How Do We Measure Intimate Partner Violence? A Comparative Content Analysis of Major IPV Scales

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health concern with well-documented consequences for mental and physical health. Research on IPV relies heavily on standardized self-report scales to estimate prevalence, identify victimization, and inform policy and practice. Major IPV scales are often used interchangeably under the assumption that they measure the same underlying construct. Yet these instruments differ substantially in item content, number of indicators, gender assumptions, and the range of behaviors classified as IPV. It therefore remains unclear to what extent commonly used IPV scales converge in the behaviors and relational dynamics they operationalize.

Methods

Drawing on Fried’s (2017) systematic approach to item-level content analysis, this study examined overlap and divergence across six prominent IPV scales: the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, Composite Abuse Scale, WHO Violence Against Women instrument, Abusive Behavior Inventory, Partner Abuse Scale, and Severity of Violence Against Women Scale. Items were systematically compared by two researchers to assess the extent to which scales capture the same underlying behaviors. Consensus was reached through discussion. Conceptual overlap was quantified using the Jaccard similarity coefficient, enabling comparison of shared versus scale-specific content.

Results

The study identified both substantial agreement and important divergence in how IPV is operationalized. While physical and sexual violence are represented across instruments, coverage of coercive control, psychological abuse, and emerging forms of violence such as tech-facilitated abuse, varies markedly or is absent altogether.

Discussion

The differences found have significant implications for interpreting prevalence estimates, comparing findings across studies, and selecting appropriate instruments for research, clinical assessment, and policy evaluation.

Key messages

• This study contributes knowledge that will help move the field towards conceptual clarity, measurement validity, and a critical approach to comparing results across IPV scales.

• Our findings contribute to strengthening public health capacity to critically evaluate measurement frameworks used to monitor and compare IPV incidence across demographic and geographic contexts.