Central Relationship Questionnaire (CRQ)

Abstract

The Central Relationship Questionnaire (CRQ) is a multidimensional self-report psychometric instrument designed to operationalize and assess core interpersonal relationship themes and internalized relational patterns. Developed by Robert M. Weinryb, Jacques P. Barber, Carol Foltz, Sara G. M. Göransson, and J. Petter Gustavsson, the CRQ translates the clinical and observer-rated principles of Lester Luborsky’s Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) method into a standardized, quantitative, and easily administrable self-report format. The instrument evaluates an individual’s repetitive interpersonal patterns across three structurally defined psychodynamic components: Wishes (W; the individual’s needs, desires, and intentions toward the significant other), Responses of the Other (RO; the expected or perceived reactions of the partner), and Responses of the Self (RS; the emotional, somatic, and behavioral reactions of the subject in response to the other’s reactions). The focal version, CRQ 6.0, assesses these relational paradigms specifically within the context of romantic partnerships during moments of conflict or relational strain (“when the relationship is/was at its worst”), supplemented by global evaluations of relational closeness, intimacy, authority, importance, and quality. Psychometric investigations across diverse clinical and non-clinical cohorts in the United States and Sweden have established robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .70 to .91 across subscales), commendable test-retest reliability, and strong convergent validity with the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP), adult attachment measures, and measures of dyadic adjustment. By bridging psychodynamic relational theory, interpersonal circumplex modeling, and empirical measurement standards, the CRQ serves as a critical instrument in clinical assessment, outcome research, and psychotherapy process monitoring.

Keywords

Central Relationship Questionnaire, CRQ, Core Conflictual Relationship Theme, CCRT, Jacques P. Barber, interpersonal patterns, psychodynamic assessment, romantic relationship themes, object relations theory, psychometrics, relational schemas, interpersonal circumplex

Authors

The Central Relationship Questionnaire was developed through an international collaboration between leading researchers in psychotherapy process-outcome research and psychometrics:

• Robert M. Weinryb, M.D., Ph.D.: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Expert in psychodynamic psychotherapy outcome, personality assessment, and clinical psychosomatics.
• Jacques P. Barber, Ph.D., ABPP: Center for Psychotherapy Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA (subsequently Dean of the Derner School of Psychology, Adelphi University). Renowned authority in psychotherapy research, treatment efficacy for depression and substance use, and psychodynamic construct validation.
• Carol Foltz, Ph.D.: Center for Psychotherapy Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Psychometrics and clinical statistics specialist.
• Sara G. M. Göransson, Ph.D.: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Specialist in clinical psychology and psychometrics.
• J. Petter Gustavsson, Ph.D.: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Professor of personality psychology and psychiatric epidemiology, known for extensive work on normative personality development and questionnaire development.

Purpose

The Central Relationship Questionnaire was developed to address a critical methodological limitation within psychodynamic and interpersonal psychotherapy research: the reliance on labor-intensive, clinician-rated narrative coding systems to evaluate core relationship patterns. Historically, the primary empirical standard for operationalizing cyclical interpersonal schemas was Lester Luborsky’s Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) method. While the CCRT demonstrated remarkable conceptual validity and therapeutic relevance, its requirement for transcribed Relationship Anecdote Paradigm (RAP) interviews and multiple independent expert raters rendered it excessively time-consuming, expensive, and difficult to deploy in large-scale clinical trials or everyday clinical practice.

The CRQ was conceived as an empirically sound, self-report analog to the CCRT that could systematically assess an individual’s conscious schemas regarding relational needs, partner behaviors, and subjective affective reactions. Specifically, the purpose of the CRQ is threefold:

1. Diagnostic and Clinical Profiling: To capture the individual’s internalized relational template (internal working model) as it manifests within significant attachment relationships, most notably with a current or former romantic partner. By querying the participant regarding experiences “when the relationship is/was at its worst,” the instrument deliberately triggers and measures the maladaptive relational loops that emerge under relational stress.
2. Mechanisms of Psychotherapeutic Change: To provide a sensitive, repeatable metric capable of tracking structural changes in interpersonal expectations across time. Effective psychotherapy—whether psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, or interpersonal—aims to attenuate rigid, maladaptive relational expectations (e.g., expecting a partner to be domineering or abandoning) and enhance self-efficacy and relational flexibility. The CRQ allows researchers to measure whether symptomatic relief is accompanied by genuine shifts in relational representations.
3. Theoretical Research in Social and Personality Psychology: To bridge psychodynamic constructs of transference and object relations with modern social-cognitive models of relational schemas and adult attachment styles. The questionnaire enables empirical exploration of how personality disorders, depressive episodes, and anxiety states correlate with specific cyclical conflict patterns in adult romantic bonds.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the CRQ is the Cyclical Maladaptive Pattern or Core Relational Theme. Grounded in both psychoanalytic object relations theory and contemporary interpersonal theory, this construct posits that human interpersonal functioning is guided by cognitive-affective representations of the self in interaction with significant others. When individuals encounter relational challenges, these internal working models dictate cognitive appraisals, emotional states, and behavioral actions across three fundamental dimensions:

1. Wishes, Needs, and Desires (W)

The Wish component represents the primary motivational forces, strivings, and psychological needs that an individual directs toward their relational partner. These needs reflect basic human strivings for both agency (autonomy, self-definition, power) and communion (affiliation, closeness, validation). Subscales within the Wish dimension assess strivings such as:

• Wish for Closeness and Intimacy: Desires to be emotionally connected, confide, share vulnerabilities, and experience profound mutual understanding (e.g., “I wish to connect with my partner”; “I wish to be loved”).
• Wish for Autonomy and Independence: Needs to preserve personal boundaries, self-reliance, and individual identity without partner intrusion (e.g., “I wish to be my own person”; “I wish to do my own thing”).
• Wish for Power and Control: Strivings to dominate, direct, or exert influence over the partner’s actions and decisions (e.g., “I wish to control my partner”; “I wish to have power over my partner”).
• Wish for Partner Approval and Affirmation: Desires to be admired, valued, viewed as attractive, and held in high esteem (e.g., “I wish to be admired by my partner”; “I wish for my partner to find me attractive”).
• Wish to Oppose or Defy: Impulses to provoke, rebel against, or emotionally wound the partner when feeling trapped or resentful (e.g., “I wish to defy my partner”; “I wish to make my partner mad”).

2. Expected or Perceived Responses of the Other (RO)

The Response of Other component assesses the subject’s cognitive schema regarding how their romantic partner typically behaves toward them, particularly in conflictual scenarios. This reflects the internalized mental representation of the attachment figure as supportive, threatening, rejecting, or controlling:

• Rejecting / Uncaring Partner: Perceptions that the partner withdraws, is emotionally unavailable, cold, or hostile (e.g., “My partner rejects me”; “My partner treats me badly”).
• Dominating / Controlling Partner: Perceptions that the partner seeks to subjugate, command, or exert unilateral power (e.g., “My partner dominates me”; “My partner has power over me”).
• Loving / Attentive Partner: Perceptions that the partner remains affectionate, caring, and sexually receptive (e.g., “My partner cares for me”; “My partner desires me sexually”).
• Submissive / Deferential Partner: Perceptions that the partner yields readily, lacks independence, or complies passively.

3. Responses of the Self (RS)

The Response of Self component captures the emotional, cognitive, and coping reactions that the individual experiences when their wishes are either thwarted or met by the partner. These reactions indicate the level of self-regulatory functioning, emotional distress, and defensive coping mobilized under relational stress:

• Depressive / Devalued Self: Internal states of feeling rejected, unloved, disliked, or inadequate (e.g., “I feel rejected”; “I feel disliked”; “I feel uncomfortable”).
• Anxious / Conflicted Self: Affective states marked by relational uncertainty, confusion, ambivalence, and anxiety (e.g., “I feel unsure about our relationship”; “I am nervous”).
• Conflict-Avoidant / Withdrawing Self: Defensive maneuvers aimed at shutting down communication to prevent escalation (e.g., “I avoid difficulties with my partner”; “I do not open up”; “I distance myself”).
• Empowered / Autonomous Self: Constructive self-affirmation, mature coping, and boundary maintenance (e.g., “I am independent”; “I act maturely”; “I feel competent”).

Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the Central Relationship Questionnaire rests upon the convergence of three seminal paradigms in clinical psychology and psychiatric theory:

1. Luborsky’s Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT)

In the mid-1970s and 1980s, Lester Luborsky introduced the CCRT as an objective, empirical method for operationalizing Sigmund Freud’s concept of transference. Freud observed that individuals perpetually re-enact childhood relational templates with contemporary figures, including the psychotherapist. Luborsky formalized this by demonstrating that relational narratives can be decomposed into a tripartite grammar: Wishes (W) → Responses from Other (RO) → Responses of Self (RS). The CCRT provided empirical proof that individuals exhibit stable, pervasive conflict themes across diverse relationships. The CRQ directly adopts Luborsky’s tripartite schema, converting clinical narrative categories into psychometrically standardized Likert items.

2. Sullivan’s Interpersonal Theory and the Interpersonal Circumplex

Harry Stack Sullivan posited that personality does not exist in isolation within the intrapsychic apparatus; rather, personality is the enduring pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations that characterize a human life. This conceptualization was subsequently geometricized by Timothy Leary and refined by contemporary theorists (e.g., Jerry Wiggins, Lorna Smith Benjamin) into the Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC). The IPC organizes human behavior along two orthogonal axes: Agency / Dominance (Dominance vs. Submissiveness) and Communion / Affiliation (Love/Warmth vs. Hate/Coldness). The CRQ subscales map systematically onto these orthogonal dimensions: wishes for dominance versus autonomy, perceived partner hostility versus warmth, and self-responses of assertion versus submissive capitulation.

3. Attachment Theory and Internal Working Models

Grounded in the foundational work of John Bowlby, attachment theory dictates that infants internalize early interactions with primary caregivers into cognitive “internal working models” of self and others. A child who experiences consistent emotional availability constructs a model of the self as worthy of love and others as trustworthy. Conversely, inconsistent or rejecting parenting fosters insecure internal models (anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, or fearful-avoidant). The CRQ evaluates how these internal working models operate within adult pair-bonds, specifically assessing expectations of abandonment, perceived rejection, and compulsive self-reliance.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Central Relationship Questionnaire has been rigorously examined across multiple empirical studies, establishing robust evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and cross-cultural structural validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

In their initial validation report, Barber, Foltz, and Weinryb (1998) administered the CRQ to a diverse sample of undergraduate students and clinical outpatients. Confirmatory structural evaluations indicated that the instrument successfully captured distinct relational domains rather than general, undifferentiated positive or negative affectivity. Factor analyses of the three sections (W, RO, and RS) demonstrated that items clustered cleanly into theoretically predictable interpersonal dimensions reflecting agency and communion.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the CRQ has been substantiated through significant correlations with widely validated interpersonal and personality inventories:

• Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64 / IIP-C): CRQ subscales measuring wishes to dominate and control correlate strongly with the IIP Domineering/Controlling octant (r values typically between .45 and .62, p < .001). Similarly, CRQ self-responses of conflict avoidance and distancing show substantial correlations with the IIP Socially Inhibited and Cold/Distant octants (r = .40 to .58).
• Adult Attachment Measures: The CRQ subscale Wish for partner not to abandon me correlates highly with attachment anxiety scales on the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) questionnaire (r > .55), whereas the Wish not to open up and partner-perceptions of emotional detachment correlate with attachment avoidance.
• Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS): CRQ scores reflecting perceived partner rejection, hostility, and self-reported emotional withdrawal correlate negatively with marital and dyadic satisfaction indices (r ranging from -.42 to -.67, p < .001), corroborating the instrument’s clinical sensitivity to relationship distress.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses reveal that although CRQ subscales that capture distress (such as RS: Depressed/Devalued) correlate modestly with general neuroticism and depressive symptomatology (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory; r ≈ .30 to .38), they explain unique, significant variance in relational satisfaction after controlling for global psychological distress. This proves that the CRQ does not merely capture non-specific dysphoria or demoralization, but taps specific, cognitive-relational schemas.

Cross-Cultural Invariance

In a major cross-cultural validation study, Weinryb, Barber, Foltz, Göransson, and Gustavsson (2000) evaluated the Swedish translation of the CRQ 6.0 in a non-clinical sample (N = 205) and clinical samples, comparing them directly to American cohorts. The factorial structure exhibited striking stability across American and Swedish populations, demonstrating that the underlying core conflictual dimensions possess universal cross-cultural psychometric generalizability in Western romantic contexts.

Reliability

The CRQ exhibits high psychometric reliability, evaluated through internal consistency coefficients and temporal stability indices across both non-clinical and psychiatric cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Extensive psychometric evaluations by Barber et al. (1998) and Weinryb et al. (2000) report the following internal consistency metrics (Cronbach’s α):

• Wishes (W) Subscales: Alpha coefficients across the primary factor-analytically derived subscales ranged from .72 to .91, indicating strong item homogeneity within constructs such as Wish for Closeness (α ≈ .88), Wish for Autonomy (α ≈ .81), and Wish for Power/Control (α ≈ .79).
• Responses of Other (RO) Subscales: Alphas for perceived partner responses ranged from .75 to .89. Specifically, scales indexing Partner Rejection / Coldness demonstrated α values exceeding .85, while Partner Dominance yielded α values around .80.
• Responses of Self (RS) Subscales: Internal consistency estimates for the self-response domains ranged from .70 to .90, with Self-Deprecation / Hurt reaching α = .87 and Self-Withdrawal / Avoidance achieving α = .78.

Test-Retest Reliability

Short-term temporal stability was assessed across a 2- to 4-week retest interval among stable non-clinical participants. Test-retest reliability coefficients (Pearson’s r) for individual subscales ranged from .68 to .86 (all p < .001). These figures demonstrate that while the CRQ captures situational conflict dynamics, the underlying core relationship themes represent stable, enduring traits of adult personality and cognitive schema organization.

Factor Analysis

The internal dimensionality of the CRQ has been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across independent American and Scandinavian samples.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial factor extractions performed by Barber et al. (1998) utilized Principal Axis Factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to examine the latent structure within each of the three functional components:

• Wishes Factor Structure: Factor analyses consistently extracted four to five primary factors accounting for over 52% of the total variance: (1) Desire for Intimacy and Mutual Support, (2) Desire for Autonomy / Independence, (3) Desire for Control / Domination, (4) Desire for Validation / Esteem, and (5) Desire to Provoke / Rebel. Item loadings on their respective primary factors generally exceeded .50, with minimal secondary cross-loadings (< .25).
• Responses of Other Factor Structure: Factor extraction yielded three robust factors explaining over 58% of the variance: (1) Hostile / Rejecting Partner, (2) Dominating / Intrusive Partner, and (3) Affectionate / Engaged Partner.
• Responses of Self Factor Structure: Self-responses resolved into four core dimensions explaining approximately 54% of the variance: (1) Distressed / Rejected Self, (2) Conflict-Avoidant / Closed Self, (3) Assertive / Independent Self, and (4) Dominating / Counter-Controlling Self.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Subsequent structural modeling conducted by Weinryb et al. (2000) evaluated the adequacy of these latent structures. Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated acceptable to excellent fit when modeling the multi-tiered CCRT structure:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values ranged between .048 and .062 across clinical and community samples, comfortably below the conventional .08 threshold for acceptable model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) & Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Fit indices consistently fell in the .90 to .95 range, verifying structural replication.
• Factorial Invariance: Metric invariance tests supported invariant factor loadings across gender cohorts and across language versions (English and Swedish), confirming that the items function identically across cultural contexts.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Central Relationship Questionnaire (CRQ 6.0) is a structured, multidimensional self-report inventory. Below are the instrument’s operational parameters:

• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil questionnaire or interactive computer-based assessment.
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) who are currently involved in a romantic/sexual relationship, or who have been involved in such a relationship for at least 3 months within the preceding three years.
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes for complete administration.
• Structure of the Instrument:
  • Introductory Global Relationship Scale: 6 general evaluative items assessing relational closeness, intimacy, authority, importance, peak enjoyment, and distress during conflict.
  • Section I: Wishes (W): Evaluates interpersonal desires, strivings, and expectations toward the romantic partner.
  • Section II: Responses of Other (RO): Evaluates perceived or anticipated partner behaviors during conflict.
  • Section III: Responses of Self (RS): Evaluates subjective emotional, cognitive, and coping reactions when relational desires are met or denied.
• Response Formats:
  • Global Items (Items 1–6): 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = NOT AT ALL to 7 = EXTREMELY.
  • Component Items: 7-point Likert frequency/truth scale ranging from 1 = NEVER TRUE OF ME / NEVER TRUE OF MY PARTNER to 7 = ALWAYS TRUE OF ME / ALWAYS TRUE OF MY PARTNER (with intermediary anchors: 2 = Rarely, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Sometimes, 5 = Often, 6 = Very Often).
• Contextual Frame: Respondents are explicitly instructed to rate items with reference to their interactions “WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP IS/WAS AT ITS WORST,” ensuring maximum activation of cyclical conflict patterns.
• Scoring Procedures: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the mean of the items comprising each validated factor dimension. Higher scores reflect greater endorsement of that specific relational wish, perceived partner reaction, or self-reaction under relationship strain.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Central Relationship Questionnaire (CRQ) in its foundational form was established and published between 1998 and 2000 (version CRQ 6.0 documented in 1998 and validated cross-culturally in 2000). The copyright is held by the authors: Robert M. Weinryb, Jacques P. Barber, Carol Foltz, Sara G. M. Göransson, and J. Petter Gustavsson.

The instrument was developed for non-profit academic research, psychiatric investigations, and clinical training. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the CRQ without fee for non-commercial research and educational applications, provided appropriate bibliographic attribution is cited. The manual, scoring keys, and PDF forms were historically distributed through the Center for Psychotherapy Research at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (Center for Psychotherapy Research). Commercial applications, electronic incorporation into proprietary medical software, or for-profit utilization require formal written licensing and permission from the primary copyright holders.

References

• Barber, J. P., Foltz, C., & Weinryb, R. M. (1998). The Central Relationship Questionnaire: Initial report. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.2.131
• Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
• Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.885
• Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1998). Understanding transference: The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10294-000
• Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Weinryb, R. M., Barber, J. P., Foltz, C., Göransson, S. G. M., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2000). Central Relationship Questionnaire (CRQ): Psychometric properties in a Swedish sample and cross-cultural studies. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 9(4), 201–212.
• Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183–221). John Wiley & Sons.

Items of the Scale