Suppr超能文献

与工作相关的虐待:一项重复研究、新条目及持续存在的问题。

Work-related abuse: a replication, new items, and persistent questions.

作者信息

Brush Lisa D

机构信息

Department of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.

出版信息

Violence Vict. 2002 Dec;17(6):743-57. doi: 10.1891/vivi.17.6.743.33720.

Abstract

This study compared independently developed tools to measure work-related control, abuse, and sabotage. Interviewers administered the Work/School Abuse Scale (W/SAS; Riger, Ahrens, & Blickenstaff, 2000) to 40 welfare recipients, and a Work-Related Control, Abuse, and Sabotage Checklist (WORCASC) to a total of 162 welfare recipients, including the same 40 who answered the W/SAS. I report and compare results on W/SAS and WORCASC with 40 non-sheltered (i.e., not residing in a shelter) respondents and discuss instrument strengths and weaknesses. Measurement analyses provided preliminary empirical answers to questions about the relationship between battering and work. Findings confirmed the reliability of the two instruments, the extent to which they measure something distinct from physical abuse, and their association with relevant outcomes such as being written up, reprimanded, or losing pay at work. Measurement questions are salient in the context of debates over welfare reforms and efforts to reconcile the ways researchers, advocates, service providers, and policy makers understand and address the costs of taking a beating.

摘要

本研究对独立开发的用于衡量工作相关控制、虐待和破坏行为的工具进行了比较。访谈者对40名福利领取者施测了工作/学校虐待量表(W/SAS;里格、阿伦斯和布利肯斯塔夫,2000年),并对总共162名福利领取者施测了工作相关控制、虐待和破坏行为清单(WORCASC),其中包括回答了W/SAS的相同40人。我报告并比较了W/SAS和WORCASC在40名非受庇护者(即不住在庇护所)受访者中的结果,并讨论了这些工具的优缺点。测量分析为关于殴打与工作之间关系的问题提供了初步的实证答案。研究结果证实了这两种工具的可靠性、它们在多大程度上测量了与身体虐待不同的内容,以及它们与诸如被书面警告、斥责或工作中扣薪等相关结果的关联。在关于福利改革的辩论以及协调研究人员、倡导者、服务提供者和政策制定者理解和应对遭受殴打的代价的方式的努力背景下,测量问题很突出。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验