{{ leadNarrative }}
| Reading cue | Current signal | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| {{ row.cue }} | {{ row.item }} | {{ row.meaning }} |
This gauge keeps the score continuous from 7 to 35 and marks the midpoint at 21 instead of using unofficial severity bands.
The radar keeps all seven items in the same stronger-to-weaker direction so you can see which answers are carrying or constraining the total.
| # | Item | Raw response | Normalized | Reading cue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.id }} | {{ row.text }} | {{ row.rawResponse }} | {{ row.normalizedScore }}/5 | {{ row.cue }} |
Relationship satisfaction is a broad judgement about how well a partnership is meeting needs, matching expectations, and holding up under everyday strain. A brief structured check-in helps turn that vague feeling into something you can reflect on more calmly than the mood of a single argument or a single good weekend.
This assessment asks seven fixed relationship questions, scores each answer from 1 to 5, and then turns the completed set into a total score and an average from 1 to 5. The result appears with a plain-language band, a gauge, written highlights, and answer exports that make the snapshot easier to review later.
That makes the tool useful for private reflection, a recurring personal check-in, or a starting point for a careful conversation with a partner or a qualified professional. It is short enough to finish quickly, but detailed enough to show where the stronger and weaker parts of the current response pattern sit.
The result should still be read as a snapshot of recent experience rather than a verdict on the whole relationship. A low area can reflect stress, conflict, mismatch in expectations, or temporary pressure without proving that the relationship is beyond repair.
One privacy detail matters here. The scoring stays in the browser, but the current answer pattern is also encoded into the page URL so the assessment can reload in the same state. If you share the link, bookmark it on a shared device, or capture it in a screenshot, treat that URL as part of your response record.
The most useful way to take the assessment is to think about the last few weeks rather than one unusually good or bad day. That time window matches the tool's own instructions and makes repeat check-ins more comparable, especially if you revisit the questions after a conversation, a stressful month, or a change in routines.
As you answer, the page shows progress and keeps a clickable list of all seven items so you can revisit earlier responses before the score is finalized. When every item is answered, the results panel adds the average score, band label, overview cards, a gauge, written commentary, and a structured answer table that can be copied or exported.
| Result area | What it tells you | How to use it well |
|---|---|---|
| Average score and band | Your overall satisfaction snapshot on a 1 to 5 scale | Use it as the headline view, then check the item pattern before drawing conclusions |
| Gauge | A quick visual placement of the average score within the tool's full range | Helpful for seeing whether the score sits near a band boundary or clearly inside one band |
| Highlights and guide | Higher items, lower items, and follow-up prompts generated from the response pattern | Treat these as conversation starters, not as formal subscale diagnoses |
| Answer export | A copyable and downloadable record of the seven answers | Useful when you want to compare later results or discuss them in a more structured setting |
A practical pattern is to read the overall band first, then look at which specific items pulled the score up or down. Two people can land in the same band for different reasons. One person may feel strong commitment and affection but low fulfilment, while another may report moderate scores across almost every item.
If you repeat the assessment, try to keep the context similar each time: same timeframe, similar privacy, and the same response standards. Trends across repeated snapshots are usually more informative than obsessing over one decimal place on a single day.
The Relationship Assessment Scale is widely used as a brief relationship satisfaction measure. This implementation keeps the format short by using seven fixed items, each rated from 1 to 5, and computes a total from those answers. Item 6 asks about relationship problems, so the script reverse-scores that response before it is added to the other six items.
In plain terms, a higher answer normally raises the total, except for the problems question where a higher raw answer means more problems and therefore lowers the effective score after reversal. Once the seven item values are combined, the page divides the total by seven to produce the displayed average score.
| Band | Average range | How the tool frames it |
|---|---|---|
| Very Dissatisfied | Below 2.5 | Notable dissatisfaction is present and deserves closer reflection |
| Dissatisfied | 2.5 to below 3.0 | Some dissatisfaction is present and small changes may matter |
| Satisfied | 3.0 to below 4.0 | The response pattern suggests generally positive relationship satisfaction |
| Very Satisfied | 4.0 and above | The current snapshot is strongly positive overall |
The app also builds several helper themes from the answers. It averages the love and commitment items into a bond view, averages needs met and overall satisfaction into a fulfilment view, keeps expectations and peer comparison as their own signals, and converts the problems item into a positive "fewer problems" direction for commentary. These helper themes are generated from the script to make the result easier to discuss; they should not be confused with separate validated subscales from the published RAS literature.
The item wording in this implementation is fixed in the page code, so comparisons are safest within this tool over time. That matters because relationship measures can vary across versions, translations, and adaptations. If you are comparing scores from another questionnaire or another site, check the actual prompts and scoring rules rather than assuming every seven-item relationship satisfaction form is interchangeable.
From a privacy and behavior standpoint, the package does not send answers to a tool-specific backend. The scoring and written interpretation happen in the browser after the page loads. The main caution is the encoded URL state: the answer string is convenient for reloads, but it also means the link itself contains response information.
The band label is a readable summary, not the full story. Scores close to 3.0 or 4.0 are especially worth reading carefully because a small change in one item can move the label while the broader relationship pattern stays similar. That is why the item-by-item view and the written highlights matter.
Pay particular attention to item 6 if it feels like the result moved more than expected. A raw answer of 5 on the problems question does not help the score the way a 5 on the love or commitment questions does, because the tool reverses it before computing the total. In practice, high perceived problem load pulls the average down even when affection remains strong.
The peer comparison item also deserves caution. Feeling worse than "most" relationships may reflect context, social comparison, or unrealistic reference points rather than an objective relationship ranking. Treat that answer as one piece of the pattern, not as a verdict on whether the relationship is actually performing better or worse than other people's.
For repeat use, trends matter more than isolated snapshots. A steady rise in fulfilment or fewer-problems scores over several check-ins is more meaningful than one dramatic interpretation of a single session, especially during a stressful period.
Suppose the seven answers are 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, and 5. The problems item is reverse-scored, so the sixth response contributes 4 instead of 2. That gives a total of 30 and an average of about 4.29, which places the result in the tool's Very Satisfied band. In that pattern, strong affection and commitment combine with relatively low problem load, so the follow-up guidance is likely to focus on maintaining helpful habits rather than repairing a clear weak spot.
Now consider 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, and 3. After reversal, the sixth item contributes 2, so the total becomes 18 and the average becomes about 2.57. That falls in the Dissatisfied band. Even though affection is not absent, the result would still point to unmet needs, lower expectations fulfilment, and a heavier sense of problems, which is exactly why looking past one headline score can be more useful than reacting only to the band label.