Dimensionality of Subscales for General Support,Informational Support,and Physical Support in the Bosch Support Measure for Survivors of Domestic Abuse
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2007
Dimensionality of Subscales for General Support,Informational Support,and Physical Support in the Bosch Support Measure for Survivors of Domestic Abuse
Items from the General Support, Informational Support, and Physical Support subscales of the Bosch Support Measure were developed and administered in a small survey of 56 formerly abused rural women in midwestern USA. Maximum likelihood factor analyses were performed on the total of 16 items. A five-factor solution appeared to produce the best results, but only three of the associated subscales yielded Cronbach alphas greater than .70. Limitations of the study are discussed along with implications for professionals working with abused rural women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoschK.SchummW. (2004) Accessibility to resources: helping rural women in abusive partner relationships become free from abuse. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 30, 357–370.
2.
CronbachL. J.Jr. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
3.
DarlingD. (1998) Revised and expanded USDA rural-urban continuum codes for Kansas counties. K-Statc Research and Extension Community Economic Development, C. D. Study Report No. 162.
4.
DavisK.TaylorB.FurnissD. (2001) Narrative accounts of tracking the rural domestic violence survivors' journey: a feminist approach. Health Care for Women International, 22, 333–347.
5.
EllisonC.AndersonK. (2001) Religious involvement and domestic violence among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 269–286.
6.
FabricarL. R.WegenerD. F.MacCallumR. C.StraiianE. J. (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
7.
FeindlerE. L.RathusJ. H.SilverL. B. (2003) Assessment of family violence: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
GarimellaR.PlichtaS.HousemanC.GarzonL. (2000) Physicians' beliefs about victims of spouse abuse and about the physician role. Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 9, 405–411.
9.
GoodkindJ. R.GillumT. L.BybeeD. F.SullivanC. M. (2003) The impact of family and friends' reactions on the well-being of women with abusive partners. Violence Against Women, 9, 3, 347–373.
10.
LaaksoJ.DrevdahlD. (2006) Women, abuse, and the welfare bureaucracy. Affilia, 21, 84–96.
11.
LanceC. E.ButtsM. M.MichelsF. C. (2006) The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: what did they really say?Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202–220.
12.
LandauS.EverittB. S. (2004) A handbook of statistical analyses using SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
13.
LautenschlagerG. J. (1989) A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte-Carlo analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate behavioral Research, 24, 365–395.
14.
FevendoskyA.Graham-BermannS. (2001) Parenting in battered women: the effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 171–192.
15.
FutenbacherM.CohenA.MitzelJ. (2003) Do we really help? Perspectives of abused women. Public Health Nursing, 20, 56–64.
16.
MooreK. A.Bronte-TinkewJ.JekielekS.GusmanF.RyanS.ReddZ.CarranoI.MatthewsG. (2007) Developing measures of healthy marriages and relationships. In HofferthS. L.CasperL. M. (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 101–121.
17.
NorusisM. J. (2004) SPSS 13.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
NorusisM. J. (2006) SPSS 14.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978) Psychometric theory. (2nd cd.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
PeckoverS. (2003) ‘I could have done with a little more help’: an analysis of women's help-seeking from health visitors in the context of domestic violence. Health and Social Care in the Community, 11, 275–282.
21.
SchummW. R.HemesatiiK. K. (1999) Measurement in family studies. In SussmanM. B.SteinmetzS. K.PetersonG. W. (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family. (2nd ed.) New York: Plenum. Pp. 291–305.
22.
SpanierG. B. (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and other dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
23.
SullivanC. (1999) Sullivan Social Support Measure adapted from BogatG. A.ChinR.SabbathW.SchwartzC. (1983) The Adult's Social Support Questionnaire (Technical Report 2). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univer.
24.
SullivanC.BybeeD. (1999) Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 43–53.
25.
SullivanG.TanG.BastaJ.RumptzM.DaviidsonW. (1992) An advocacy intervention program for women with abusive partners: initial evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 309–332.
26.
WaldropA.ResickP. (2004) Coping among adult female victims of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 291–302.
27.
ZellerR. A.CarminesE. G. (1980) Measurement in the social sciences: the link between theory and data. London: Cambridge Univer. Press.
