Sexual Relationship Power Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) is a premier psychometric instrument developed by Julie Pulerwitz, Steven L. Gortmaker, and William DeJong in 2000 to assess multifaceted power dynamics within heterosexual romantic and sexual dyads. Originally designed to address critical gaps in public health, behavioral medicine, and HIV/STI prevention research, the SRPS measures the extent to which women possess autonomy, leverage, and decision-making authority relative to their male intimate partners. Interpersonal power imbalances have long been recognized as a primary structural driver of gender-based vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy, intimate partner violence (IPV), and psychological distress. The SRPS operationalizes relationship power through a 23-item multidimensional architecture consisting of two distinct, correlated subscales: the 15-item Relationship Control (RC) factor and the 8-item Decision-Making Dominance (DMD) factor. The Relationship Control subscale evaluates an individual’s perceived autonomy, freedom from partner surveillance, resistance to relational entrapment, and vulnerability to partner retribution across everyday interactions and sexual negotiation, measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree). The Decision-Making Dominance subscale examines the balance of authority across key domestic and interpersonal domains, scored on a 3-point categorical metric (1 = Your Partner, 2 = Both of You Equally, 3 = You). Psychometric investigations across diverse cross-cultural, socioeconomic, and racial/ethnic cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging from .76 to .88 for Relationship Control, .65 to .79 for Decision-Making Dominance, and .80 to .89 for the overall composite scale), excellent test-retest reliability, and well-established construct, convergent, and predictive validity. Higher SRPS scores consistently predict increased odds of consistent condom use, sexual communication self-efficacy, and reproductive autonomy, while inversely correlating with exposure to intimate partner violence, male controlling behaviors, and incident HIV/STI infections. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the SRPS, delineating its historical emergence, theoretical foundations, psychometric architecture, structural validity, cross-cultural utility, and complete administrative protocol.

Keywords

Sexual Relationship Power Scale, SRPS, Relationship Control, Decision-Making Dominance, Intimate Partner Violence, HIV Prevention, Condom Negotiation, Gender and Power Theory, Dyadic Dynamics, Psychometrics, Reproductive Autonomy, Interpersonal Control

Authors

The Sexual Relationship Power Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by a multidisciplinary team of public health researchers, behavioral scientists, and epidemiologists:

• Julie Pulerwitz, ScD: Director and Senior Associate in the HIV and AIDS Program at the Population Council (Washington, DC, USA), formerly affiliated with the Horizons Project and PATH. Dr. Pulerwitz is a globally recognized authority on social and structural determinants of health, gender equality, gender-based violence, and the evaluation of social and behavioral change interventions. Contact: [email protected].
• Steven L. Gortmaker, PhD: Professor of the Practice of Health Sociology in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (Boston, MA, USA). Dr. Gortmaker specializes in social epidemiology, quantitative evaluation methods, and the structural determinants of adolescent and adult health behaviors.
• William DeJong, PhD: Professor Emeritus in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health (Boston, MA, USA). Dr. DeJong has contributed extensively to research on public health communication campaigns, substance use prevention, and the social psychology of sexual risk behavior.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) is to quantify the distribution of interpersonal power within intimate partnerships, providing clinicians, epidemiologists, sociologists, and behavioral health researchers with an empirically rigorous tool to evaluate how dyadic inequality influences sexual, reproductive, and psychological outcomes. In the context of global public health crises—most notably the HIV/AIDS epidemic and high rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs)—traditional health behavior models (such as the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior) operated under the assumption that prophylactic adoption and sexual risk reduction were entirely autonomous, individual-level decisions. These cognitive-rational models posited that an individual armed with adequate knowledge, threat perception, and protective motivation would naturally enact risk-reduction behaviors such as male or female condom utilization, STI screening, or partner reduction.

However, empirical research in the late 1980s and 1990s continuously demonstrated that women, particularly young women, women of color, and women living in economically disenfranchised environments, faced profound structural barriers that prevented the direct translation of preventive knowledge and intentions into protective behavioral practices. A woman could possess exhaustive comprehension of HIV transmission vectors and maintain intense desire to use barrier methods, yet remain completely incapable of negotiating condom use if doing so elicited physical violence, emotional abandonment, economic termination, or accusations of marital infidelity from her male partner. Consequently, researchers recognized that sexual negotiation is not an individual phenomenon, but an intensely relational, power-mediated negotiation enacted within the sociocultural constraints of gender roles.

Prior to the construction of the SRPS, empirical assessments of relationship power were highly fragmented. Investigators relied on single-item proxy measures, such as educational discrepancies, age gaps between partners, wage differentials, or unvalidated, ad-hoc domestic decision-making checklists derived from conventional family sociology. While socioeconomic differentials provide a distal estimation of structural inequality, they routinely fail to capture proximal, interpersonal dynamics: a woman who earns more than her partner may still experience extreme sexual subordination, emotional intimidation, or physical abuse in private. Conversely, an economically dependent woman may exert significant autonomy regarding sexual negotiation. The SRPS was purposefully engineered to bridge this methodological divide by generating a psychometrically validated, multidimensional instrument that directly captures proximal power dynamics—specifically relational control and decision-making authority—within romantic and sexual unions.

The SRPS serves vital functions across both clinical and empirical research settings:

• Epidemiological Surveillance and Etiological Research: The scale allows researchers to examine how dyadic power configurations independently predict incident HIV, viral hepatitis, bacterial STIs, reproductive coercion, and unintended pregnancies, controlling for traditional socioeconomic and psychological covariates.
• Intervention Evaluation: The SRPS serves as a standard primary or secondary outcome measure in structural and behavioral intervention trials. Landmark global initiatives—such as the IMAGE study (Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity) in South Africa, the Stepping Stones intervention, and Program H/Program M evaluations across Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa—have utilized the SRPS to assess whether combined economic empowerment and gender-transformative educational curriculums successfully shift interpersonal relationship power dynamics toward egalitarianism.
• Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Risk Assessment: Clinicians, counselors, and victim advocates utilize the SRPS to detect early psychological and relational precursors to severe domestic abuse. The scale uncovers insidious patterns of coercive control, partner surveillance, emotional entrapment, and sexual intimidation that often precede or co-occur with overt physical and sexual assault.
• Couple and Sexual Counseling: In therapeutic modalities, the SRPS provides an objective framework for identifying asymmetric power distribution, facilitating dialogue regarding mutual consent, egalitarian decision-making, and emotional safety within the dyad.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the Sexual Relationship Power Scale is interpersonal relationship power, conceptualized as an individual’s relative capacity to influence the behavioral trajectory of the partnership, make autonomous choices regarding shared and personal life domains, resist unilateral demands or controlling constraints imposed by the partner, and negotiate sexual practices without fear of emotional, economic, or physical retaliation. Rather than viewing power as a static, unidimensional personality trait or a mere accumulation of distal material assets, the SRPS conceptualizes power as a dynamic, transactional, and multifaceted dyadic property. The scale distinguishes between two foundational, intercorrelated dimensions of power: Relationship Control and Decision-Making Dominance.

1. Relationship Control (RC)

The Relationship Control dimension encompasses a respondent’s subjective perception of their emotional, personal, and behavioral autonomy relative to their partner’s controlling, monitoring, and coercive behaviors. Relationship control captures the emotional climate of the dyad, specifically whether one partner exercises unilateral domination over the other through explicit intimidation, surveillance, or subtle psychological coercion. This factor reflects the extent to which the respondent feels constrained, silenced, or trapped within the partnership.

Within this dimension, power manifests across several critical domains:

• Surveillance and Possessiveness: Items such as “My partner always wants to know where I am” and “My partner tells me who I can spend time with” gauge the partner’s restriction of the individual’s social autonomy, interpersonal mobility, and external support networks, which are classic hallmarks of coercive control.
• Relational Entrapment and Subjugation: Statements such as “I feel trapped or stuck in our relationship,” “When my partner and I are together, I’m pretty quiet,” and “My partner does what he wants, even if I do not want him to” capture expressive silencing, internal resignation, and an inability to assert personal agency in the face of partner dominance.
• Asymmetric Commitment and Emotional Leverage: Items such as “I am more committed to our relationship than my partner is” and “My partner gets more out of our relationship than I do” tap into the Principle of Least Interest, wherein the partner who is less emotionally invested possesses disproportionate structural power to dictate relational terms.
• Fear of Retribution in Sexual Negotiation: Four items explicitly evaluate the fear of hostile or violent reactions when initiating barrier protection: “If I asked my partner to use a condom, he would get violent,” “…he would get angry,” and “…he would think I’m having sex with other people.” These items measure the severe behavioral disempowerment that occurs when personal health decisions are met with accusations of infidelity or threats to physical safety.

2. Decision-Making Dominance (DMD)

The Decision-Making Dominance dimension measures the explicit allocation of authority and final say regarding instrumental, social, and intimate choices within the dyad. While Relationship Control assesses the pervasive psychological and behavioral constraints governing the partnership, Decision-Making Dominance isolates the balance of power during concrete moments of deliberation and conflict resolution.

This construct examines whose desires prevail across various relational spheres:

• Social and Leisure Decision-Making: Items 16, 18, and 19 assess who dictates peer engagement, joint recreation, and contact frequency (“Who usually has more say about whose friends to go out with?” and “Who usually has more say about what you do together?“). Dominance in these domains reflects control over the dyad’s shared time and social boundaries.
• Communication and Emotional Depth: Item 20 (“Who usually has more say about when you talk about serious things?“) measures emotional gatekeeping—the capacity of one partner to dictate whether and when relational issues, grievances, or future plans are addressed.
• Sexual Autonomy and Consent: Items 17, 22, and 23 directly interrogate the micro-politics of sexual activity: “Who usually has more say about whether you have sex?“, “…about whether you use condoms?“, and “…about what types of sexual acts you do?” These items capture the respondent’s sexual agency—whether sexual participation and prophylactic use represent mutual, egalitarian agreements, or whether the partner unilaterally dictates sexual frequency and boundaries.
• Global Relational Dominance: Item 21 provides a direct cognitive appraisal of dyadic supremacy: “In general, who do you think has more power in your relationship?” This item synthesizes overall relationship balance into an overarching metric of perceived authority.

Theoretical Framework

The Sexual Relationship Power Scale is situated at the intersection of critical feminist sociology, social psychology, and structural public health theory. Its architectural framework synthesizes three foundational paradigms: Robert Connell’s Theory of Gender and Power, Social Exchange and Interdependence Theories, and Multidimensional Sociological Models of Power.

1. Connell’s Theory of Gender and Power

The predominant conceptual architecture underpinning the SRPS is Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell‘s (1987) Theory of Gender and Power. Connell articulated a comprehensive structural model explaining how gender relations are systematically organized and maintained within patriarchal societies across three distinct, overlapping structures:

• The Sexual Division of Labor: Allocates specific forms of work and economic roles based on gender, historically confining women to unpaid domestic labor or lower-wage economic sectors, thereby creating financial dependency on male breadwinners.
• The Sexual Division of Power: Manifests through institutionalized hierarchies, authority structures, and the systematic control of women’s autonomy through patriarchal law, cultural expectations, and gender-based violence.
• The Structure of Cathexis (Affective and Emotional Attachments): Dictates social norms regarding emotional bonds, sexual desire, and romantic commitment, often prescribing submissive, passive sexual roles to women while encouraging assertive, dominant behaviors among men.

Pulerwitz and colleagues operationalized Connell’s macro-level sociopolitical structures at the micro-level of the intimate dyad. Connell’s *division of power* directly informs the SRPS’s Relationship Control subscale, measuring how patriarchal entitlement translates into male dominance, coercive surveillance, and partner-enacted retribution. Simultaneously, Connell’s *cathexis* and *division of labor* inform the Decision-Making Dominance subscale, assessing how emotional dependency and social status influence who holds authority over sexual practices, contraception, and interpersonal association.

2. Social Exchange and Interdependence Theories

The SRPS also draws heavily from Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964) and Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). In these frameworks, intimate relationships are understood as systems of reciprocal exchange wherein individuals provide rewards (affection, sexual access, economic support, companionship) and incur costs (time, emotional labor, sacrifice of autonomy). Power within an exchange relationship is fundamentally dictated by Richard Emerson’s (1962) Power-Dependence Theory: the power of Partner A over Partner B is directly proportional to Partner B’s dependence upon Partner A for valued outcomes.

This dynamic is operationalized through Willard Waller’s classic Principle of Least Interest, which posits that the individual who is least emotionally or materially committed to the continuation of a relationship inherently wields the greatest balance of power. The partner with lower commitment can credibly threaten relationship termination, thereby compelling compliance from the more invested partner. In the SRPS, this mechanism is explicitly targeted by items measuring relational commitment asymmetries (“I am more committed to our relationship than my partner is“), unequal benefits (“My partner gets more out of our relationship than I do“), and feelings of entrapment.

3. Multidimensional Models of Power (Komter, Blood & Wolfe)

Traditional family sociology initially approached domestic power through Blood and Wolfe’s (1960) Resource Theory of Family Power, which postulated that the balance of decision-making power simply reflected comparative tangible resources (e.g., comparative income, occupational prestige, educational attainment). However, feminist sociologists such as Aafke Komter (1989) critiqued this simplistic view, demonstrating that power operates on three distinct levels:

• Manifest Power: Observable, explicit decision-making processes during deliberate discussions or overt conflicts (directly measured by the SRPS Decision-Making Dominance subscale).
• Latent Power: Situations where conflict is suppressed or non-decisions occur because one partner anticipates negative reactions or retaliatory consequences from the dominant partner, opting to remain silent rather than challenge the status quo (measured by the SRPS Relationship Control subscale: “When my partner and I are together, I’m pretty quiet“).
• Invisible Power: Deeply internalized, socially constructed gender norms and ideologies that make unequal power distributions appear natural, legitimate, or inevitable to both partners.

By capturing both manifest decision-making and latent anticipatory fear or behavioral suppression, the SRPS represents a comprehensive psychometric embodiment of multidimensional power theory.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale has been evaluated and confirmed through extensive empirical testing across diverse cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic contexts. Psychometricians and behavioral epidemiologists have established four critical domains of validity: construct, convergent, predictive, and discriminant validity.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

In the original validation study by Pulerwitz, Gortmaker, and DeJong (2000), conducted among a clinic-based cohort of 388 sexually active Latina women in the northeastern United States, construct validity was established through thorough factor-analytic and structural equation modeling. The two hypothesized factors—Relationship Control (RC) and Decision-Making Dominance (DMD)—demonstrated distinct structural identities while maintaining a moderate, statistically significant inter-factor correlation ($r = .42, p < .001$), confirming that while the subscales measure separate facets of interpersonal dynamics, they are anchored to the same underlying multidimensional power construct.

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been rigorously demonstrated through significant correlations between the SRPS and theoretically related psychological and interpersonal constructs:

• Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): High scores on the SRPS (indicating high relationship power) show strong, statistically significant inverse correlations with physical, emotional, and sexual violence as measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and the WHO Violence Against Women instrument ($r = -.35$ to $-.52, p < .001$). Women reporting low Relationship Control are exponentially more likely to experience severe partner violence.
• Male Controlling Behaviors: The Relationship Control subscale correlates strongly and negatively with validated indices of coercive control, including the Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS) and the Danger Assessment (DA).
• Condom Negotiation Self-Efficacy: SRPS scores display robust positive correlations with self-efficacy scales for condom use and sexual assertiveness ($r = .38$ to $.49, p < .001$), indicating that women who hold greater relational power feel significantly more capable of demanding prophylactic protection during intimate encounters.

3. Predictive Validity

The primary clinical and epidemiological utility of the SRPS rests on its predictive validity regarding sexual and reproductive health outcomes:

• Consistent Condom Use: In the original Pulerwitz et al. (2000) study, women categorized in the highest power tier (top tertile of SRPS scores) were 5.0 times more likely (95% CI: [2.0, 12.5]) to report consistent condom use with their main partner compared to women in the lowest power tertile, after controlling for age, education, acculturation, relationship duration, and perceived STI risk.
• Cross-Cultural Predictive Verification: Subsequent global studies have replicated these findings. In South Africa, Pettifor et al. (2004) demonstrated that young women with low relationship power on the SRPS were significantly more likely to be infected with HIV (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.51) and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 (HSV-2) compared to peers with high power scores.
• Reproductive Coercion and Unintended Pregnancy: Studies among adolescent and young adult women in the United States and Latin America have confirmed that lower SRPS scores prospectively predict higher rates of partner pregnancy pressure, contraceptive sabotage, and subsequent unplanned pregnancies.

4. Discriminant Validity

The SRPS demonstrates discriminant validity by maintaining low or negligible correlations with general demographic variables (such as minor age differences or parity) that do not directly measure dyadic interpersonal power. Furthermore, the scale reliably differentiates between general interpersonal assertiveness in public spheres and specific sexual negotiation capacity within the private dyad, demonstrating that generic self-esteem or trait assertiveness scales cannot serve as valid substitutes for measuring intimate relationship power.

Reliability

The reliability of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale has been substantiated across multiple psychometric assessments, examining internal consistency, split-half reliability, and temporal stability over time.

1. Internal Consistency

Internal consistency metrics, primarily evaluated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($lpha$), consistently demonstrate high reliability across diverse demographic samples:

• Developmental Cohort (Pulerwitz et al., 2000): Among Latina women in the United States, the overall 23-item SRPS composite scale demonstrated an alpha of .84. The 15-item Relationship Control (RC) subscale yielded an alpha of .83, and the 8-item Decision-Making Dominance (DMD) subscale yielded an alpha of .68. (Note: Because Decision-Making Dominance is comprised of fewer items measured on a narrower 3-point response format, an alpha approaching .70 meets established psychometric standards for behavioral indices).
• Sub-Saharan African Cohorts: In extensive validation studies conducted in South Africa (e.g., the IMAGE and Stepping Stones evaluation cohorts by Jewkes, Pronyk, and colleagues), the Relationship Control subscale consistently demonstrated Cronbach’s alphas between .78 and .86, while the Decision-Making Dominance subscale yielded alphas ranging from .65 to .75. Composite scale reliability routinely exceeded .85.
• Global Adaptations: In Brazil, translated Portuguese versions of the SRPS yielded an internal consistency of $lpha = .82$ for Relationship Control and $lpha = .71$ for Decision-Making Dominance. Similar robust metrics have been reported across validated adaptations in India ($lpha = .81$), Kenya ($lpha = .87$), and among rural populations in the United States ($lpha = .86$).

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Evaluations of test-retest reliability over two-to-four-week intervals in stable partnerships have yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from .75 to .88, indicating high temporal stability in established relationships where power balances remain undisturbed. Concurrently, intervention trials have confirmed that the SRPS exhibits appropriate sensitivity to change: when participants undergo targeted, months-long empowerment interventions, the scale captures statistically significant positive shifts in Relationship Control and Decision-Making Dominance compared to control arms.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale has been extensively evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), consistently confirming the theoretical two-factor oblique architecture.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the foundational scale construction phase, Pulerwitz et al. (2000) performed principal axis factoring with oblique (promax) rotation on an initial pool of candidate items administered to 388 Latina women. An oblique rotation was selected due to the theoretical expectation that dimensions of interpersonal power within an intimate relationship would be correlated rather than orthogonal.

The empirical EFA yielded a clear two-factor solution based on Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) and scree plot inspection:

• Factor 1: Relationship Control (RC): Accounted for the majority of the common variance (eigenvalue = 4.88). The 15 items loading onto this factor demonstrated substantial factor loadings, ranging from .36 to .71. Items capturing partner-enacted retribution regarding condom use (e.g., “If I asked my partner to use a condom, he would get angry“) and severe relational control (“My partner does what he wants, even if I do not want him to“) exhibited the highest loadings ($> .60$).
• Factor 2: Decision-Making Dominance (DMD): Accounted for a distinct secondary component of variance (eigenvalue = 1.95). The 8 items loading onto this factor exhibited loadings ranging from .35 to .64. Items assessing control over sexual initiation and condom implementation loaded cleanly on this factor without substantial cross-loadings onto Relationship Control.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Fit

Subsequent psychometric investigations in diverse global populations have employed CFA to evaluate model fit. Typical goodness-of-fit indices across published structural models confirm that the two-factor oblique model provides a superior fit to the data compared to a unidimensional single-factor model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranging between .91 and .96, exceeding the conventional .90 threshold for acceptable model fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Ranging between .90 and .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently falling between .038 and .055 (with 90% confidence intervals below .06), indicating excellent approximation and low residual error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Typically $le .05$.

Comparative model testing has repeatedly indicated that collapsing all 23 items into a single, global factor results in a profound degradation of model fit ($\Delta \chi^2, p < .001$; CFI drops below .80), validating the theoretical distinction between internal behavioral/emotional control (RC) and explicit, manifest decision-making authority (DMD).

3. Invariance Testing and Condom Item Adaptability

A critical consideration identified in factor-analytic studies involves the four items marked with double asterisks (Items 1, 2, 8, and 22), which explicitly reference condoms. Methodological research demonstrates that when the SRPS is administered in populations where condom use is irrelevant (e.g., mutually sterilized partnerships, couples actively attempting to conceive, or long-term monogamous marital dyads in cultures where condoms are strictly stigmatized), these four items can be removed. CFA invariance testing indicates that the 19-item version preserves the two-factor structure without loss of construct validity or structural integrity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Sexual Relationship Power Scale is a self-administered or interviewer-administered questionnaire consisting of 23 structured items divided into two operational subscales. Below is the structural breakdown of the test:

• Test Type: Multi-item self-report or interviewer-administered survey scale evaluating dyadic power dynamics and interpersonal control.
• Target Population: Sexually active individuals in heterosexual romantic partnerships, adolescent girls and young women, couples participating in sexual health interventions, and clinical populations at risk for IPV or STIs. (Adaptations for same-sex couples have also been developed in subsequent literature).
• Total Item Count: 23 items total (15 items in Relationship Control, 8 items in Decision-Making Dominance). Note: 4 items (Items 1, 2, 8, and 22) concern condom use and can be removed if condom use is not a relevant focus of the study.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Relationship Control (RC) Subscale: Items 1 through 15.
  • Decision-Making Dominance (DMD) Subscale: Items 16 through 23.
• Response Formats:
  • Items 1 to 15 (Relationship Control): 4-point Likert-type scale:
    • 1 = Strongly Agree
    • 2 = Agree
    • 3 = Disagree
    • 4 = Strongly Disagree
  • Items 16 to 23 (Decision-Making Dominance): 3-point categorical choice:
    • 1 = Your Partner
    • 2 = Both of You Equally
    • 3 = You
• Scoring and Transformation Protocol:
  • Relationship Control (RC) Scoring: In the original validation coding, items 1 to 15 are scored such that higher scores reflect higher power/control for the respondent. Because items 1 through 15 are phrased such that agreement indicates partner dominance or respondent subordination, the responses are coded as: Strongly Agree = 1, Agree = 2, Disagree = 3, Strongly Disagree = 4. Thus, higher numbers (3 and 4) directly reflect greater female power / absence of partner control. A mean score is calculated by summing the answered items and dividing by the number of completed items (ranging from 1.0 to 4.0).
  • Decision-Making Dominance (DMD) Scoring: Items 16 to 23 are scored such that Your Partner = 1, Both of You Equally = 2, and You = 3. In this scoring, a response of “Both of You Equally” (2) or “You” (3) represents higher female decision-making input relative to “Your Partner” (1). A mean score is calculated by summing the items and dividing by the number of items (ranging from 1.0 to 3.0).
  • SRPS Total Power Index (Composite Score): To combine the two subscales into an overall SRPS score, researchers standardly transform both subscales to a uniform metric (e.g., standardizing or dividing each subscale mean by its maximum possible score, or transforming them to a 1–4 scale) and then taking the average of the two subscale scores. Alternatively, researchers often categorize respondents into power tertiles (Low Power, Medium Power, High Power) based on sample distribution or standardized cut-offs to facilitate epidemiological odds-ratio analyses.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Relationship Power Scale was originally developed and published in the year 2000 by Dr. Julie Pulerwitz, Dr. Steven L. Gortmaker, and Dr. William DeJong in the peer-reviewed journal Sex Roles (Pulerwitz et al., 2000). The instrument was developed under the auspices of public health and academic research initiatives supported by academic institutions and international health programs.

The scale is situated in the public domain for academic, clinical, and non-commercial research purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required to administer, adapt, or translate the SRPS. Researchers and clinicians are granted permission to use the scale provided that full and appropriate academic citation is given to the original instrument developers (Pulerwitz, Gortmaker, & DeJong, 2000). For commercial enterprise deployments or proprietary digital diagnostic integration, prospective users should consult the primary author and the copyright policies of Springer Nature (the publisher of Sex Roles).

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. Free Press.
• Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.
• Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716
• Flood, M. (Comp.). (2008). Measures for the assessment of dimensions of violence against women: A compendium (pp. 12–13). Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI). http://www.svri.org/measures.pdf
• Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
• Jewkes, R. K., Dunkle, K., Nduna, M., & Shai, N. (2010). Intimate partner violence, relationship power inequity, and incidence of HIV infection in young women in South Africa: A cohort study. The Lancet, 376(9734), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60548-X
• Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3(2), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124389003002003
• Pettifor, A. E., Measham, D. J., Rees, H. V., & Padian, N. S. (2004). Sexual power and HIV risk, South Africa. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(11), 1996–2004. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1011.040252
• Pronyk, P. M., Hargreaves, J. R., Kim, J. C., Morison, L. A., Phetla, G., Watts, C., Busza, J., & Porter, J. D. (2006). Effect of a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate-partner violence and HIV in rural South Africa: A cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 368(9551), 1973–1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69744-9
• Pulerwitz, J., Gortmaker, S. L., & DeJong, W. (2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42(7/8), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007051506972
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.

Items of the Scale