Cited by 52Attachment and Relationship DynamicsCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Relationship Quality Interview: Evidence of reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and incremental utility.

Lawrence, Erika, Barry, Robin A., Brock, Rebecca L., Bunde, Mali, Langer, Amie, Ro, Eunyoe, Fazio, Emily, Mulryan, Lorin +3 more·2011·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

Relationship satisfaction and adjustment have been the target outcome variables for almost all couple research and therapies. In contrast, far less attention has been paid to the assessment of relationship quality. The present study introduces the Relationship Quality Interview (RQI), a semistructured, behaviorally anchored individual interview. The RQI was designed to provide a more objective assessment of relationship quality as a dynamic, dyadic construct across 5 dimensions: (a) quality of emotional intimacy in the relationship, (b) quality of the couple's sexual relationship, (c) quality of support transactions in the relationship, (d) quality of the couple's ability to share power in the relationship, and (e) quality of conflict/problem-solving interactions in the relationship. Psychometric properties of RQI ratings were examined through scores obtained from self-report questionnaires and behavioral observation data collected cross-sectionally from a sample of 91 dating participants and longitudinally from a sample of 101 married couples. RQI ratings demonstrated strong reliability (internal consistency, interrater agreement, interpartner agreement, and correlations among scales), convergent validity (correlations between RQI scale ratings and questionnaire scores assessing similar domains of relationship quality), and divergent validity (correlations between RQI scale ratings and (a) behavioral observation codes assessing related constructs, (b) global relationship satisfaction scores, and (c) scores on individual difference measures of related constructs). Clinical implications of the RQI for improving couple assessment and interventions are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0021096

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawrence, E., Barry, R. A., Brock, R. L., Bunde, M., Langer, A., Ro, E., Fazio, E., Mulryan, L., Hunt, S., Madsen, L., & Dzankovic, S.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2011-03
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
44-63
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2076145299
Cited by
52
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49 CCR721682; R49 CE721682)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (RO1 HD046789)
  • University of Iowa
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
relationship quality, couple assessment, emotional intimacy, power sharing, dating couples, married couples, behavioral observation, dyadic assessment, couple therapy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interviews as Topic, Male, Marriage, Middle Aged, Personality, Psychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Family Conflict, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review