The Relationship Quality Interview: Evidence of Reliability, Convergent and Divergent Validity, and Incremental Utility Erika Lawrence, Robin A. Barry, Rebecca L. Brock, Mali Bunde, Amie Langer, Eunyoe Ro, Emily Fazio, Lorin Mulryan, Sara Hunt, Lisa Madsen, and Sandra Dzankovic The University of Iowa 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 assess- ment 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 observa- tion 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 (cor- relations 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. Keywords: relationship quality, interview, couple therapy, couple assessment Over the past 60 years, relationship adjustment and satisfaction have been the target outcomes for almost all couple research and therapies. However, there has also been considerable confusion over the differences among the terms relationship satisfaction, adjustment, and quality. Relationship satisfaction refers to global sentiment or happiness as a unitary construct. Relationship adjust- ment is broader in scope and includes satisfaction and a consider- ation of dyadic processes, such as conflict. Relationship quality refers to dyadic processes alone, such as the quality of a couple’s conflict management skills, supportive transactions, sexual rela- tions, or emotional intimacy (see Snyder, Heyman, & Haynes, 2005, for a detailed discussion). Researchers and clinicians typi- cally assess relationship adjustment with omnibus self-report ques- tionnaires in which partners evaluate multiple aspects of their relationships, such as global sentiment, degree of conflict, and sexual relations (e.g., the Marital Adjustment Test, Locke & Wal- lace, 1959; the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Spanier, 1976). Rela- tionship satisfaction is measured with shorter, unidimensional This article was published Online First January 31, 2011. Erika Lawrence, Robin A. Barry, Rebecca L. Brock, Mali Bunde, Amie Langer, Eunyoe Ro, Emily Fazio, Lorin Mulryan, Sara Hunt, Lisa Madsen, and Sandra Dzankovic, Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa. Robin A. Barry is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Maryland Baltimore County; Mali Bunde is now at CIGNA, Eden Prairie, Minnesota; Eunyoe Ro is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame; Emily Fazio is now in the Counseling Psychology Pro- gram, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver; Lorin Mul- ryan is now in independent practice, Bloomington, Indiana; Sara Hunt is now at Sacred Heart Medical Center, Springfield, Oregon; Lisa Madsen is now at the Department of Psychiatry, Emory University; Sandra Dzankovic is now at Mercy Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa. Portions of this article were presented at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies Conference in November 2004, in Lawrence, Brock, Barry, Langer, and Bunde’s (2009) book chapter, and in Lawrence et al.’s (2008) article. At this conference and in these publications, only descriptions of RQI domains and coding criteria were presented. This is the first publication to include data or analyses of the psychometric properties of the interview. Data collection and analyses were supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49 CCR721682 and R49 CE721682), the National Institute for Child and Human Development (RO1 HD046789), and The University of Iowa. We thank Erin Adams, Ashley Anderson, Katie Barnett, Sara Boeding, Jill Buchheit, Katherine Collins, Katherine Conlon Fasselius, Jodi Dey, Christina Dowd, Ani Gafka, Emily Georgia, Katherine Hahn, Dailah Hall, Emma Heetland, Victoria Hilton, David Hoak, Julie Huinker, Matthew Kishinami, Jor- dan Koster, Casey Manning, Deborah Moore-Henecke, Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo, Ashley Pederson, Luke Peterson, Polly Peterson, Mary Pietryga, Ashley Rink, Katherine Rockey, Heidi Schwab, Jodi Siebrecht, Brittany Urbain, Abby Waltz, Grace White, Shaun Wilkin- son, Nai-Jin Yang, Jeung Eun Yoon, and Katherine Young-Kent for their assistance with developing the interview and scoring system and their assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erika Lawrence, Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa, 11 Sea- shore Hall East, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407. E-mail: erika-lawrence@ uiowa.edu Psychological Assessment © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 23, No. 1, 44 – 63 1040-3590/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021096 44