Development and initial validation of the Clinician Attitude Toward Violence Affecting Women With Disabilities (CAVAWD) Scale: An exploratory study.

Abstract

Background: The study aim was to develop and psychometrically assess an instrument to measure clinician attitude and competence in understanding violence affecting women with disabilities. Method: Data were collected from 419 clinicians with a master’s degree or higher. Once collected, data was split randomly into two equal groups. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the first half of the data (n = 209) and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the second half of the data (n = 210) to establish construct validity. The draft instrument thus generated was designated as the Clinician Attitude Toward Violence Affecting Women With Disabilities (CAVAWD) Scale, which includes 4 factors (perception of problem, training competency, screening and reporting competency, and policy awareness). These four factors loaded on 40 items, with an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.898 and McDonald’s omega of 0.903, explaining 58.7% of the total variance. Results: Initial psychometric assessment of CAVAWD showed good reliability and consistent construct validity through 4 moderate to highly loaded factors that are interpretable and parsimonious. Conclusion: Further testing is needed; however, at present, the CAVAWD may be potentially useful to evaluate and measure counselor attitude, competency, and understanding of violence affecting women with disabilities.

Intersection of discriminations: Experiences of women with disabilities with advanced degrees in professional sector in the United States.

“…Many become disabled due to chronic illnesses that predominantly affect women (multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, myalgic encephalomyelitis, breast, and cervical cancers), from complicated pregnancies, and from gendered interpersonal violence. Traditional research about WWDs draw from medical journals and fail to highlight their experiences corresponding to race, gender, experiences of violence (Chowdhury, 2020) and other discrimination (Nosek et al, 2001). Apart from the different odds of acquiring disabilities, when compared with men with disabilities and women without disabilities, huge inequalities in economic outcomes are observed among WWDs, who have been silently fighting this “double discrimination” for decades (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Mwachofi, 2009; Shaw et al, 2012; Sprong et al, 2017).…”