Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI)巴雷莱纳关系问卷简介 简版

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI)


In 1956, Barrett-Lennard was a graduate student at the Counseling  Center of the University of Chicago looking for a topic for his doctoral thesis,  when Rogers first circulated his theoretical formulation of the relationship conditions  (one year before its publication). For his doctoral research, Barrett-Lennard decided  to test Rogers‘ theory with actual clients in therapy (Barrett-Lennard, 1959). However,  there were yet no measures of the therapist-to-client relationship conditions  and then Barrett-Lennard had to ‘invent them from the ground up’ (Barrett-Lennard,  2002, p. 65). Barrett-Lennard reasoned that the relationship ‘as experienced by  the client would be most crucially related to the outcome of therapy’ (Barrett-Lennard,  2002, p. 67).Consequently, he decided to focus his instrument on the client’s  perceptions of the therapist’s attitudes in the relationship, supplemented by the therapist’s  views of his/her own responses.

Description of the instrument

The BLRI comprises four subscales: ‘Empathic Understanding共情式理解’, ‘Level  of Regard关注程度’, ‘Unconditionality无条件性’, and ‘Congruence一致性’. Barrett-Lennard (1962) considered  that the concept of Unconditional Positive Regard (UPR) could not be treated  as a unitary dimension or single variable, and therefore he separated UPR into  two distinct variables: ‘Level of Regard’ and ‘Unconditionality’. In the initial  version of the instrument, Barrett-Lennard (1962) had included a fifth variable  called ‘Willingness to be known’ but the results for this variable were ambiguous and  he decided to drop it from later versions of the inventory. However, some elements  of this scale were absorbed into the Congruence dimension (Barrett-Lennard, 1978, 1986).

The BLRI is structured as a self-report questionnaire, with a six-point  bipolar rating scale ranging from -3 (‘NO, I strongly feel that it is not  true’) to +3 (‘YES , I strongly feel that it is true’). The 64-item BLRI (Barrett-Lennard,  1978), the version most widely used today (Barrett-Lennard, 1998; 2003), contains 16  items (8 positively worded and 8 negatively worded) for each of the four sub-scales.  Examples of items from the 64-item client form (Other-to-Self, or OS) are presented  in the table below.

Clients are asked to mentally insert the name of the therapist in  the underlined space in each item.



37. Level of Regard (+)

______ is friendly and warm toward me.

33. Level of Regard (-)

______ just tolerates me.

30. Empathic Understanding (+)

_____ realises what I mean even when I havedifficulty in saying it.

58. Empathic Understanding (-)

______’s response to me is usually so fixed and automatic that I don’t get through to him/her.

51. Unconditionality (+)

Whether thoughts and feelings I express are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ makes no difference to ______’s feeling toward me.

11. Unconditionality (-)

Depending on the way I am, ______ has a better (or  worse) opinion of me sometimes than at other times.

12. Congruence (+)

I feel that ______ is real and genuine with me.

52. Congruence (-)

There are times when I feel that ______’s outward response to me is quite different from the way he/she feels underneath.

The items in the therapist’s form (‘Myself-to-the-Other’, or MO)  are worded in the first person for therapists to describe their response to their  clients. These items are equivalent to the items in the client’s form (Barrett-Lennard, 1986).  However, this equivalence is not exact because that would make the items sound  ‘unnatural’ (Barrett-Lennard, 2002, p.71). The following examples (see over) of the therapist’s  form (MO) correspond to like-numbered items in the client’s form (OS)  listed above.


The first version (1962) of the BLRI consisted of 85 items, but  since then the instrument has undergone a number of modifications, which have resulted  in a considerable reduction in the number of items. These modifications  have primarily been directed toward enhancing the wording of the items and reducing  response bias by balancing positively and negatively stated items. However, the  essential structure and rationale of the various versions are identical to the original  one (Barrett-Lennard, 2002; 2003).



37. Level of Regard (+)

I feel friendly and warm toward ______ .

33. Level of Regard (-)

 I put up with ______ .

30. Empathic Understanding (+)

 I can tell what ______ means, even when he/she has difficulty in saying it.

58. Empathic Understanding (-)

I often respond to ______ rather automatically,