About our questionnaires

A model describes concepts such as personality traits or career interests. A published instrument has a particular item set, response format, scoring method, and evidence for specific uses. This site implements local questionnaires. Using a model name or citing research does not make these questionnaires the published instrument.

This site implementation has not been empirically validated. No local reliability, test-retest, population-norm, or intended-use accuracy study is established here. Item-by-item sources, authorship and adaptation history, permissions, and affiliation have not been verified in the repository. These are unresolved evidence gaps, not proof that permission exists or that an infringement occurred.

Background sources below explain models, instruments, or testing standards. They do not endorse this site. No professional review credentials are claimed. A code check can confirm arithmetic and item coverage; it cannot establish psychological validity. See the evidence record for each exact form.

The owner still needs to decide whether to withhold the currently public forms while provenance, permissions, and measurement review are pending. Keeping them available is not a completed release review. Every item's source and signed scoring rationale still needs qualified review.

New result links identify separate item-bank, scoring, and interpretation revisions. Existing version-2 score links are assigned the recorded baseline for their exact form; older versionless links still require a retake. Unknown or incompatible revisions cannot be interpreted, even when trait names match. Withheld forms remain unavailable.

Compatible links use current interpretation text rather than preserving misleading historical claims. The original revision stays in the result data, alongside the displayed interpretation revision. A revised explanation does not recalculate scores. Versioning does not establish meaningful change between attempts.

Revision records were introduced on September 11, 2026. They record implementation history, not professional approval. Research acceptance still requires expert specifications, participant comprehension work, and a preregistered study with decision criteria for the exact form and intended use. No new answer history is collected for revision tracking. Known earlier drafts remain resumable when their exact questions, labels, trait keys, and scoring semantics still match. Incompatible drafts are not restored; retained copies may remain on your device until you clear this site's browser data.

Available questionnaires use five agreement choices. Scoring runs in your browser. Answers for each trait are combined on a 0-100 response scale. Some questions are scored in the opposite direction, so agreeing lowers rather than raises the score. Each question's assigned weight controls how much it contributes to the average. A neutral answer contributes 50.

These are response-scale scores, not population percentiles, percentages of your personality, probabilities, or clinical cutoffs. Display bands are labels for parts of that scale. Small gaps and changes between attempts may not be meaningful. Tied rankings do not establish a single dominant trait.

Context, mood, interpretation of English wording, and self-report biases can affect answers. Short and standard forms are separate local item sets; equal precision or interchangeable results have not been established. Question counts come from the registry; duration estimates assume 5-10 seconds per question and are not time limits.

Use these only for voluntary, educational, nonclinical self-reflection. They cannot diagnose a condition, judge moral character, or measure demonstrated ability. Do not use them to hire or select people, award promotions, determine eligibility, or make educational placement decisions. They are not validated for children or other languages.

Career-interest responses are not proof of skills, job fit, or future success. RIASEC includes mixed self-ratings of interests, ability, and work style. Its optional recommendations are exploration prompts, not a Holland Code or occupation matching. Consider practical experience and constraints when exploring work. You can disagree with a result, skip an exercise, or stop if it feels uncomfortable. An ill-fitting result is not evidence of poor self-awareness. For persistent distress, seek qualified support rather than relying on a questionnaire.