Do I Want a Divorce Quiz

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
Do I Want a Divorce Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
If you are torn between continuing the marriage and preparing to leave, the Do I Want a Divorce Quiz gives you a structured way to examine that uncertainty. This marriage decision self-assessment is intended for people reflecting on their own relationship, especially when emotion makes competing priorities hard to separate. Its profile can support clearer self-reflection and a more focused conversation about what you want next.
What This Assessment Explores
Questions cover desire to end the marriage, emotional safety and trust, and repair potential, including detachment, future imagery, boundaries, conflict, apology, and willingness to change. The result is a profile organized around these dimensions:
- Divorce Readiness (0-40) shows how persistent the desire is to end the marriage: Low readiness (0-13), Mixed/uncertain (14-26), or High readiness (27-40).
- Emotional Safety & Trust (0-30) reflects respect, reliability, security, and trust; lower results suggest fear, volatility, betrayal, or chronic insecurity: Low safety & trust (0-14), Moderate safety & trust (15-23), or High safety & trust (24-30).
- Relationship Repair Potential (0-40) reflects willingness and practical pathways to improve, repair conflict, rebuild trust, or seek help; lower results suggest feeling stuck: Low repair potential (0-13), Moderate repair potential (14-27), or High repair potential (28-40).
A relationship decision assessment highlights which part of the situation needs attention now.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item asks for a self-report judgment about a recurring experience. Most use Strongly disagree, Disagree, Not sure, and Agree; some use Never, Rarely, Sometimes, and Often. Responses are combined into three profile totals, so results depend on honest recall, current circumstances, and the respondent’s interpretation of the relationship.
The closest comparison is the Revised Divorce Initiation Inventory (DII-R), which distinguishes persistent desire to leave from general dissatisfaction. This questionnaire is conceptually consistent with that work, not presented as a direct adaptation. Harris and colleagues connect divorce decision-making with clarity and confidence, while Allen and Hawkins describe divorce or reconciliation as an evolving process.
Galovan and colleagues’ study is relevant to the repair dimension because it examined personal, self-help, and professional relationship-repair behaviors among people considering divorce. Together, these sources support the questionnaire’s focus on readiness, safety, and pathways to change, but they do not validate these exact items or establish norms for this online format. A relationship repair assessment like this can guide reflection and conversation; it cannot decide whether divorce is right or establish safety by itself.
- Parker, M. L., Diamond, R. M., Ledermann, T., & Tambling, R. R. (2022). The beginning of the end: A revised inventory of divorce initiation. Family Relations, 71(4), 1619-1636. 10.1111/fare.12660
- Harris, S. M., Crabtree, S. A., Bell, N. K., Allen, S. M., & Roberts, K. M. (2017). Seeking Clarity and Confidence in the Divorce Decision-Making Process. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 58(2), 83-95. 10.1080/10502556.2016.1268015
- Galovan, A. M., Hawkins, A. J., Harris, S. M., & Simpson, D. M. (2022). What are they doing? A national survey of help-seeking and relationship-repair behavior of individuals who are thinking about divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(2), 371-390. 10.1111/jmft.12480
- Allen, S., & Hawkins, A. J. (2017). Theorizing the Decision-Making Process for Divorce or Reconciliation. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(1), 50-68. 10.1111/jftr.12176
Updated: