The Psychological Inventory of Financial Scarcity (PIFS): A psychometric evaluation

Abstract

• Psychological Inventory of Financial Scarcity (PIFS) is a reliable and valid measure of experienced financial scarcity. • The PIFS captures appraisals of insufficient financial resources and lack of control over one's financial situation. • The PIFS captures responses in terms of financial rumination and worry, and a short-term focus. • Scores on the PIFS explains variance in psychological well-being over and above personality traits and demographic variables (including income). • Scores on the PIFS mediates the relationship between financial problems and psychological well-being. In nine studies (total N = 12,249), we evaluated the psychometric properties of the Psychological Inventory of Financial Scarcity (PIFS). The PIFS assesses experienced financial scarcity and captures four aspects of this subjective experience: an appraisal of insufficient financial resources, an appraisal of lack of control over one's financial situation, financial rumination and worry, and a short-term focus. Results showed that the PIFS has a good internal consistency (Studies 1-5) and a good test-retest reliability (Study 6). Factor analyses indicated that, as intended, the PIFS can be used both as a one-factor scale and a four-factor scale (Studies 1-5). The predictive and concurrent validity of the PIFS was supported by expected relations with executive functioning (Studies 7-8). Furthermore, results showed that scores on the PIFS explain variance in psychological well-being (mental health, self-esteem, and life satisfaction) over and above personality traits and demographic variables (including income) and mediate the relationship between financial problems and psychological well-being (Study 9). Together, our evaluation indicates that the PIFS is a reliable and valid measure of experienced financial scarcity, and a helpful instrument to study the impact of financial hardship on people's lives.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 69 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.