Validating the Jellinek Inventory for Assessing Partner Violence (J-IPV) In a U.S. Community Sample: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Demographic Correlates

Background and Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects millions of individuals in the United States and is associated with significant adverse health outcomes, yet identification rates in health care settings remain critically low. Brief, validated screening tools are essential to support systematic IPV identification across clinical and community contexts. The Jellinek Inventory for Assessing Partner Violence (J-IPV) is a four-item instrument originally developed and validated in substance use treatment populations, but its psychometric properties in community samples remain untested. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the J-IPV in a nationally representative U.S. community sample by examining its sensitivity, specificity, and demographic correlates relative to an established criterion measure.

Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to a stratified quota sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,749) recruited through Qualtrics, representative of U.S. population characteristics across sex, age, and race/ethnicity. The J-IPV was validated against the physical violence subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales Short Form (CTS2S). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated separately for victimization, perpetration, and combined IPV. Logistic regression analyses examined demographic correlates — including gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education, and income — of J-IPV and CTS2S classifications.

Results: Preliminary findings indicate that the J-IPV demonstrated moderate sensitivity (0.57 for victimization and perpetration; 0.67 for combined IPV) and high specificity (0.93–0.95) across all classifications relative to the CTS2S. Logistic regression analyses revealed that male gender, gender-expansive identity, bisexual orientation, higher income, and certain racial/ethnic identities were significantly associated with IPV classification on both measures, suggesting consistency between the J-IPV and the criterion measure across demographic subgroups.

Conclusions and Implications: These preliminary findings offer initial support for the validity of the J-IPV as a brief IPV screening tool in a community population, extending its evidence base beyond substance use treatment settings. The tool's high specificity suggests utility for ruling out IPV, though its moderate sensitivity warrants consideration in clinical decision-making. Findings highlight the importance of demographic-informed screening approaches and point to the need for further invariance testing across subgroups. This study contributes to the evidence base for scalable, brief IPV screening tools with implications for social work practice, public health, and policy.