Codependency Scale Test
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
- Never
- Sometimes
- Often
- Almost always
- Never
- Sometimes
- Often
- Almost always
- Never
- Sometimes
- Often
- Almost always
Codependency Scale Test - Description and methodology of the test
For readers examining recurring patterns in relationships, the Codependency Scale Test offers a focused way to consider how approval, responsibility, self-worth, and closeness may shape everyday choices. It is intended for people reflecting on their own relational habits, especially when they often prioritize others, doubt their judgment, or struggle to identify personal needs. Attention to relationship boundaries can help organize what the result brings into view.
What This Assessment Explores
This questionnaire examines codependent tendencies through responsibility, approval seeking, vulnerability, control, loyalty, and closeness. It suits readers reflecting on relationship habits; the items address interpersonal experience rather than a specific population.
The catalogue definition emphasizes a persistent need for approval, maintaining demeaning relationships, limited awareness of personal needs and desires, and difficulty with genuine intimacy. The result describes an interpersonal tendency, while codependency patterns may vary across relationships.
The result brings together these areas:
- Approval and external validation show how self-worth depends on others’ reactions.
- Emotional awareness and expression indicate how feelings are identified and communicated.
- Responsibility and boundaries reflect putting others first or carrying their emotions.
- Intimacy and stability capture vulnerability, control, mixed messages, and emotional chaos.
The displayed scale is Codependency, 20-80: Low 20-39, Moderate 40-59, High 60-80. These bands describe the overall tendency.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item offers four ordered choices-Never, Sometimes, Often, and Almost always. The questionnaire reports one Codependency score with the displayed bands; the item-to-score calculation is not specified. The format captures reported frequency, while the single displayed scale does not provide separate subscale totals.
Conceptually, this brief online questionnaire is consistent with the Codependency Self-Inventory Scale (Weinhold & Weinhold, 1989), but it is not presented as an adaptation of that published instrument. Cermak’s professional framework offers related language for responsibility, control, self-worth, and intimacy in dysfunctional relationships. The codependency questionnaire therefore works as a structured reflection tool rather than a reproduction of either source.
The 2025 study by Bulatevych and Lukyanets examined a Ukrainian version of Weinhold’s scale, while Marks et al. (2012) studied a different revised measure. Those publications provide construct context, not norms, reliability, or validation for this online version.
Interpretation should account for self-report limitations: current relationship circumstances, self-awareness, and the wish to appear favorably can influence answers. The result is best read alongside repeated experiences and the situations in which they occur.
- Weinhold, Barry K., and Janae B. Weinhold. Breaking Free of the Co-dependency Trap. Stillpoint, 1989. ISBN 0913299499.
- Bulatevych, N. M., and V. V. Lukyanets. "The Psychometric Properties of a Ukrainian Version of J. Weinhold's Codependency Scale ('How Codependent Are You?')." Ukrainian Psychological Journal, no. 1 (23), 2025, pp. 9-26. 10.17721/upj.2025.1(23).1
- Cermak, Timmen L. Diagnosing and Treating Co-dependence: A Guide for Professionals Who Work with Chemical Dependents, Their Spouses, and Children. Johnson Institute Books, 1986. ISBN 0935908323.
- Marks, Anthony D. G., Rebecca L. Blore, Donald W. Hine, and Greg E. Dear. "Development and Validation of a Revised Measure of Codependency." Australian Journal of Psychology, vol. 64, no. 3, 2012, pp. 119-127. 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00034.x
Updated: