Domestic Violence Against Women in the Workplace: Difficulties at the Personal and Professional Levels

Abstract

Effect of domestic violence (including employment interference/restraint) on women’s personal and professional difficulties and whether employment interference/restraint is affected by familial and demographic characteristics were examined. Data from 177 workplace-participating women in a higher educational institution was used. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the associations. It was revealed that working women suffered from a wide range of difficulties at the personal and professional levels. However, personal difficulties were more prevalent compared to professional difficulties. Among participants’ familial and demographic characteristics, only “number of children” was significant in predicting exposure to employment interference/restraint. Tactics of employment interference/restraint are characterized by being “controlling” in nature. This characteristic explained women’s reports of violence and complaints from related difficulties. Personal difficulties associated with employment interference/restraint were representative, and similar, to mental health problems. It is recommended that primary prevention interventions are emphasized taking into consideration the role of women, coworkers, as well as employers in terminating this problem.

Keywords

controlling behaviors domestic violence employment interference/restraint behaviors personal difficulties professional difficulties

Introduction

Violence in the workplace has become an important health and labor-related concern. Women are likely to experience violence at work (Al-Modallal et al., 2016). The perpetrator of violence against women in the workplace could be a stranger such as a customer or patient (Al-Omari et al., 2019) or a known person such as the partner (Al-Modallal et al., 2016; Blodgett & Lanigan, 2018). Partner violence has been generally recognized as a domestic issue. Recently, investigators revealed that partner violence has significant impacts on the workplace (Blodgett & Lanigan, 2018; Swanberg et al., 2005, 2007). Partner violence is associated with consequences on women’s employment as it usually interferes with employment (Al-Modallal et al., 2016; Swanberg & Macke, 2006; Swanberg et al., 2007). In other words, violence spills into women’s work and results in a form of victimization that involves control over employment to intimidate her (Wathen et al., 2015). This form of violence includes the assumption that women’s experiences of domestic violence interfere with their attempts of work participation or restrain them from going to work. This form of violence is referred to as “employment interference/restraint” (Riger et al., 2000).

In the current study, we are interested in employment interference/restraint in women that is only related to domestic violence from the partner. We focused on working women (rather than men) for a few reasons. One of these reasons is that women have less power than men and this makes them susceptible to violence (Al-Badayneh, 2012). Second, violence in the workplace impacts women’s professional activity at work and consequently disturbs their work participation and achievement (Al-Modallal et al., 2016). Finally, violence in the workplace reflects women’s experience of violence at home and this adds to the significance of violence in working women’s personal and professional life (Al-Modallal et al., 2016).

Literature Review

Domestic violence is a global concern facing women. In one WHO multi-country study on domestic violence, investigators indicated that the prevalence of physical or sexual partner violence against women in one country reached 71% (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006). Domestic violence includes ramifications affecting the workplace if the victim is an employee. These ramifications are referred to as “employment interference/restraint”. Employment interference/restraint is defined as “the consequences of partner violence influencing the workplace that have major ramifications for the victimized employee and the workplace where the victim employed” (Swanberg et al., 2006, p. 561). Victims of partner violence consider work setting as the place where they could get relief from violence, and perhaps get advice, support, and referral to supportive services (Swanberg & Macke, 2006). This is not the case when the woman is harassed and abused by the partner at work; the place which is known to the partner and mainly not subject to be easily changed. Partners’ knowledge of the workplace would explain the high rates of violence at work. For example, in one study, all working women experienced at least one attempt of violence by the partner (Al-Modallal et al., 2016). Blodgett and associate (2018) provided detailed data about the prevalence, risk factors, and consequences on partner violence in the workplace. The provided summary showed the widespread of the problem of partner violence in the workplace and focused on its importance for victims and employers.

Perpetrators who hassle their female partners at work engage, generally, in a variety of actions that result in employment interference/restraint. These actions fall into three major categories: Sabotage, job-related stalking, and on-the-job harassment (Swanberg et al., 2005). Sabotage includes actions that hinder the woman from going to work such as not providing childcare. Job-related stalking refers to harassing behaviors such as following the woman on her way to work. Finally, on-the-job harassment refers to harassment actions while at work such as showing up at work without a previous notice (Swanberg et al., 2005).

Employment interference/restraint actions have obvious consequences on the employee (person) part and on the job (profession) part (Swanberg et al., 2005). One of the most important consequences at the personal level is victims’ poor health status (Al-Modallal et al., 2008) and complaints of mental health problems such as depressive symptoms and stress (Al-Modallal et al., 2012). Negative consequences of violence at the professional level extend to cause work disruption and job performance-related problems (Blodgett & Lanigan, 2018; Wathen et al., 2015).

Job stability is affected as well by women's experiences of violence. In one study, investigators revealed that employees’ tendency to turnover and their intention to leave the job increased as a result of domestic violence from the partner, specifically emotional aggression (Węziak-Białowolska et al., 2020). Furthermore, Al-Modallal and associates (2016) indicated that women suffering from employment interference/restraint tactics reported as well chances of quitting a job or losing a job.

In Jordan, women started getting involved in the labor force as a result of the radical demographic changes in their status. One of these changes includes women's educational achievements which enabled them to compete with men for job opportunities. Consequences of domestic violence became visible as women started to join the workforce. In one study conducted among Jordanian working women, 43% of the women reported at least one experience of partner violence victimization (Al-Modallal, 2012a). Such experience resulted in significant consequences on women as well as on their job (Al-Modallal et al., 2016).

Studies aiming at investigating consequences of domestic violence on working women’s employment are scant in the Middle Eastern region including Jordan. In addition, little is known about the effect of such employment interference/restraint behaviors on working women’s personal and professional life. This study was conducted to bridge this gap. The objectives of the current study are to (1) identify the distribution of the employment interference/restraint tactics as well as their associated personal and professional difficulties, (2) explore the effect of employment interference/restraint behavior on women’s personal and professional life, and (3) examine whether employment interference/restraint is affected by women’s familial and demographic characteristics. This study is among the first few studies in this theme in Jordanian women. Figure 1 represents the link between the main variables of the study.

Figure 1.

Conceptual link between variables in the study.

Methods

Study Sample

The investigator employed a cross-sectional design for the current study. Women in an educational institution were our sampled population. A convenience sample of married/engaged women working in secretarial and vocational positions in one university in Jordan was our target. Secretarial and vocational positions included women working in clerical and vocational positions such as secretaries, clinical instructors, lab technicians, and computer technicians. Married and engaged women were included because we aimed at assessing employment interference/restraint that is committed against the working woman by the partner (husband or fiancé). Those working in secretarial and vocational positions were included in the current study because the difficulties associated with employment interference can be easily identified when compared to those associated with academic jobs. For example, women in secretarial and vocational positions can be allocated most of the time in their offices (work area), have to use the fingerprint machine upon arrival and leaving work (know about being on duty or not), and are usually available within the area of their work. Such characteristics, we think, made it easy for the participants to provide accurate data because they could judge their performance better compared to those working in academic or administrative positions whose job is assorted with other responsibilities.

There were 370 women working in secretarial and vocational positions in the institution. We targeted 250 women because not all workers were married or engaged. By the time of collecting data, not all women were available in their offices because some of them were in annual or maternal leaves. In addition, some women did not show interest in the study and apologized for not partaking in the study. The total sample size for the current study was 177 women representing participation rate of 71%.

Instruments

Four instruments were used to collect data for this study. These instruments were adapted from previous studies to meet our aim. Below is a brief description of how the study variables were measured using these instruments.

Employment interference/restraint tactics were measured using the 12-item Work/School Abuse Scale (W/SAS: Riger et al., 2000). Each item represents a tactic used by the partner to harass a working woman. These tactics belong to one of the two categories identified by the authors who developed the instrument. These categories are the “interference tactics” and the “restraint tactics”. The interference tactics are those tactics that interfere with a woman’s performance at work such as “coming to work to harass her” and “physically forcing her to leave work”. The restraint tactics on the other hand are those tactics that prevent the woman from working such as “refusing to give her ride to work” and “threatening her to prevent her from going to work” (Riger et al., 2000). Frequency of which each of the tactics occurred was adjusted by the authors to a binary “yes- no” option. The total W/SAS score ranged from 0 to 12.

The W/SAS was developed to be used by women from a different culture. In the meantime, we relied on the following justifications to be used in Jordanian women. The measure was reviewed by a scholar in women’s health who indicated that the items were suitable for working women in Jordan. Further, the W/SAS was used in a previous study in Jordanian nurses and found valid in measuring employment interference/restraint tactics in women (Al-Modallal et al., 2016). Finally, the reported alpha coefficient of the W/SAS in the current study was 0.89.

Difficulties associated with women’s experiences of employment interference/restraint at the personal level were measured using a cluster of cognitive and emotional problems associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The items were derived from (Brush, 2003). Examples of these personal difficulties include intrusive memories, irritability, and difficulty concentrating. Ten items were used as they were suggested in Brush (2003). One item was modified and the other was not used because these two items were not appropriate to women’s culture. These items were related to “drinking” and “getting drunk”. The total score for the items ranged from 0 to 11. Cronbach’s alpha for the 11 PTSD items in our sample was 0.91. This high alpha coefficient supports the fact that these items covered the three major categories of the PTSD that include reliving the trauma, avoidance, and increased arousal (Brush, 2003).

Difficulties associated with women’s experience of employment interference/restraint at the professional level were measured using a set of items developed and used by a group of researchers (Shepard & Pence, 1988; Swanberg & Macke, 2006; Swanberg et al., 2006). Examples of items representing this variable include: “inability to perform job to the best ability”, “inability to go to work”, and “went home sick because upset about abuse”. Items were rated on a 4-point rating scale ranging from “never = 0” to “daily = 3”. The summary score of this variable ranged between 0 and 21, with higher scores indicative of higher levels of the associated difficulties. Cranbach’s alpha of 0.92 was obtained in our participants.

Job stability was defined as women’s tendency to stay in the job without resigning and/or being fired as a result of experiencing employment interference/restraint tactics. This variable was assessed by two items: (1) quitting a job and (2) being fired from a previous job. A woman’s negative report to both questions indicated a woman’ job stability and her positive report to any question indicated Jeopardized job stability.

Procedure

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained for this study from the University. Women were contacted at their offices and given a brief description about the study. Those who consented to participate in the study were given the opportunity to complete the study questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed in the offices. Participants were given the contact information of the principal instigator to be contacted and informed about completed questionnaires. In addition, contact information of the principal instigator was provided in case any of the participants has any query about violence assistance. Completed questionnaires were then given serial numbers and data was coded for data entry and analysis.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to meet the first objective (the distribution of the employment interference/restraint tactics and their associated personal and professional difficulties). Linear regression was used to study the effect of employment interference/restraint (independent continuous variable) on women’s personal and professional difficulties (dependent continuous variables). Further, multiple linear regression was used to investigate whether there is a prediction relationship between employment interference/restraint (dependent continuous variable) and women's familial and demographic characteristics. Linear regression was used because it provides good prediction of the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables in each regression model. This occurs because it uses continuous variables in the model, and this means that the variables’ effect is not underestimated due to variable categorization. A significance level of .05 was used to control Type I error.

Results

A sample of 177 full-time women working in secretarial and vocational positions participated in the study. Ninety-nine (55.9%) women worked in secretarial jobs and 78 (44.1%) worked in vocational jobs (such as clinical instructors and lab technicians). Their mean age was 34.5 years (SD = 5.9). Most of the participants (n = 161, 92%) were married and not pregnant (n = 134, 83.2%). Nearly, two-thirds (n = 120, 68.2%) held college degree. Most of the participants possessed medium family income of 501–1,000 JD (1JD equals 1.4 US$) (n = 128, 74.8%) and the vast majority of the participants held college degree (n = 120, 68.2%).

Regarding the first objective that looked at the distribution of employment interference/restraint tactics as well as the associated personal and professional difficulties, results showed that women experienced different interference and restraint tactics. The most common interference tactic reported by the participants was being harassed at work (n = 14, 7.9%) and being forced to leave work (n = 15, 7.3%). For the restraint tactics, the most common tactic was not showing care for children by the partner (n = 15, 8.5%) and being threatened to prevent the woman from going to work (n = 13, 7.3%). See Table 1 for more details.

Table 1.

Frequencies of Employment Interference and Restraint Tactics Experienced by the Participants (n = 177).

Employment Interference and Consequences	Frequencyn	Percentage%
Interference Tactics
Harass you at work	14	7.9
Bother your coworkers	5	2.8
Lied to your coworkers about you	11	6.2
Forced you to leave work	13	7.3
Lied about your children’s health	6	3.4
Threatened you to leave work	7	4.0
Restraint Tactics
Sabotage the car	11	6.2
Do not show care for your children	15	8.5
Steal car/money to prevent you from going to work	6	3.4
Refused to give you a ride to work	11	6.2
Restrained you to prevent you from going to work	5	2.8
Threatened you to prevent you from going to work	13	7.3

For the associated difficulties at the personal and professional levels, participants reported all of them but with different percentages. For example, at the personal level, the most reported employment difficulty was “irritability or easily angered” that was reported by 77 women (43.8%). Following that, “easily startled” was the difficulty reported by 70 women (39.8%). At the professional level, the most reported difficulty was “inability to concentrate at work”, reported by 48 women (27.3%). Then, “inability to perform job to the best ability” that was reported by 37 women (21%) was the second most reported difficulty. For the job stability, the frequencies were not high compared to the other difficulties where 5.1% reported quitting a previous job and 6.8% lost a job as a result of their experience of employment interference/restraint. It is important to add that the frequencies representing job stability represent women’s reports of ever experiencing these consequences as a result of violence regardless of place of work. See Table 2.

Table 2.

Personal and Professional Difficulties as Reported by the Participants.

Personal difficultiesN = 170 (M = 2.59, SD = 3.3)	Frequencyn	Percentage%
Intrusive memories	42	24.0
Depression	52	29.4
Irritability or easily angered	77	43.8
Difficulty concentrating	60	34.1
Trouble falling or staying asleep	43	24.4
Easily startled	70	39.8
Nightmares	22	12.5
Want to make changes but do not have the energy	37	20.9
Dissociation	22	12.5
Take medication for pain control	21	11.9
Disordered eating	23	13.0
Professional difficulties N = 175 (M = 1.74, SD = 3.2)
Unable to concentrate at work	48	27.3
Unable to perform job to the best ability	37	21.0
Went home sick because upset about abuse	35	19.9
Called in sick because too upset to go in	30	17.0
Unable to go to work	22	12.5
Late for work or left early	30	17.2
Reprimanded for absenteeism	23	13.0
Job stability N = 174 (M = 0.16, SD = 0.66)
Quit a job	9	5.1
Lost a job	12	6.8

Regarding the second objective that looked at the effect of employment interference/restraint on women's personal and professional difficulties, we found that employment interference/restraint significantly predicted employment-related personal and professional difficulties as well as job stability. All p values were significant (<.0001). See Table 3 for more details.

Table 3.

Effect of Employment Interference/Restraint on Women’s Personal and Professional Difficulties and Job Stability.

Dependent variable	Beta (β)	Sig.	Adjusted R square	F	p value
Personal difficulties	.56	<.0001	.31	73.6	<.0001
Profession difficulties	.76	<.0001	.57	219	<.0001
Job stability	.47	<.0001	.21	44.8	<.0001

Using multiple linear regression to examine the effect of demographic characteristics on employment interference/restraint (third objective), we found that the whole regression model was significant (F (8,134) = 3.83, p value < .0001). Among all the predictors included in the model, only “number of children” was significant in predicting employment interference/restraint (β = 0.43, p value < .0001). All other predictors did not show significant contribution in predicting employment interference/restraint behaviors experienced by our participants. See Table 4.

Table 4.

Effect of Women’s Familial and Demographic Characteristics on their Experience of Employment Interference/Restraint by the Partner.

Predictors	Beta (β)	Sig.
Woman’s age	−.13	.54
Husband’s age	.04	.79
Level of education	.13	.13
Husband’s level of education	−.12	.15
Number of children	.43	<.0001
Marriage years	−.07	.63
Years of work experience	−.05	.71
Income	−.14	.12

F (8,134) = 3.83, p value < .0001; Adjusted R² = .14.

Discussion

Focusing on the first objective that looked at the frequencies of interference/restraint tactics and the associated personal and professional difficulties, findings indicated that our participants were exposed to different tactics and difficulties evidenced by the reported frequencies and percentages. Examining the tactics of employment interference/restraint used against working women, we found that they are characterized by being “controlling behaviors” in nature. For instance, the “restraint tactics” of the W/SAS are typical tactics of control behaviors inflicted on women. Compared to other types of domestic violence, controlling behaviors are one of the most common types of violence inflicted by male partners (Al-Modallal, 2012b; Al-Modallal et al., 2015; Clark et al., 2009). In one study, Garcia-Moreno et al. (2006) found that male partners who were more controlling were also more violent to their female partners, compared to their counterparts. Therefore, commonality of controlling behaviors in abusive partners and the relationship between controlling behaviors and the use of violence against the woman may explain the presence of the employment interference/restraint tactics as well as the associated difficulties that were reported by our participants.

It was found that there was a significant prediction relationship between women’s reports of personal difficulties, professional difficulties, and job stability with their experience of employment interference/restraint behaviors. A general look at the difficulties as reported by the women indicated that the difficulties at the personal level were more frequently reported compared to those at the professional level. This finding can be explained in light of earlier studies. In a previous study, authors found that all the participants in their study experienced at least one incident of employment interference/restraint behaviors (Al-Modallal et al., 2016). Considering employment interference/restraint as a consequence of partner violence affecting women in the workplace (Swanberg et al., 2006), it also can have consequences on the victims (similar to what violence usually produces). This relationship is evidenced by the fact that violence against women alters women's physical and mental health in the first place (Al-Modallal et al., 2010, 2012, 2014; Riger et al., 2002). Thereafter, our finding supports those of previous studies by indicating the high prevalence of personal difficulties and its significant association with employment interference/restraint experience.

An in-depth look at the personal difficulties associated with employment interference/restraint indicates that most of these difficulties represent the psychological dimension of health. Examples of these difficulties include “depression”, “irritability or easily angered”, and “difficulty concentrating”. This finding may be supported by the findings of a previous study among working women where women’s exposure to violence was associated with altered psychological health in terms depression, anxiety and stress “(Al-Modallal, 2012b). Similar findings were found in women from Jordan (Al-Modallal et al., 2012, 2014) and from different other cultures (Howard et al., 2022; Stewart & Vigod, 2017). All findings of these studies indicate that the psychological health in victims is a fundamental target to women’s exposure to violence from the partner, including partner violence against women at work.

Due to commonality of psychological health problems (such as depression) in working women, it is suggested that these “personal” health difficulties are not exclusively related to employment interference/restraint but rather to other factors exclusive to working women. For example, in one study looking at depressive symptoms in working women, the investigator revealed that women's depressive symptoms were significantly associated with chronic illnesses. Also, factors such as work and family demands, childcare, and financial hardship played a role in impacting the psychological well being of working women (Al-Modallal et al., 2010). Generally, personal difficulties experienced by working women is a multifactorial outcome that is related to women’s familial and professional life.

A previous study conducted among women from the Western culture indicated that violence against women affects women's physical and mental health before it affects their work participation (Riger et al., 2002). This finding can be explained considering our participants and the current study. Initially, employment interference/restraint occurs as a consequence of violence at home (Swanberg et al., 2006); which means that employment interference/restraint is an outcome of violence that occurs within the home boundaries. Further, women with employment interference/restraint experience are already suffering health issues including physical and mental health problems associated with violence at home. Generally-speaking, women victimized at home and at work are expected to suffer more difficulties at the personal and professional levels compared to women victimized at home only. This was evidenced by a previous study where women with chronic (continuous) partner violence experienced more health problems compared to women with less violence experiences (F = 4.6, p value = <.001) (Staggs & Riger, 2005). Difficulties experienced by women at work would never be known to employers or researchers without having such women being asked about them; and this is what we hope we focused on in this study.

Job stability was significantly affected by women’s exposure to employment interference/restraint. Job stability was measured by women’s reports of quitting or losing a previous job. Although the frequencies of these two outcomes were not high in this study, other researchers using larger sample size reported higher frequencies (Swanberg et al., 2006). However, implication of our findings on the employment status is of high value. Considering the knowledge that violence against women spills into work (if the woman goes to work) (Swanberg et al., 2005), some of our participants might be victims of violence both at home and at work. Because of violence, women may choose to quit their job, or the employer decides to fire the victim. Women may quit their job for many reasons including shame feelings associated with violence, safety reasons for self and children, and embarrassment associated with continuous harassment at work (Swanberg et al., 2005). On the other hand, the employer may choose to fire a victimized employee because of poor performance at work and costs associated with victimization (Swanberg et al., 2005). This implies that employers may express lower attempts to retain victimized workers. This happens because of the fear and safety issues associated with victimized employees, and such considerations are very crucial to the employer.

Among the familial and demographic characteristics used as predictors of women’s exposure to employment interference/restraint (third objective), only “number of children” was found significant (β = 0.43, p < .0001). Family unit and children are the core focus of the partners globally and in Jordan. In this study, the husband used children to restrain the woman from work or to interfere with her work. Children in this case are not victimized but rather used as a means to bother the woman (e. g., the partner lies about children’s well being to get the woman to leave work) (Swanberg & Macke, 2006). More information about the effect of work and familial factors, such as work pressure, house demands, and family needs, on women’s exposure to violence in Jordan is discussed with some details in previous investigations among working and non-working women (Al-Modallal et al., 2010, 2012).

Recommendations

Recommendations that would lessen the consequences of partner violence on employed women may include gaining more information about this phenomenon. Information can be obtained via research studies targeting women in the Jordanian workforce. Such studies would unveil further social, economic, mental, and physical consequences of violence in this important subset of women.

Primary prevention is recommended and is efficient in decreasing women’s susceptibility to partner violence (Coker, 2004) including employment interference/restraint. Principles of primary prevention can be applied to employed women, coworkers, and the employer. In Runyan (2001), examples of strategies to prevent violence in the workplace were identified. For example, employed women can be trained to easily identify violent customers. They need to know about employment interference/restraint tactics that could be inflicted on them while at work. Also, they can be trained about methods of conflict resolution in a way to prevent occurrence of violence. For coworkers, they need to know what to do when victims of violence use signaling methods in cases of assault. They need to be equipped as well with proper management and problem resolution methods. For the employers, they have to establish “zero- tolerance for violence” strategy in their institutions. This strategy should be a policy adopted in the workplace as it limits all types of workplace violence to the minimum levels. Further, employers need to develop an intimate partner violence screening program aiming at identifying victims of violence in the early stages of victimization and referring them to community services for further assistance.

To properly ensure adequacy of these strategies, intervention studies need to be conducted. Such studies need to be based on adequate assessment of the current situation in the workplaces that simulate the pressing need for such interventions. Such studies entail adequate fund, trained researchers, qualitative and quantitative data, and proper analysis. Finally, dissemination of the results is needed to spread the benefit to a large array of work settings.

Because of the significance of employment interference/restraint, it is recommended that communities at large, including employers, set plans to limit women’s exposure to employment interference/restraint. Such plans include employees’ (including women’s) empowerment programs, safety plans for abused women in collaboration with different community parties, and employers’ plans to prevent violence at work. These plans can be adopted by employers and disseminated to the community through different media outlets.

Study Strengths and Limitations

This study has a number of strengths that would add to its significance. The study was the first, up to our knowledge, that focuses on consequences associated with partner violence at the personal and professional levels in Jordanian working women. In addition, use of the W/SAS, a valid and reliable assessment tool for partner violence, may have added to the trustworthiness of the current study.

Despite these strengths, the study has a number of limitations that need to be addressed. One major limitation of the study is associated with sampling method where only women available in their offices were recruited for participation. Women who were in maternal or annual leaves were excluded. This methodology limitation may have influenced representativeness of the population, and consequently, the findings. This limitation urges us to limit findings to women of the same educational institution (setting) but not the general population of working women.

Use of cross-sectional study design represents further limitation of the study. Although cross-sectional studies enable investigators to examine various associations in a short period of time, issues of temporality, social desirability of the participants, and misclassification are still obstacles limiting generalization of the findings.

Finally, the small number of women reporting loss of job as a result of employment interference/restraint and inclusion of these women in the regression model would have affected the results. Although the results were significant, we should be cautious when reporting them as interpretation of the results must take into consideration participants’ concerns in this regard.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hanan Al-Modallal

References

Al-Badayneh

(2012). Violence against women in Jordan. Journal of Family Violence, 27(5), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9429-1.

Al-Modallal

(2012a). Patterns of coping with partner violence: Experiences of refugee women in Jordan. Public Health Nursing, 29(5), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2012.01018.x

Al-Modallal

(2012b). Psychological partner violence and women’s vulnerability to depression, stress, and anxiety. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 21(6), 560–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0349.2012.00826.x

Al-Modallal

Abuidhail

Sowan

Al-Rawashdeh

(2010). Determinants of depressive symptoms in Jordanian working women. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(7), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01562.x

Al-Modallal

Abu Zayed

Abujilban

Shehab

Atoum

(2015). Prevalence of intimate partner violence among women visiting health care centers in palestine refugee camps in Jordan. Health Care for Women International, 36(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2014.948626

Al-Modallal

Al-Omari

Abijilban

Mrayan

(2016). Intimate partner violence and female nurses’ employment: Disclosure and consequences. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9755-1

Al-Modallal

Hall

Anderson

(2008). Psychometric properties of a modified version of a worksite harassment tool--preliminary findings. AAOHN: American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 56(7), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.3928/08910162-20080701-04

Al-Modallal

Hamaideh

Mudallal

(2014). Mental health status of women in Jordan: A comparative study between attendees of governmental and UN relief and works agency’s health care centers. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35(5), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2013.807449

Al-Modallal

Sowan

A. K.

Hamaideh

Peden

A. R.

Al-Omari

Al-Rawashdeh

A. B.

(2012). Psychological outcomes of intimate partner violence experienced by Jordanian working women. Health Care for Women International, 33(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2011.610532

10.

Al-Omari

Abu Khait

Al-Modallal

Al-Awabdeh

Hamaideh

(2019). Workplace violence against nurses working in psychiatric hospitals in Jordan. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 33(5), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2019.08.002

11.

Blodgett

Lanigan

(2018). The prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence intrusion in the workplace. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 27(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1330297

12.

Brush

L. D.

(2003). Effects of work on hitting and hurting. Violence Against Women, 9(10), 1213–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255848

13.

Clark

C. J.

Bloom

D. E.

Hill

A. G.

Silverman

J. G.

(2009). Prevalence estimate of intimate partner violence in Jordan. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 15(4), 880–889. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/117710.

14.

Coker

A. L.

(2004). Primary prevention of intimate partner violence for women's health: A response to plichta. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(11), 1324–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269686

15.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

H. A.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

C. H.

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. Lancet (London, England), 368(9543), 1260–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8

16.

Howard

L. M.

Wilson

C. A.

Chandra

P. S.

(2022). Intimate partner violence and mental health: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 21(2), 311–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20976

17.

Riger

Ahrens

Blickenstaff

(2000). Measuring interference with employment and education reported by women with abusive partners: Preliminary data. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.15.2.161

18.

Riger

Raja

Camacho

(2002). The radiating impact of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017002005

19.

Runyan

C. W.

(2001). Moving forward with research on the prevention of violence against workers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(2), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00294-4

20.

Shepard

Pence

(1988). The effect of battering on the employment status of women. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 3(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/088610998800300206

21.

Staggs

S. L.

Riger

(2005). Effects of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s health and employment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-6238-1

22.

Stewart

D. E.

Vigod

S. N.

(2017). Mental health aspects of intimate partner violence. Psychiatric Clinics, 40(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2017.01.009

23.

Swanberg

J. E.

Logan

T. K.

Macke

(2005). Intimate partner violence, employment, and the workplace: Consequences and future directions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(4), 286–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005280506

24.

Swanberg

J. E.

Macke

(2006). Intimate partner violence and the workplace: Consequences and disclosure. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 21(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109906292133

25.

Swanberg

J. E.

Macke

Logan

T. K.

(2006). Intimate partner violence, women, and work: Coping on the job. Violence and Victims, 21(5), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.21.5.561

26.

Swanberg

J. E.

Macke

Logan

T. K.

(2007). Working women making it work: Intimate partner violence, employment, and workplace support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(3), 292–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506295387

27.

Wathen

C. N.

MacGregor

J. C.

MacQuarrie

B. J.

(2015). The impact of domestic violence in the workplace: Results from a pan-Canadian survey. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57(7), e65–e71. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000499

28.

Węziak-Białowolska

Białowolski

McNeely

(2020). The impact of workplace harassment and domestic violence on work outcomes in the developing world. World Development, 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104732