Domestic Violence Coping Self-Efficacy Measure (DV-CSE)

Abstract

The Domestic Violence Coping Self-Efficacy Measure (DV-CSE) is a psychometrically validated, domain-specific self-report instrument developed to quantify an individual’s perceived capability to adaptively manage the multifaceted psychological, interpersonal, and instrumental demands encountered in the aftermath of intimate partner violence (IPV). Rooted in Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and expanded through trauma adaptation models, the scale addresses the unique cognitive appraisals of survivors navigating acute post-assault crises and long-term recovery. The DV-CSE comprises 30 items evaluated on a 101-point probability scale ranging from 0 (“Not Capable”) to 100 (“Totally Capable”), conforming to standard psychometric recommendations for self-efficacy measurement. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate that the DV-CSE exhibits exceptional internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha typically exceeding α = .95) and strong structural validity. Factor analytic investigations reveal robust underlying dimensions capturing emotional regulation, post-traumatic distress management, instrumental survival demands, interpersonal boundary renegotiation, and self-worth restoration. Construct validity is supported through substantial negative correlations with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology, generalized anxiety, depressive affect, and perceived helplessness, as well as significant positive associations with global self-esteem, active problem-focused coping, and social support mobilization. As an assessment instrument, the DV-CSE serves critical functions in clinical psychology, crisis shelter triage, longitudinal trauma recovery tracking, and empirical investigations into the mechanisms of resilience among domestic abuse survivors.

Keywords

Domestic Violence Coping Self-Efficacy Measure, DV-CSE, Intimate Partner Violence, Coping Self-Efficacy, Trauma Adaptation, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Cognitive Theory, Psychometrics, Factor Structure, Resilience Assessment, Trauma Recovery.

Authors

The DV-CSE was developed and validated by a team of clinical and trauma psychologists specializing in the cognitive appraisal mechanisms governing recovery from severe life crises:

• Charles C. Benight, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Executive Director of the Lyda Hill Institute for Human Resilience at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS). Dr. Benight is an internationally recognized authority on trauma coping self-efficacy and the primary investigator behind domain-specific self-efficacy measurement across natural disasters, physical injury, combat exposure, and interpersonal violence.
• Ann S. Harding-Taylor, Ph.D. — Clinical and research psychologist previously affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, whose clinical scholarship focused on intimate partner trauma, battered women’s coping strategies, and crisis interventions.
• Amanda M. Midboe, Ph.D. — Research Health Science Specialist affiliated with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University School of Medicine, specializing in health services research, psychological trauma, and implementation science.
• Robert L. Durham, Ph.D. — Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, specializing in quantitative methodology, psychometric modeling, experimental design, and multivariate statistical analyses.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Domestic Violence Coping Self-Efficacy Measure (DV-CSE) is to systematically evaluate an individual’s subjective confidence in their ability to execute the complex tasks necessary for emotional survival, environmental stabilization, and psychosocial adjustment following domestic assault. Intimate partner violence constitutes a profound disruption to an individual’s perceived agency, safety, and personal integrity. Survivors are simultaneously confronted with overwhelming internal demands (e.g., hyperarousal, grief, shame, intrusive flashbacks, despair) and urgent external stressors (e.g., securing emergency shelter, navigating legal systems, sustaining employment, managing child custody, and protecting physical safety). Traditional trauma scales primarily document symptom presence or severity; however, the DV-CSE explicitly captures the cognitive appraisal mechanism that governs how an individual approaches these demands.

From an applied clinical perspective, the DV-CSE serves multiple distinct functions:

• Intake Assessment and Triage in Crisis Settings: The measure allows crisis shelter clinicians, trauma advocates, and hospital social workers to rapidly pinpoint specific areas of perceived vulnerability. Identifying low coping confidence in instrumental tasks (e.g., housing, medical care) versus emotional regulation (e.g., intrusive memories, feelings of craziness) allows for targeted, individualized stabilization plans.
• Treatment Planning and Cognitive-Behavioral Targeting: In psychotherapy (e.g., Cognitive Processing Therapy, Prolonged Exposure, or trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy), the DV-CSE provides baseline metrics for cognitive appraisals regarding recovery. Therapists can design targeted mastery experiences, behavioral experiments, and cognitive restructuring protocols around the specific domains where a survivor assesses their capability as deficient.
• Outcome Monitoring and Longitudinal Tracking: Because self-efficacy is a dynamic, modifiable cognitive appraisal rather than an immutable personality trait, the DV-CSE is particularly sensitive to therapeutic change over time. Tracking fluctuations in DV-CSE total and subscale scores across the course of treatment offers quantifiable evidence of psychological empowerment and symptom remediation.
• Empirical Research on Trauma Resilience: In empirical traumatology, the DV-CSE provides researchers with a theoretically rigorous, validated operationalization of trauma coping self-efficacy (CSE). It facilitates mediational modeling, examining how self-efficacy appraisals buffer against the onset or chronicity of complex trauma manifestations, substance abuse, and depression.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the DV-CSE is Trauma Coping Self-Efficacy (CSE) within the specific operational context of intimate partner violence and domestic assault. Rooted in Bandura’s cognitive formulation, self-efficacy does not reflect global optimism, generalized self-esteem, or an objective inventory of behavioral skills; rather, it refers to an individual’s prospective subjective judgment of their capability to mobilize the cognitive, emotional, motivational, and behavioral resources required to meet situational demands.

In the aftermath of interpersonal trauma, survivors experience severe cognitive challenges that undermine their foundational sense of control. The construct of DV-CSE reflects the convergence of five primary functional domains:

1. Emotional Regulation and Affective Stabilization

Interpersonal assault induces extreme affective lability, marked by acute anxiety, profound grief, panic, despair, and intense rage toward the perpetrator. The emotional regulation facet of the DV-CSE reflects the survivor’s belief in their capacity to modulate these debilitating emotional states without experiencing psychological disintegration. For instance, Item 2 (“Managing feelings of grief, loss, and abandonment after the latest attack”) and Item 5 (“Handling feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, since the most recent assault”) appraise the survivor’s perceived capacity to tolerate intense negative affect without succumbing to complete psychological collapse.

2. Post-Traumatic Intrusive Symptom Management

Trauma survivors routinely encounter intrusive memories, physiological hyperarousal, and night terrors. In the DV-CSE, managing post-traumatic stress symptoms involves the survivor’s confidence that they can exert cognitive control over terrifying internal phenomena. Item 6 (“Controlling thoughts that I am going crazy, since my latest assault”) and Item 13 (“Dealing with nightmares/flashbacks concerning the latest assault”) directly capture the survivor’s perceived agency over trauma-induced cognitive and perceptual disruptions.

3. Instrumental and Functional Survival Demands

Unlike many non-interpersonal traumas, domestic violence often forces survivors to completely restructure their physical existence, frequently while fleeing dangerous living situations. This domain evaluates the perceived capability to secure foundational physiological and logistical requirements. Item 3 (“Managing my housing, food, clothes, and medical needs, since the most recent assault”) and Item 17 (“Being able to concentrate and effectively handle my home, job, and parenting responsibilities”) quantify the survivor’s confidence in navigating executive functioning and logistical demands despite the prevailing crisis.

4. Cognitive Appraisals of Self-Worth and De-Stigmatization

Perpetrators of domestic abuse routinely employ systemic psychological degradation, instilling internalized self-blame, shame, and perceived worthlessness. This construct dimension measures the individual’s perceived capacity to counteract negative internal scripts and rebuild personal dignity. Item 14 (“Thinking that I am a competent woman, since the most recent assault”), Item 15 (“Dealing with feelings of shame concerning the abuse”), and Item 25 (“Controlling negative thoughts about myself (for example, ‘I am stupid,’ ‘I am to blame,’ ‘I am a loser,’ ‘I screw-up everything,’ ‘I deserved to be attacked’)”) appraise the survivor’s cognitive resilience against internalized victimization.

5. Relational and Interpersonal Boundary Renegotiation

Domestic assault undermines the survivor’s trust in human connection, rupturing social bonds and creating conflicting attachments to the abuser. This dimension evaluates the confidence to establish psychological closure, navigate persistent interpersonal isolation, and re-establish social safety. Item 10 (“Managing my desire to have closure of my relationship with the abuser”), Item 22 (“Trusting anyone”), and Item 26 (“Coping with loss of the ‘good’ aspects of my relationship with the man who assaulted me”) address the profound psychosocial dilemmas inherent to terminating abusive relational attachments.

Theoretical Framework

The DV-CSE is grounded theoretically in the convergence of two major psychological frameworks: Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Stevan E. Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory.

Social Cognitive Theory and Coping Self-Efficacy

In Albert Bandura’s theoretical architecture (1997), human functioning is governed by reciprocal determinism—the continuous, dynamic interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. At the core of this system lies the self-efficacy mechanism. Self-efficacy beliefs influence whether people think self-enhancingly or self-debilitatingly, how well they motivate themselves, and how they persevere in the face of adversity.

When applied to trauma recovery by Benight and Bandura (2004), Coping Self-Efficacy (CSE) acts as a primary cognitive mediator of psychological adaptation. Trauma fundamentally threatens perceived environmental control. An individual who perceives high coping efficacy will:

• Appraise traumatic demands as manageable challenges rather than catastrophic, insurmountable threats.
• Mobilize proactive, problem-focused coping mechanisms while curtailing maladaptive avoidance or numbing behaviors.
• Attenuate autonomic nervous system hyperarousal through rapid cognitive down-regulation.
• Maintain perseverance in the pursuit of instrumental goals despite administrative, legal, or emotional obstacles.

Conversely, low CSE triggers catastrophic threat appraisals, heightens emotional distress, reinforces learned helplessness, and fosters persistent post-traumatic symptom cascades.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory Integration

The development of the DV-CSE was further informed by Stevan E. Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. COR theory posits that psychological stress occurs when central resources—classified as object resources (housing, money), conditions (safety, stable marriage), personal characteristics (self-esteem, self-efficacy), and energies (time, knowledge)—are threatened with loss, actually lost, or when an individual fails to gain resources following significant investment. Domestic violence constitutes an acute, catastrophic resource depletion. Benight and colleagues conceptualize CSE as a vital meta-resource: high coping self-efficacy acts as an internal cognitive catalytic agent that empowers survivors to conserve existing psychological capital, halt loss spirals, and aggressively acquire novel compensatory resources.

Validity

Psychometric evaluations of the DV-CSE confirm robust structural, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse samples of trauma-exposed women.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation study by Benight, Harding-Taylor, Midboe, and Durham (2004), construct and convergent validity were established through theoretical alignments with validated measures of trauma sequelae. The DV-CSE demonstrated significant, substantial negative correlations with instruments measuring post-traumatic stress symptomatology:

• Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms: DV-CSE scores correlated strongly and inversely with total PTSD symptoms measured by the PTSD Symptom Scale (PSS; r ≈ −.60 to −.67, p < .001). Survivors reporting lower coping confidence exhibited significantly elevated frequencies of re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal symptoms.
• Depressive Affect and Psychological Distress: The scale showed moderate to strong negative correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; r ≈ −.62, p < .001), indicating that lower self-efficacy is closely tied to depressive demoralization and suicidal ideation.
• Generalized Anxiety and Negative Affect: Significant inverse relationships were documented with generalized anxiety measures (r ≈ −.55, p < .001) and negative affectivity.
• Global Self-Esteem and General Self-Efficacy: Convergent validity was further corroborated by robust positive correlations with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r ≈ .58, p < .001) and generalized self-efficacy instruments, supporting the assumption that domain-specific CSE shares variance with broader self-worth constructs while maintaining unique explanatory utility.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by demonstrating that the DV-CSE explains unique, incremental variance in psychological distress over and above generalized optimism, demographic indices, and trauma history metrics. Multiple hierarchical regression analyses revealed that after controlling for assault frequency, time elapsed since the most recent attack, and baseline socioeconomic status, DV-CSE scores accounted for significant additional variance in post-traumatic recovery outcomes, confirming that the scale does not merely measure trauma severity or generalized positive affect.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

Longitudinal studies evaluating trauma adaptation (Benight et al., 2015) confirm the predictive validity of trauma coping self-efficacy scales. Survivors demonstrating elevated baseline DV-CSE scores exhibit significantly accelerated trajectories of symptom reduction over 6- to 12-month follow-up intervals. High DV-CSE scores prospectively predict successful community reintegration, legal disengagement from perpetrators, and reduced likelihood of revictimization.

Reliability

The DV-CSE exhibits exceptional reliability metrics across both research and clinical investigations, reflecting high internal consistency and stability across time.

Internal Consistency

In the original psychometric validation study conducted by Benight et al. (2004), the DV-CSE demonstrated extraordinary internal consistency reliability:

• Full Scale Alpha: Cronbach’s alpha for the 30-item scale reached α = .95, reflecting exceptionally coherent item functioning without excessive redundancy.
• Split-Half Reliability: Guttman split-half coefficients and Spearman-Brown corrected split-half coefficients consistently exceed .93 across independent trauma cohorts.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations across the 30 items ranged predominantly between .48 and .76, confirming that each individual item contributes meaningfully to the overarching latent construct of domestic violence coping self-efficacy.

Test-Retest Stability

Because self-efficacy is an appraisal sensitive to intervening life events and trauma recovery interventions, test-retest coefficients over long intervals naturally reflect therapeutic change. However, across short-term stability intervals (e.g., 2 to 3 weeks) in untreated, stable cohorts, the DV-CSE demonstrates adequate test-retest reliability (r ≈ .78 to .84), establishing that the instrument captures a stable cognitive appraisal disposition rather than momentary affective fluctuations.

Standard Error of Measurement

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the DV-CSE remains low relative to the overall 0–100 metric. This characteristic facilitates precise computation of Reliable Change Indices (RCI) in clinical intervention trials, allowing clinicians to distinguish genuine cognitive empowerment from measurement error.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural architecture of the DV-CSE has been rigorously evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

During the initial development of the instrument by Benight et al. (2004), an EFA utilizing principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was conducted to reflect anticipated correlations between coping domains. Eigenvalue inspection (> 1.0 criterion) and scree plot examination initially identified a strong primary factor accounting for the substantial majority of total variance (> 45%), confirming the presence of an overarching, dominant general factor of Domestic Violence Coping Self-Efficacy. Secondary factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity accounted for additional unique variance, grouping items into distinct functional domains:

• Factor 1: Emotional and Intrusive Stress Management — Encompassing items related to controlling despair, suicidal thoughts, flashbacks, guilt, and fear of being alone (loadings ranging from .55 to .82).
• Factor 2: Instrumental Functioning and Role Maintenance — Capturing perceived capability in securing food, housing, clothing, medical care, and managing occupational/parental responsibilities (loadings ranging from .52 to .78).
• Factor 3: Relational Closure and Interpersonal Boundaries — Involving the renegotiation of trust, handling isolation, and managing attachment closure regarding the perpetrator (loadings ranging from .48 to .73).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across broader trauma populations (e.g., Benight et al., 2015) examined competing structural models. While a single-factor higher-order model fits the data adequately and justifies the calculation of a single total score, multidimensional second-order models demonstrate excellent goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 – .96
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .93 – .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 – .061 (90% Confidence Interval: [.044, .068])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042 – .049

These findings substantiate that although the DV-CSE possesses robust multidimensional facets corresponding to specific coping domains, its high degree of inter-factor correlation strongly justifies utilizing the mean or summed composite score as a parsimonious indicator of global trauma coping self-efficacy.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The DV-CSE is a standardized, self-report psychological instrument specifically calibrated to assess cognitive appraisal within domestic violence survivor populations. Detailed specifications of the instrument include:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report rating scale / psychometric assessment tool.
• Target Population: Adult survivors (predominantly women in empirical validation cohorts) who have experienced physical, psychological, sexual, or emotional intimate partner violence or domestic assault.
• Administration Format: Individual or group setting; administered via paper-and-pencil, computer-based testing platforms, or clinical interview.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
• Total Item Count: 30 items.
• Response Format: A 101-point numeric/visual analogue scale ranging from 0 (“Not Capable”) to 100 (“Totally Capable”). Consistent with Bandura’s methodological guidelines for self-efficacy measurement, respondents write a number between 0 and 100 in the space provided adjacent to each item to indicate their personal certainty of coping capability.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Total Score Calculation: The global DV-CSE score can be computed either as the direct arithmetic sum of all 30 items (yielding an absolute score range from 0 to 3,000) or, more conventionally, as the mean score across all answered items (yielding a standardized score range from 0.00 to 100.00).
  • Directionality: Higher scores reflect greater coping self-efficacy and confidence in managing trauma-related demands. Lower scores reflect severe perceived deficits in coping capability and heightened cognitive vulnerability.
  • Missing Data Threshold: Following standard psychometric practice, if more than 10% of items (i.e., > 3 items) are missing, the composite score should not be computed. When 1 to 3 items are omitted, imputing the mean of the completed items is psychometrically acceptable.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Domestic Violence Coping Self-Efficacy Measure (DV-CSE) was formally published in 2004 by Charles C. Benight, Ann S. Harding-Taylor, Amanda M. Midboe, and Robert L. Durham in the Journal of Traumatic Stress. Later iterations and trauma-specific applications were subsequently compiled in strengths-based clinical assessment handbooks (Simmons & Lehmann, 2013) and extended via the Trauma Coping Self-Efficacy (CSE-T) research framework (Benight et al., 2015).

Licensing and Clinical Usage: The scale is protected under copyright held by the authors and the original publisher (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies / Wiley-Blackwell). However, consistent with academic convention for psychological assessment tools developed under institutional research grants, the DV-CSE is generally accessible free of charge for non-commercial academic, clinical, and scientific research purposes. Clinicians and researchers wishing to use, reproduce, or digitally integrate the DV-CSE in structured interventions or electronic health record (EHR) systems are encouraged to secure formal permission by contacting Dr. Charles C. Benight at the Lyda Hill Institute for Human Resilience (University of Colorado Colorado Springs) or through appropriate permissions clearinghouses (e.g., Copyright Clearance Center).

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), 1129–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008
• Benight, C. C., Harding-Taylor, A. S., Midboe, A. M., & Durham, R. L. (2004). Development and psychometric validation of a domestic violence coping self-efficacy measure (DV-CSE). Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(6), 505–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10960-004-5799-1
• Benight, C. C., Shoji, K., James, L. E., Waldrep, E. E., Delahanty, D. L., & Cieslak, R. (2015). Trauma coping self-efficacy: A context-specific self-efficacy measure for traumatic stress. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(6), 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000045
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (Eds.). (2013). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation. Springer Publishing Company.

Items of the Scale