Exploring Resilience Portfolios for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence During the COVID Pandemic, United States, 2022 (ICPSR 38654)

Version Date: Oct 12, 2023 View help for published

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Laura Johnson, Temple University

Series:

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38654.v1

Version V1

Slide tabs to view more

Women's Resilience and Financial Wellbeing During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The purpose of this study was to better understand the protective factors most critical to resilience and financial wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for women in the United States experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). The specific aims of this study were to: (1) Develop a conceptual model for economic resilience based on the Resilience Portfolio Model developed by Grych et al.; and (2) examine which economic resilience protective factors were most associated with IPV survivor health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. The project used a web survey design with quantitative data collected from 576 survivors through Qualtrics Panel Service in July 2022.

Johnson, Laura. Exploring Resilience Portfolios for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence During the COVID Pandemic, United States, 2022. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-10-12. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38654.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2016-MU-CX-K011)

None

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

2022-07-20 -- 2022-07-28
2022-07-20 -- 2022-07-28
  1. This project was conducted in collaboration with the Rutgers Violence Against Women Research Consortium (VAWRC). For more information on the Consortium project, please visit the VAWRC website.
Hide

The purpose of the research was to increase understanding of strengths, assets, and resources that promote resilience and financial wellbeing among women.

The research team used a cross-sectional design with non-probability sampling. Participants were recruited to complete an online survey via Qualtrics Research Panel Services and received compensation via email following survey completion.

Only individuals who identified as women were eligible to participate in the study. Participants with a survey completion rate of 75% or higher were kept in the dataset. A total of 545 participants had a 100% survey completion rate. The final sample size was 576.

Cross-sectional

Woman-identifying individuals in the United States experiencing intimate partner violence.

Individual

Demographic variables include age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual orientation, employment status, education level, and annual household income. Participants were also screened for occurrences of intimate partner violence or abuse in the past year before determining eligibility. Participants answered items centered on the following themes:

  • Coping with financial stress
  • Financial future orientation
  • Social support
  • Financial support seeking
  • Social capital
  • Financial, social, and emotional impact of COVID-19
  • Physical and mental health
  • Financial self-sufficiency and self-efficacy
  • Degree of financial hardship
  • Financial knowledge
  • Financial childhood socialization
  • Indicators of economic abuse and immigration abuse

Please refer to the Scales field for a full list of validated scales used in this study.

Not available.

A number of Likert scales were used as part of this study. The majority of scales were previously validated, although some were adapted for the purpose of this research.

  • IPV screening questions: Eight (8) items were used to screen survivors for intimate partner violence. Of these, five (5) items came from E-HITS (Chan et al., 2010), one (1) stalking item was added from the National Violence Against Women Survey, and two (2) items were added from the Scale of Economic Abuse-2 (Adams et al., 2020). Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently).
  • Coping: A total of 13 items from the Coping Scale (Hamby et al., 2013) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (not true about me) to 4 (mostly true about me).
  • Future orientation: Five (5) items from the Future Orientation Scale (Hamby et al., 2018) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (not true about me) to 4 (mostly true about me).
  • Social support received: Five (5) items from the Social Support Received Scale (Hamby et al., 2018) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (not true about me) to 4 (mostly true about me).
  • Social support seeking: Six (6) items from the Social Support Seeking Scale (Hamby et al., 2018) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (not true about me) to 4 (mostly true about me).
  • Social capital: Five (5) items on social capital from the Fragile Families Survey (Reichman et al., 2001) were used. Response options were 0 (no) or 1 (yes).
  • Depression and anxiety: Four (4) items from the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (Lowe et al., 2010) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (nearly every day).
  • PTSD: Five (5) items from the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (Prins et al., 2016) were used. Response options were 0 (no) or 1 (yes).
  • Economic self-sufficiency: Eight (8) items from the Scale of Economic Self-Sufficiency (Postmus et al., 2020) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time).
  • Material hardship: A total of 12 items from the Fragile Families Survey (Reichman et al., 2001) were used. Response options ranged from 0 (no) to 1 (yes).
  • Economic self-efficacy: Ten (10) items from the Scale of Economic Self-Efficacy (Hoge et al., 2020) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
  • Financial knowledge: A total of 15 items from the Financial Knowledge Scale (Postmus et al., 2013) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
  • Financial strain: Eight (8) items from the Financial Strain Survey (Postmus et al., 2020) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
  • Childhood financial socialization: Four (4) items on childhood financial socialization (Ammerman and Stueve, 2019) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (quite often).
  • Intimate partner violence: A total of 22 items from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2016) were used to measure IPV experiences. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (quite often).
  • Economic abuse: A total of 14 items from the Scale of Economic Abuse-2 (Adams et al., 2019) were used. Response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (quite often).

Hide

2023-10-12

2023-10-12 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Hide

Not applicable.

Hide

Notes

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.