Scale of Financial Hardship in Social Work Field Education

Background and Purpose: Social work students often face significant financial hardship during field education, including unpaid internships, low post-graduation wages, and high levels of student debt. These challenges are now intensified by proposed legislation that would restrict funding for academic programs labeled “low value” based on graduates’ debt-to-earnings ratios within just a few years of graduation. Such measures risk the devaluation or elimination of public interest degrees like social work, which are historically rooted in racialized, gendered, and classed care labor. Thus, it is imperative to capture and quantify financial hardship experienced during degree-required field placements. The purpose of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of a novel multidimensional scale measuring field placement-related financial hardship in social work education.

Methods: This secondary data analysis utilized open-access data from a national cross-sectional survey of social work students conducted in 2023. The primary study used non-probability sampling methods to recruit BSW and MSW students who were actively enrolled in or had recently completed a field practicum. This study analyzed a 14-item dichotomous checklist adapted from surveys on textbook cost burden and broader financial hardship among social work students.

A polychoric exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal factor extraction and varimax rotation was conducted on the full sample (N = 445). Items with loadings ≥ .35 were retained if they contributed meaningfully to interpretable constructs. Sampling adequacy was confirmed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a random cross-validation split from the original sample (N = 222) was conducted to evaluate model fit, standardized factor loadings, and construct validity.

Results: The EFA model yielded a two-factor, seven-item structure with acceptable sampling adequacy (KMO = .64). Factor 1, coded as Material Hardship (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.65), included the following items: not purchasing required textbooks (loading = .76), skipping meals (.71), delaying necessary health or mental health treatment (.71), and getting a lower grade in a course (.56). Factor 2, coded as Academic Disruption (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.57), comprised: delaying graduation (.80), dropping out for a semester or more (.77), and withdrawing from a course (.71).

A confirmatory factor analysis conducted on the holdout sample demonstrated inadequate model fit, χ²(13) = 17.01, p = .199. These findings offer initial evidence of construct validity but highlight the need for further refinement and validation of the measure.

Conclusion and Implications: This study provides initial validation of a two-factor scale capturing how financial hardship manifests in social work students’ lives, materially and academically, during field education. As debates intensify over which degree programs are deserving of public investment under emerging debt-to-earnings frameworks, this tool offers a timely mechanism for assessing student burden. With further testing and adaptation, the scale may inform policy reforms addressing social work student well-being, the public health crisis that is the national shortage of professionally trained social workers in the workforce, and the future and sustainability of the social work profession.