The Reliability and Factor Structure of the Index of Spouse Abuse With African-American Women

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris W. Campbell ◽  
Jacquelyn Campbell ◽  
Christine King ◽  
Barbara Parker ◽  
Josephine Ryan

This study investigated the reliability and validity of the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA) when used with a sample of 504 African-American women. The initial factor validity analysis for the ISA (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) resulted in two subscales: a physical abuse scale (ISA-P) and a nonphysical abuse scale (ISA-NP). Factor analysis with this sample of African-American women revealed three factors instead of two. Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability were over .90 for the original ISA subscales and with the African-American sample. The discussion compares and contrasts the factor structure observed with the sample of African-American women with the factor structure reported in the original validation studies. The study demonstrates the need to critically evaluate the extent to which instruments developed to measure spouse or partner abuse are valid and reliable when used with diverse groups that may not have been represented in the samples used for initial instrument development and validation work.

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 457-481
Author(s):  
Natalie N. Watson-Singleton ◽  
Devon LoParo ◽  
Yara Mekawi ◽  
Joya N. Hampton-Anderson ◽  
Nadine J. Kaslow

The Africultural Coping Systems Inventory (ACSI) assesses African Americans’ culturally relevant stress coping strategies. Although its factor structure, reliability, and validity of the scores have been examined across ethnic groups of African descent, psychometric properties have not been investigated in an African American clinical sample. Thus, it is unclear if the ACSI is useful for research with African Americans with distress. To assess the ACSI’s psychometrics, we used data from 193 low-income African American women who in the past year encountered interpersonal trauma and attempted suicide. We tested four models: one-factor, four-factor, four-factor hierarchical, and bifactor. None of the models were optimal, suggesting possible revisions to ACSI items. Yet the bifactor model provided a better fit than other models with items loading onto a general factor and onto specific factors. Internal consistency of the scores was above the recommended criterion (i.e., .70), and the ACSI general factor was related to depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation (but not alcohol abuse), providing some support for its concurrent validity. Future directions, limitations, and clinical-counseling implications are discussed.


2007 ◽  
Vol 150 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla D. Williams ◽  
Teletia R. Taylor ◽  
Kepher Makambi ◽  
Jules Harrell ◽  
Julie R. Palmer ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 979-988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen D. Samuel-Hodge ◽  
Robert F. DeVellis ◽  
Alice Ammerman ◽  
Thomas C. Keyserling ◽  
Tom A. Elasy

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 641-657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Cook ◽  
Lori Conrad ◽  
Marnette Bender ◽  
Nadine J. Kaslow

This study investigated the internal validity of the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA) (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) in a sample of 583 African American women who sought health care at a tertiary care hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Three models were tested with confirmatory factor techniques: (a) Hudson and McIntosh’s original Index of Spouse Abuse two factor model; (b) Campbell, Campbell, Parker, and Ryan’s three factor model (Campbell, Campbell, King, Parker, & Ryan, 1994); and (c) an alternative model of physical and nonphysical abuse. This alternative model is based in part on Tolman’s conceptualization of psychological abuse as a construct comprised of two related but distinct factors: controlling and emotionally abusive behaviors (Tolman, 1999). Results show that the alternative model fits the data better than the first two models. Findings support the continued use of the ISA, but with proposed modifications.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie K. Nugent ◽  
Dean Lauterbach ◽  
Lauren B. McSweeney ◽  
John Porcerelli

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document