Fiorenzo Ranieri
The MRO Test (Object Relations Model) was published in 1984. It is a test for preadolescents belonging to the family of sentence completion tests. As with other instruments in this category, the subject is asked to complete a series of sentence stems by writing whatever spontaneously comes to mind. The task makes it possible to assess both the explicit content of the responses and the ways in which the subject organises his or her relational world. The test is no longer commercially available, but in my view it continues to be useful for exploring the inner world and relationships of preadolescents. In this post (*) I provide information on the administration and interpretation of the test, an updated version of the questionnaire (LINK) and an Excel spreadsheet to support the interpretation of the data (LINK).
The MRO
The MRO was developed to explore the object relations model of preadolescents and is particularly suitable for the 12 to 14 age range, although it may also be used, with appropriate clinical caution, at neighbouring ages. It can be administered individually or in groups and generally requires a relatively short amount of time.
The protocol consists of 42 sentence stems to be completed, organised to explore different areas of relational experience. Some examples are:
– My mother and I ……
– When I feel guilty about something ……
– When I talk to my father ……
– When someone treats me badly ……
The items concern four broad psychological dimensions:
- the relationship with the Self (frustration, future, past, fear and guilt);
- family relationships (mother, father and family);
- the psychosexual area (man, woman and couple);
- interpersonal relationships (friendship, inferiority and superiority).
The purpose of the test is not to assess the correctness or “objective” content of the responses, but to understand how the subject represents the self and others, the ways in which relational experiences are approached, and the level of integration shown in the construction of emotional bonds.
In the original 1984 manual, each response was assessed from three complementary perspectives (Experienced Ego, Ego Efficiency and Ego Definition), using a seven-level scale (scores from 1 to 7) describing the quality of the relationship with the object evoked by the item. In the original version of the test, the integration of these scores made it possible to outline the subject’s relational profile and to place it within specific interpretative configurations proposed by the authors.
In clinical practice, however, the value of the MRO does not lie exclusively in its scoring system. Individual responses often provide rich narrative material that can reveal significant aspects of mental functioning, internal representations of attachment figures, defensive patterns, developmental conflicts and expectations regarding relationships. For this reason, the test can be used both as an instrument of clinical psychodiagnostic assessment and in forensic psychology, where it may provide useful information within a multidimensional assessment of personality and relational functioning.
This page presents a linguistic revision of the original protocol, together with an operational tool designed to facilitate its clinical and psychodiagnostic use. Since many of the original sentence stems use language rooted in cultural models that are now outdated, the questionnaire has been revised through the reformulation of numerous items.
Clinical interpretation of the protocol
The scoring system described in the original manual represents one way of reading the MRO, but it does not exhaust its clinical potential. In psychodiagnostic practice, the value of the test lies above all in the richness of the narrative material produced by the subject and in the possibility of reconstructing, through the responses, the way in which the person represents the self and significant relationships.
Incomplete sentences act as stimuli that encourage the free expression of the personal world. Responses should not simply be regarded as statements about external reality, but as expressions of internal representations, emotional investments, conflicts and the ways in which the subject organises object relations.
Interpretation of the protocol therefore requires a psychodynamic and relational reading that integrates the content of individual responses with their meaning within the protocol as a whole. No single response has diagnostic value in itself; rather, it is the overall configuration of responses that allows hypotheses to be formulated regarding personality functioning and predominant relational patterns.
Interpretation of the protocol does not follow a mechanical procedure. The clinician progressively constructs a hypothesis of functioning by relating the responses to one another, testing and modifying that hypothesis throughout the reading of the entire protocol.
A possible method of interpretation
It may be useful to proceed through a number of successive steps.
- Reading by dimensions
As a first step, it is useful to group together responses belonging to the same thematic area. In particular, all items concerning the father may be read consecutively, followed by those concerning the mother, the family, the Self, interpersonal relationships and the psychosexual dimension.
This mode of reading makes it easier to identify the relational model that the subject constructs in relation to different significant figures.
For example, the three responses concerning the father may outline a coherent image or reveal contradictory, ambivalent or markedly split aspects. The same applies to the representation of the mother, the family or the other areas explored by the test.
- Identification of predominant affective themes
The next step is to identify the emotional themes that recur most frequently.
Among the aspects that may deserve particular attention are:
- idealisation or devaluation of significant figures;
- dependency or search for protection;
- anger, hostility or aggression;
- fear, guilt or shame;
- need for control;
- feelings of exclusion, inferiority or inadequacy;
- trust or mistrust in relationships;
- positive or negative expectations regarding the future.
The aim is not to classify individual responses, but to understand the emotional atmosphere that characterises the protocol.
- Identification of recurring themes
One of the most interesting features of the MRO is the possibility of observing how the same theme emerges in items belonging to different dimensions.
For example, a father represented as a reassuring figure in items belonging to the Family dimension may spontaneously reappear in sentences concerning fear (“When I am afraid…”), difficulties (“When things go wrong…”) or the future (“When I grow up…”).
Such convergences strengthen the hypothesis that the observed representation constitutes a stable element of the subject’s relational functioning.
- Analysis of inconsistencies and ambivalences
Apparent contradictions may also be particularly significant.
It is not uncommon for the same figure to be described through both positive and negative aspects, or for the subject to alternate between idealisation and devaluation.
Such oscillations should not necessarily be regarded as inconsistencies or errors. They may represent developmental modes of mental functioning, internal conflicts that have not yet been integrated, or defences against emotionally complex experiences.
Omissions, highly stereotyped responses, refusals or difficulties in completing certain sentences may also acquire clinical significance when interpreted within the protocol as a whole.
- Formulation of the clinical hypothesis
The final step consists in integrating all the elements that have emerged into an overall clinical formulation.
The interpretative hypothesis should describe the way in which the subject organises significant relationships, highlighting the main developmental resources, areas of greater vulnerability, predominant defensive patterns and aspects requiring further investigation.
Conclusions do not derive from simply adding together individual responses, but from integrating them into a coherent model of psychological functioning.
Some interpretative criteria
In clinical practice, it may be useful to include the most significant responses in the psychodiagnostic report, organised according to thematic areas.
For example, responses concerning the father, mother and family often make it possible to understand how the subject represents attachment figures.
A strongly positive representation of the father, accompanied by responses indicating a search for comfort (“When I am afraid… I go to my father”; “When things go wrong… I turn to my father”), suggests the presence of a figure perceived as protective and available. If this image is accompanied, within the same protocol, by a markedly negative representation of the mother (“I think my mother… is not good at being a mother at all”; “If I were in charge… I would no longer want my mother”), interpretation should consider both the possible idealisation of the paternal figure and the devaluation of the maternal figure, evaluating the meaning of this polarisation within the subject’s history and family context.
Other protocols may reveal marked ambivalence. A girl may describe her mother as someone who “makes me feel good” while simultaneously defining her as “strange”; she may represent the family as “calm” but also as “crazy” or “the most messed-up one”. In these cases, the clinically relevant issue is not to determine which response is “true”, but to understand how positive and negative aspects of the same relationship coexist within the internal representation.
The MRO also makes it possible to observe transversal themes that run throughout the entire protocol. Feelings of fear, isolation, shame, mistrust, aggression or need for protection may appear in numerous responses belonging to different dimensions, thereby contributing to the definition of a specific relational style.
Finally, every interpretation should be formulated as a clinical hypothesis rather than as a definitive conclusion. The indications provided by the protocol acquire meaning only when integrated with the clinical interview, direct observation, anamnestic information and any other psychodiagnostic instruments used. The MRO is therefore a tool for understanding a person’s relational functioning and not a test designed to assign diagnostic labels.
Evaluation of responses and scoring
The qualitative reading of the protocol constitutes the central stage of MRO interpretation. Scoring, by contrast, is a synthesis tool that allows the relational orientation expressed by the subject toward the object evoked by each item to be described in a simple and comparable form.
The purpose of scoring is not to transform the test into a quantitative measure of personality, but to facilitate an overall reading of the protocol by highlighting the main affective polarities and allowing comparisons between the different areas explored by the test.
The approach presented here draws on the rating scale developed by Anna Riva for the Sacks Sentence Completion Test and subsequently adopted and further developed by Massimo Grasso and Giuseppe Ardizzone in the construction of the MRO. While retaining the original test manual as a reference, for operational purposes only the scale relating to the quality of the relationship with the object is used, as this component is considered the most informative for clinical assessment.
The rating scale
The scale consists of seven levels, organised along a continuum describing how the subject experiences the relationship with the object evoked by the item.
Negative relational orientation (scores 1–3)
The first three levels describe a relationship characterised by different degrees of difficulty.
Score 1 – Expresses a profoundly impaired relationship, characterised by hostility, resentment, rejection, destructive aggression or an evident rupture of the bond with the object.
Score 2 – Indicates a significantly negative orientation in which mistrust, misunderstanding, insecurity, low regard or major relational difficulties predominate.
Score 3 – Expresses a mildly negative relationship characterised by criticism, dissatisfaction, emotional distance or moderate relational difficulty, without complete rupture of the relationship.
Neutral or indeterminate relational orientation (score 4)
A score of 4 identifies a response that does not show a clear affective direction.
The response may be mainly descriptive, emotionally neutral, only weakly involved at the relational level, or evasive in relation to the proposed stimulus. In such cases, no prevailing orientation toward either a positive or a negative representation of the object can be identified.
In the MRO manual, score 4 also includes responses characterised by marked ambivalence, in which positive and negative aspects of the relationship coexist without either prevailing. Although assigned a score of 4, such responses always deserve specific consideration in the qualitative interpretation of the protocol.
Positive relational orientation (scores 5–7)
Higher scores describe a relationship characterised by progressively stronger positive investment in the object.
Score 5 – Indicates liking, esteem, availability, trust or an initial positive orientation toward the relationship.
Score 6 – Expresses a clearly positive relationship characterised by understanding, reciprocity, trust, friendship, affection or love.
Score 7 – Indicates a possibly excessively positive representation of the object, characterised by full acceptance, optimism or idealisation. The absence of critical aspects makes it advisable to consider carefully whether the represented relationship reflects genuine integration or an idealising defence.
Score 0
In addition to the main scale, a score of 0 may be used for responses that do not allow an assessment of the relationship.
This category includes no response, incomprehensible or linguistically inadequate responses, content unrelated to the stimulus, obvious avoidance of the item, and completions that do not allow any relationship with the object to be identified.
Score 0 is not included in the calculation of mean scores, but it nevertheless represents clinically significant information. A high number of omissions or non-evaluable responses may indicate poor interpretability of the protocol, difficulty engaging with the task, or defensive patterns deserving further clinical investigation.
Some cautions
Assigning scores inevitably requires clinical judgement. Many responses are easily classified; others may reasonably be assigned to different levels by different raters while still sharing the same overall interpretation.
For this reason, the scoring system should not be considered an automatic procedure or an objective measure of personality. Rather, it is a tool supporting clinical interpretation, useful for organising the information contained in the protocol and facilitating the reading of the different relational areas.
Scores acquire meaning only when integrated with the content of the responses, the clinical interview and any other psychodiagnostic instruments employed.
To facilitate the use of the MRO in clinical and psychodiagnostic practice, an Excel spreadsheet can be downloaded. It automatically organises the scores, calculates indices for the fourteen subscales and the four dimensions of the test, and provides a concise representation of the subject’s relational profile. The program does not replace clinical interpretation of the protocol, but provides operational support designed to reduce calculation errors and facilitate an overall reading of the results.
The scoring sheet can be downloaded from this link. Save the file using the subject’s name or identification code, then enter the score assigned to each item from 1 to 42 in column B of the “Inserimento” sheet. The “Profilo” sheet will generate percentages for each dimension and subgroup, together with indicators highlighting significant responses:
|
■ |
presence of a score of 1 |
|
▲ |
presence of a score of 7 |
|
○ |
presence of a score of 4 |
|
× |
presence of a score of 0 |
In the “Grafici” sheet, charts will be displayed, with scores oriented in a negative direction up to rejection shown in RED and scores oriented in a positive direction up to idealisation shown in BLUE.
The charts produced in the “Grafici” sheet allow a rapid visualisation of the subject’s orientations toward the different objects in his or her relational world.
Essential references
Antonietti, A., Monnier, A. S., Gatti, E., & Fabio, R. A. (2010). Le dinamiche emotivo-relazionali in pre-adolescenti con disturbi dell’attenzione. Psicologia clinica dello sviluppo, 14(2), 359-378.
Ardizzone, M., Grasso, M. (1984) MRO. Modello delle relazioni d’oggetto. Frasi da completare per la valutazione delle relazioni oggettuali in adolescenza. Giunti O.S. (Organizzazioni Speciali).
Grasso, M., Ardizzone, M., Mucelli, R., Branca, F., Nuzzolo, L., & Iodice, A. (1991). Adolescenza e Prevenzione. Indagine sperimentale sui cluster a rischio e sulla loro valenza psicodinamica. Prospettive psicoanalitiche nel lavoro istituzionale, vol. 9, n. 2 (maggio-agosto), pp. 179-196.
Riva, A. (1989). Il reattivo nelle frasi da completare di Sacks e coll. nella psicodiagnostica di tipo “clinico”. Giunti O.S. (Organizzazioni Speciali)
Rossi, T. S. (2006). Percezione della stima di sé in adolescenza: dalla dimensione del sé alla relazione con l’altro. Studi urbinati: Scienze umane e sociali. B, 76, 181
(*) I would like to thank Dr Giulia Osimo for her reflections and contributions to this revision work.