Is My Husband Controlling 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
Is My Husband Controlling Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
People who feel pressured to explain their movements, surrender privacy, or manage a partner’s reactions may use the Is My Husband Controlling Quiz to organize what they are noticing. It is intended for adults reflecting on a marriage or intimate partnership. The result highlights patterns involving autonomy, monitoring, isolation, and conflict. As a relationship control assessment, this quiz can turn vague concern into specific areas for reflection and boundary-setting.
What This Assessment Explores
The questionnaire examines repeated behaviors that narrow choice or make disagreement feel unsafe. Items address privacy, friends and family, work or education, money, transport, schedules, digital activity, accusations, punishment, pressure, and threats. These items identify patterns affecting autonomy and decisions.
Results cover three dimensions:
- Conflict & Coercion (0-30) shows whether disagreements involve respectful problem-solving or jealousy, intimidation, guilt, threats, and forced decisions; bands are Respectful conflict 0-10, Mixed/pressured conflict 11-20, and Coercive conflict 21-30.
- Control & Monitoring (0-30) measures demands for whereabouts, updates, phone access, or proof of loyalty; bands are Low 0-10, Moderate 11-20, and High 21-30.
- Isolation & Restriction (0-30) reflects limits on relationships, activities, money, transport, work, or opportunities; bands are Low 0-9, Moderate 10-19, and High 20-30.
The profile clarifies controlling behavior in the relationship.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each self-report statement offers Strongly disagree, Disagree, Not sure, or Agree. Items are grouped by theme and combined into dimension scores; higher results indicate more coercive conflict, persistent monitoring, or restrictions on autonomy. The questionnaire does not specify item-level points, so ranges cannot show how responses are weighted.
Its closest conceptual reference is the Coercive Control Measure (Dutton, Goodman, and Schmidt, 2005). The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with that work, not a direct adaptation. Dutton and Goodman (2005) and Tolman (1989) address coercion, psychological maltreatment, pressure, isolation, and intimidation. Digital checks and monitoring also overlap with technology-facilitated abuse examined by Brown and Hegarty (2021).
These bands are the questionnaire’s result categories and should not be treated as validated population norms or clinical thresholds unless documentation specifically supports that claim. Results can be shaped by memory, current circumstances, self-awareness, and willingness to disclose sensitive experiences, so readers should consider the concrete behaviors behind the score rather than treating it as a diagnosis. The profile can help organize concerns and identify relationship control patterns to reflect on when considering boundaries or support.
- Dutton, Mary Ann, Lisa Goodman, and R. James Schmidt. Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence: Final Technical Report. COSMOS Corporation, prepared for the National Institute of Justice, 2005.
- Dutton, Mary Ann, and Lisa A. Goodman. "Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization." Sex Roles 52, nos. 11-12 (2005): 743-756. 10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6
- Tolman, Richard M. "The Development of a Measure of Psychological Maltreatment of Women by Their Male Partners." Violence and Victims 4, no. 3 (1989): 159-177.
- Brown, Cynthia, and Kelsey Hegarty. "Development and Validation of the TAR Scale: A Measure of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships." Computers in Human Behavior Reports 3 (2021): 100059. 10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100059
Updated: