What the RDP measures

The RDP (Relational Dynamics Profile) is a psychometric assessment for relational clarity, published by MKN Coaching. This page describes its structure, what it measures, and the limits it holds itself to.

The RDP in one block

The RDP (Relational Dynamics Profile), also called « Scan de Clarté Relationnelle », is a psychometric questionnaire for relational clarity published by MKN Coaching (Nantes, France). It comprises 72 items — 64 scaled items and 8 written answers — and produces a report across 9 scored dimensions, eight of them weighted in the global score, plus a categorical cognitive style that does not enter the score. Available in 6 languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean) with an identical item set, it takes 35 to 45 minutes and is intended for adults (18+), single or in a relationship. Its dimensions draw on research-based models — notably the ECR model for attachment and John Gottman's work on conflict. Its weighting is theoretical (version 1); empirical calibration is under way and no reliability figures are published yet. The RDP is not a diagnostic tool and does not predict the future of a relationship. Price: €29.90 (individual), €55.90 (couple, one price for two). Methodology v1.0 — published 11 July 2026, revised 18 October 2026.

A two-part questionnaire

The RDP is made up of 72 items: 64 quantitative items, scored on scales, and 8 narrative items, where the person answers in their own words.

Single people answer 66 of these items (59 quantitative and 7 narrative): the couple debrief module (6 additional items), reserved for people in a relationship, is not shown to them.

The questionnaire is available in 6 languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean), with an identical set of items verified in each. Taking it usually takes about 35 to 45 minutes.

The RDP is published by MKN Coaching (Malachie Kengne Njilo).

The founder

Malachie Kengne Njilo is a coach and the founder of MKN Coaching in Nantes, France. Trained in physiotherapy and then in psychosocial counselling in Cameroon, he worked there as a physiotherapist and psychotherapist, including at the medical and social centre of the French Embassy (2018-2022), while leading the Santé Pour Tous Foundation, which he founded in 2015. He holds a Master's degree (Master 2) in work and organizational psychology (University of Yaoundé I, 2022) and a French level-7 professional title in humanitarian programme coordination (Bioforce). Since 2023 he has supported employees of European companies as a mental health expert. He designed SENSAÏ and the RDP. In France he works as a coach and does not hold the title of psychologist or psychotherapist.

The 9 scored dimensions

The RDP scores 9 dimensions. The global score (maturity) is built from eight of them, weighted differently; declared patterns are shown for information and do not count in it. Here is what each one measures.

This weighting is a v1 theoretical weighting (clinical a priori); its empirical calibration is under way.

Emotional Regulation: The management of internal states in a relational context — the ability to move through tension without being overwhelmed by it or suppressing it.
Commitment Capacity: Investment in the long term of a relationship, beyond the intensity of the present moment.
Affective Openness: The ability to receive and give emotional intimacy within a relationship.
Attachment Security: The person's attachment profile (secure, anxious, avoidant, or fearful-avoidant), calculated on two axes: attachment anxiety and avoidance of closeness.
Emotional Intelligence: Reading and managing the emotions of others within a relationship.
Risk Patterns: Relational risk behaviors self-reported by the person. Shown for information, they do not count in the global score.
Values Clarity: Alignment on structuring fundamentals: family, geographic mobility, and the type of relationship structure envisioned.
Conflict Management: A measure informed by John Gottman's research on conflict dynamics in couples.
Intimacy Expression: The desires and needs the person expresses regarding intimacy.

Cognitive style (COM)

The questionnaire also measures a cognitive style, labeled COM: how a person perceives a situation, how they decide, and how they act.

This style is categorical — it describes a preference, never a score. It never enters the calculation of the global score across the 9 dimensions.

Level of evidence: what is established, what is in progress

This section states where each part of the instrument comes from and what it can — or cannot yet — guarantee. It is updated with every methodology version. To see how the RDP compares with other instruments, read the detailed comparison.

Established today:

Structure: 72 items in 6 languages, with an identical item set verified in each language, so results are comparable whatever the language of completion.
Constructs: each of the 9 dimensions rests on a published body of work. Attachment security uses the two axes of the ECR model (attachment anxiety, avoidance of closeness) from adult attachment research. Conflict management draws on John Gottman's work on conflict dynamics in couples. The other dimensions (emotional regulation, commitment, affective openness, emotional intelligence, risk patterns, clarity of values, intimacy) draw on the relationship-psychology literature; primary references per dimension are listed in the References section at the bottom of this page.
The report: the three-gap principle (current maturity, reliability index, roadmap) is applied identically to every completion, and the couple report is only produced with the explicit consent of both partners, which either can withdraw.
Limits: non-diagnostic, non-predictive, never a suggestion to separate or its opposite, prohibited in recruitment, HR or the assessment of a non-consenting third party. Classified "limited risk" under the EU AI Act.

Under calibration:

Weighting of the eight dimensions that make up the global score is a theoretical (clinical a priori) weighting, version 1. It will be tested against completion data once the target sample is reached.
Reliability: internal consistency per dimension and test-retest stability have not yet been measured on a sufficient sample. We publish no figure until it is obtained; results will be published here, with sample size, as soon as they are.

Calibration protocol: complete, de-identified completions feed a calibration base. At each sample milestone, three analyses are run: internal consistency per dimension, test-retest stability on retakes, and consistency between written answers and the scaled measurement. A methodology version is only published with its results, date and sample size. Earlier completions are never silently recomputed: any recomputation is explicitly flagged in the report.

Version history:

v1.0 — 11 July 2026 — Methodology published: 72-item structure, 9 dimensions, cognitive style, three-gap principle, limits.
v1.1 — 18 October 2026 — Summary block and this "Level of evidence" section added. No change to the measurement.

The three-gap principle

The RDP report is not reduced to a single score. It separates three distinct layers of reading.

Current maturity is the raw score across eight of the 9 dimensions described above (declared patterns are shown for information and do not count in it) — a snapshot of the present situation.

The reliability index measures the concordance between how a person describes themselves in their narrative answers and what the psychometric measure from the quantitative items shows. A large gap signals an area to clarify in the profile — never a judgment on the person.

The roadmap orders the priorities: first clarifying the gap between perception and measurement, if one exists, then working on the complementarity between the current profile and the type of relationship or partner sought.

What the RDP does NOT do

The RDP holds itself to strict limits, consistent with its "limited risk" classification under the EU AI Act.

It is not a medical device.
It is not a psychological or clinical diagnostic tool.
It does not predict the future of a relationship.
It never decides on behalf of the person answering.
It does not replace the support of a healthcare professional.
Its use is prohibited in a human resources context, for credit assessment, or for evaluating a third party who has not consented to being assessed.

References

Primary bibliographic references for the constructs borrowed by dimension. References only: no formula, no item, no new weight.

Emotional Regulation: Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. · Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54.
Commitment Capacity: Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. · Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387.
Affective Openness: Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 367–389). Wiley. · Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251.
Attachment Security: Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. · Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford. · Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365.
Emotional Intelligence: Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. · Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197–215.
Risk Patterns: Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
Values Clarity: Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Conflict Management: Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. · Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? Erlbaum. · Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81.
Intimacy Expression: Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(1), 47–60. · Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.
General framework (couple satisfaction and adjustment): Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28.
Cognitive style (COM): Categorical style, not scored; no validation reference is claimed.

Last updated: 2026-10-18

Learn more about the RDP