ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the 24-item and 12-item real relationship inventory-client forms.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How recent psychological distress relates to session quality in psychotherapy: The mediating roles of the real relationship and working alliance.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2026Article
- Psychological, psychiatric, and behavioral sciences measurement scales: best practice guidelines for their development and validation.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study assessed the psychometric properties of the long (24 items) and brief (12 items) versions of the Real Relationship Inventory-Client (RRI-C) in a United States sample. The RRI-C is the most used quantitative measure of the real relationship construct, yet its psychometric properties have not been explored outside its development studies. A sample of 700 adults in individual psychotherapy was recruited in the study and filled out a comprehensive battery of measures. Analytical techniques included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), multigroup CFA, multigroup factor analysis alignment, item response theory, internal reliability assessments, Bland-Altman regression analysis, and calculation of reliable change benchmark thresholds. Both RRI-C versions demonstrated a bifactor structure encompassing Genuineness and Realism dimensions. The bifactor ESEM model provided strong fit: χ2[210] = 482.464, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.043, SRMR = 0.020 for the 24-item RRI-C; χ2[45] = 111.916, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.046, SRMR = 0.028 for the 12-item RRI-C. McDonald's omega total was 0.97 and 0.95 respectively. The correlation between the total scores of the two versions was r = 0.98; the average discrepancy was 1.85 points higher for the comprehensive version with a slope of -0.013 (p = 0.12). Both versions showed functionally identical reliability and factor structure when therapy is online vs. in-person. Significant correlations were found between the RRI-C and the Working Alliance Inventory (r = 0.68 and r = 0.67 for the 24-item and 12-item versions, respectively, both p < .001) and the Session Evaluation Scale (r = 0.62 and r = 0.58, respectively, both p < 0.001). This study substantiates the sound psychometric properties of the 24-item and 12-item RRI-C.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.