Every PsychIQ assessment is built on a published, validated framework, scored with a transparent method, and shown to you in full — for free. Here is exactly how that works, test by test.
Every PsychIQ assessment is grounded in published, peer-reviewed frameworks — the same ones used by clinicians, universities, and researchers worldwide. We don't invent pseudo-science to sell you a subscription. We implement the real thing, and we show our work.
Embedded validity items also score the consistency and honesty of your answers, so we can lower the confidence rating and tell you when a result looks unreliable — the kind of check serious assessments use.
A side-by-side look at how PsychIQ is built — full results free, methodology shown, your answers scored privately on your device.
55 assessments, each grounded in published research. Here is what every one of them measures and the instrument or theory it draws on.
A 35-item, purely visual reasoning test in the progressive-matrix tradition: every puzzle is a 3×3 matrix of figures with one cell missing, six answer options, no words or numbers anywhere, and a hard 25-minute time limit. Difficulty ramps from simple rotations to multi-rule distributions and overlay set-logic, exactly like the progressive-matrix tradition (Raven's) those tests descend from. All items are original and generated from verified transformation rules — the keyed answer is correct by construction — and the test ships in 10 parallel forms that rotate every take, so you never see the same puzzles twice. Your result is an estimated IQ on the standard 100-mean / 15-SD scale, shown as a range (about ±8 points) to reflect normal measurement error. A challenging educational estimate — only a proctored, professionally normed test yields an official IQ.
An ability-based test of emotional intelligence built on the four-branch Mayer–Salovey–Caruso model (MSCEIT): perceiving emotions, using emotions to aid thinking, understanding how emotions work, and managing emotions in yourself and others. Unlike 'rate yourself' quizzes, every item is a real situation with a more and a less emotionally intelligent response, scored against the consensus of emotion research — so your score reflects skill you demonstrate, not how skilled you believe you are. For education and self-reflection, not a clinical measure.
A 40-item cognitive aptitude test modeled on John B. Carroll's Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) framework, which isolates four independent abilities that predict how quickly a person acquires a foreign language: phonetic coding (mapping unfamiliar sounds to symbols and back, and holding them in memory), grammatical sensitivity (perceiving the function a word plays in a sentence regardless of its meaning), rote associative memory (rapidly bonding new sound-strings to meanings and retrieving them under interference), and inductive language learning (inferring grammatical rules from a handful of examples and applying them to new cases). The memory and induction items run inside a self-contained invented mini-language, so no real language you happen to know helps or hurts you, and the items climb in difficulty within each subscale. Every item has exactly one correct answer. Original items inspired by Carroll's published construct definitions; this is not the MLAT itself, and it is built for education and curiosity, not clinical diagnosis, admissions, or placement.
An ability test of creative thinking, not a 'rate your creativity' quiz. It draws on Mednick's Remote Associates Test (a validated measure of creative, associative thinking), classic insight problems, and lateral letter/number series that reward a non-obvious leap. Every item has an objectively correct answer, so your score reflects creative problem-solving you actually demonstrate. Convergent creativity — finding the one idea that connects the dots — is what these items capture; it predicts real creative achievement and the 'aha' style of insight. For education and self-reflection.
The first ability test of digital tone: not how good you believe you are at reading texts, but how accurately you actually decode sarcasm, subtext, and digital body language — scored right/wrong like an IQ test. Inspired by computer-mediated-communication research: Kruger et al. (2005), "Egocentrism over e-mail," found that senders sharply overestimate how well their tone transmits in text; Riordan and Kreuz showed that emoji and punctuation carry real emotional information; and 2025 findings confirm people can decode text tone above chance when they attend to the right cues. Each of the 24 items presents a short text-message scenario with one reading most consistent with established digital-communication conventions and the message's cues — answers are consensus-keyed, and your result is an estimated skill level across three abilities: detecting sarcasm and irony, reading subtext and soft signals, and decoding digital cues like punctuation, emoji, timing, and message length. For education and self-reflection.
A behavioral self-assessment of how much of your thinking, deciding, and remembering has shifted onto AI tools. Inspired by cognitive-offloading research (Risko & Gilbert, 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences), the 2025 MIT Media Lab 'Your Brain on ChatGPT' EEG study (Kosmyna et al.), and the emerging literature on AI dependence and critical thinking (e.g., Gerlich, 2025), this test measures five dimensions: cognitive offloading — letting AI do the thinking before you've tried; skill atrophy — abilities that have softened from disuse; unverified trust — passing AI output onward without checking it; life creep — AI spreading from work tasks into feelings, relationships, and health decisions; and cognitive self-doubt — losing confidence in your own unassisted mind. Items are behavioral rather than abstract — they ask about what you actually do, not what you believe about technology. Higher scores indicate more dependence in that dimension. Dependence is a spectrum, not a diagnosis, and every pattern this test measures responds to deliberate practice. For self-reflection and education only, not a clinical diagnosis or a substitute for professional support.
How attached are you to a person who has never heard your name? Before you start, pick the ONE figure you feel closest to — a creator, streamer, celebrity, artist, fictional character, or AI companion — and answer every item about that single relationship. Inspired by Horton & Wohl (1956), who coined the term 'parasocial'; the Parasocial Interaction Scale (Rubin, Perse & Powell, 1985); and the Multidimensional Measure of Parasocial Relationships (2022) — and timely, since 'parasocial' was Cambridge Dictionary's 2025 Word of the Year. The test measures five dimensions: felt intimacy, time and ritual, boundary blur, social substitution, and separation distress. To be honest from the start: parasocial bonds are normal, near-universal, and can be genuinely healthy — they offer comfort, identity, and community. This test measures intensity and cost, not shame. Higher scores simply mean the one-sided bond occupies more of your emotional territory. For self-reflection and education only, not a clinical diagnosis or a substitute for professional support.
The first serious self-assessment of "main character energy" — a construct the internet named but psychology has been studying for decades. Inspired by McAdams' narrative-identity research, the spotlight effect (Gilovich, Medvec & Savitsky, 2000), objective self-awareness theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), and psychological richness as a third dimension of a good life (Oishi & Westgate, 2022), this test treats the construct honestly: main character energy has a healthy face — authorship of your own story and experiential richness — and a costly face — performing for an imagined audience and casting other people as extras. This test maps which mix is yours across five dimensions: narrative framing, imagined audience, experiential richness, self-centrality, and authorship. The total score measures overall narrative intensity; the subscale profile shows whether it's the empowering or the costly kind. Items are behavioral rather than abstract — they ask about what you actually do, not what you believe about yourself in theory. For self-reflection and education only, not a clinical diagnosis or a substitute for professional support.
A behavioral self-assessment of rejection sensitivity — the tendency to anxiously expect rejection, readily perceive it in ambiguous signals, and react to it with disproportionate intensity. Inspired by the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (Downey & Feldman, 1996), the Adult Rejection Sensitivity scale (Berenson et al., 2009), and the clinical discussion of 'rejection sensitive dysphoria' in the ADHD community (Dodson) — with the honest caveat that RSD is not a DSM diagnosis and this is not a diagnostic tool. The test measures five dimensions: anxious anticipation before asking; a radar that reads rejection into ambiguity; the intensity of the emotional flare when rejection lands; preemptive self-protection that avoids asks altogether; and the rumination and slow recovery that follow. Items are behavioral rather than abstract — they ask about what you actually do, not what you believe about yourself in theory. Higher scores indicate more active rejection sensitivity in that dimension. For self-reflection and education only, not a clinical diagnosis or a substitute for professional support.
A deep, multi-dimensional look at how adult ADHD traits may show up in your daily life. At its core are the 18 items of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1), Copyright © 2003 World Health Organization, developed by Kessler et al. and reproduced here in the spirit of the WHO’s free-distribution terms for the instrument; PsychIQ is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, the World Health Organization. scored here on the ASRS 5-point frequency scale (Never to Very Often) and split into Inattention and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity. Note: because this profile uses a continuous frequency sum rather than the ASRS Part-A shaded-box rule, it does not reproduce the official ASRS screening threshold — it is a trait profile, not a pass/fail screen. Around that core, four added evidence-based dimensions — emotional dysregulation, time and procrastination, and executive load — capture the parts of adult ADHD that the classic checklist misses. Answer based on the past 6 months. This is an educational screening tool, not a diagnosis.
An original 50-item screener measuring five dimensions of autistic traits in adults: social skill, attention switching, attention to detail, communication, and imagination, with ten items each. Every item was written from scratch for this site, informed by the published research literature on autistic traits in the general population, including the work of Simon Baron-Cohen and colleagues on the trait-continuum model. It is not the Autism Spectrum Quotient, does not reproduce that questionnaire, and is not a version of it, and this site is not affiliated with, licensed by, or endorsed by the Autism Research Centre or the University of Cambridge. Each item scores 0 or 1, with both 'definitely' and 'slightly' responses on the autistic-leaning side earning a single point, for a maximum of 50. Roughly half the items are reverse-keyed so the test does not telegraph which answer is the autistic-leaning one. This is an educational and self-reflection tool, not a diagnosis. A high score does not mean you are autistic, and only a qualified clinician can make that assessment.
A deep, two-part self-reflection. The first part is the exact Adverse Childhood Experiences questionnaire (ACE; Felitti et al., 1998, CDC-Kaiser) — ten public-domain yes/no questions about what happened before your 18th birthday, scorable on its own as a 0-10 ACE score. The second part is original, trauma-informed reflection on how that early adversity may still echo in the present: intrusions and re-experiencing, avoidance and numbing, hypervigilance and startle, and the quiet negative beliefs ("I am unsafe, unlovable, to blame") that adversity can leave behind. Gentle, non-stigmatizing, and concrete. This is educational screening for reflection and is not a diagnosis. These questions are sensitive — go at your own pace, and stop if you need to.
A rich, evidence-based self-assessment of anxiety that keeps a validated clinical instrument at its core. The standard 7-item GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale; Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams & Löwe, 2006) is embedded verbatim and scores on its own (0-21), surrounded by original, evidence-based dimensions: Panic & Physical Symptoms, Social Anxiety, Avoidance & Safety Behaviors, and Anxiety Sensitivity (the fear of the anxiety sensations themselves). Every item asks about the last 2 weeks on one consistent frequency scale, so the validated core keeps its native meaning. This is an educational screening tool to help you understand patterns in how anxiety shows up in your body, your thoughts, and your behavior — it is not a diagnosis.
A multi-dimensional depression and mood self-assessment built around the PHQ-9, the most widely used and validated depression screener in clinical practice. The nine PHQ-9 items appear word-for-word as their own scorable subscale, surrounded by four additional evidence-based dimensions: loss of pleasure and emotional numbness, the inner voice of hopelessness and self-criticism, the physical heaviness depression puts in the body, and the slow pull away from people and responsibilities. Every item asks about real, concrete moments over the last two weeks, so the profile can tell the difference between a hard patch and something heavier — and between people who hide it well and people who are quietly drowning. This is an educational screening tool, not a diagnosis.
A full-length, 30-item personality profile inspired by Paulhus and Williams' Dark Triad framework, which maps three distinct but overlapping socially-aversive traits: Machiavellianism (strategic manipulation, cynicism, and a long-game focus on self-interest), Narcissism (grandiosity, entitlement, and a hunger for admiration and status), and Psychopathy (callousness, impulsivity, thrill-seeking, and low remorse). The items are original and behaviorally anchored — written around concrete, real-life moments rather than abstract trait statements, so they are harder to game and more revealing to answer. Each subscale has ten items with roughly half reverse-keyed to control for acquiescence and yea-saying, and you receive a separate score and tailored insight for each of the three traits rather than a single number. These traits exist on a continuum that nearly everyone carries to some degree, and elevated scores are not a diagnosis. For education and self-reflection only, not clinical assessment.
A full-length, 50-item personality profile inspired by the Five-Factor Model (the Big Five / OCEAN) and adapted from the public-domain International Personality Item Pool (IPIP-50). It measures five broad trait dimensions — Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) — with ten behaviorally anchored items each. Half of every scale is reverse-keyed to control for acquiescence and yea-saying bias, so your profile reflects what you actually do rather than how agreeable the questions sound. Scores are computed separately for each trait, giving you a distinct band and tailored insight for all five dimensions rather than a single number. For education and self-reflection, not clinical diagnosis.
An original self-reflection assessment inspired by David McClelland's Human Motivation Theory — the needs for Achievement, Affiliation, and Power — and extended with three further drivers from Self-Determination Theory and modern motivation research: Autonomy, Security, and Purpose. Across 42 behaviorally specific items — a mix of frequency-rated self-reports, belief statements, and forced-choice trade-offs designed to be hard to fake — it surfaces the unconscious primary motive that quietly steers your everyday decisions, often beneath your own awareness. This is an educational instrument inspired by published motivation frameworks; it is not the TAT, not a clinical or diagnostic tool, and not affiliated with any proprietary test.
A full-length, 40-item attachment-style assessment inspired by the two-dimensional Experiences in Close Relationships model (Brennan, Clark & Shaver; Fraley). It measures two independent dimensions — Attachment Anxiety (fear of abandonment, hypervigilance to rejection, protest behavior, reassurance-seeking) and Attachment Avoidance (discomfort with closeness and dependence, compulsive self-reliance, emotional suppression) — and locates you in one of four styles: Secure, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissing-Avoidant, or Fearful-Avoidant. Items are original, behaviorally specific snapshots of real relationship moments, with reverse-keyed items in both dimensions to catch agree-everything responding. For education and self-reflection only — not a clinical diagnosis.
Inspired by John Gottman's decades of research into what separates couples who last from those who dissolve, fused with the PREPARE/ENRICH framework clinicians use in premarital and couples work, this 42-item assessment maps the six functional systems that determine how a partnership holds up under real conditions: how you actually communicate, how you repair after a fight, how much real closeness you sustain, how aligned you are on the life you want, how you handle money, and how much trust runs between you. Instead of rating chemistry or surface preferences, it asks about the specific behaviors and the private inner experiences that research consistently ties to relationship stability — the things people recognize in themselves but rarely say out loud. Every subscale mixes items where the flattering answer is obvious with reverse-keyed items where it isn't, so the picture you get back reflects your real patterns rather than the version you'd present on a first date. Your results map your strengths and your growth edges across all six systems, with reflective guidance for each. This is an educational and self-reflective tool, not a diagnosis or a verdict on your relationship.
A 34-item relationship reflection inspired by Caryl Rusbult's Investment Model of commitment, which holds that whether people stay is shaped by three forces — how satisfied they feel, how poor or rich their alternatives look, and how much they have already invested — plus a fourth dimension this version tracks closely: respect and emotional safety. Items are deliberately concrete and anchored to real moments rather than abstract feelings, so the result reflects how your relationship actually runs day to day, not how you wish it looked or fear it might be. The aim is to separate the reasons you want to be here from the reasons you feel you cannot leave. This is an educational tool for self-reflection, not a diagnosis, a verdict, or advice to stay or go — only you can make that decision, ideally with people who know your full situation. If any item raises concern about your safety, please reach out to a domestic violence hotline or a trusted professional.
A 32-item inventory inspired by Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages framework — Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Acts of Service, Receiving Gifts, and Physical Touch. Every item is built around a concrete, recognizable moment rather than an abstract preference, and rates each channel independently, so your profile shows which language leads rather than forcing a flattering tie. Reverse-keyed items in each language catch the difference between what you say you want and what actually lands. The result reveals your primary and secondary languages and how it feels when each runs dry. This is an educational and self-reflection tool, not a clinical diagnosis, and is not the official Chapman instrument.
A structured wellbeing audit inspired by the cognitive-evaluative model of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985) and the multi-domain architecture of the World Health Organization Quality of Life framework (WHOQOL Group, 1998). It maps eight load-bearing domains — Career, Health, Relationships, Finances, Growth, Recreation, Environment, and Purpose — through concrete behaviors and lived internal moments rather than vague self-impressions. Instead of asking whether you are "satisfied," it asks what you actually do on an ordinary Tuesday, what you quietly avoid, and what you feel at 2 a.m. Every domain carries reverse-keyed items to catch reflexive agreement, so the resulting profile shows not just how good your life feels in summary but precisely which domains are carrying you and which are quietly draining the others. Educational and reflective, not a clinical or diagnostic instrument.
A decision-weighting profile that exposes what truly drives your job choices across eight total-rewards dimensions: compensation, growth, culture, work-life balance, mission, stability, management, and location/commute. Inspired by total-rewards theory and multi-attribute utility decision analysis (MAUT / weighted-criteria decision science), it reads the concrete moments where your real priorities leak out — the offer you turned down, the spreadsheet you actually built, the thing you keep re-reading in the offer letter — rather than the priorities you'd recite if asked. Most subscales include reverse-keyed items to catch the gap between what people say they want and what they quietly optimize for. Educational and self-reflective only — not career advice, a hiring recommendation, or a prediction of any outcome.
A research-grounded profile that maps two things at once. First, the kinds of work that genuinely pull you in, using Holland's RIASEC model of vocational interests (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional). Second, the sensory channels through which you absorb new information most naturally, using the VARK model (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinesthetic). Instead of asking you to rate vague traits, this version puts you inside specific, recognizable moments — the project you'd volunteer for, the task you quietly avoid, the way you really study when no one is grading you — so your answers reveal what you'd actually do rather than what sounds good. Your top interest themes and dominant learning channel form a practical map you can use to choose fields, design how you study, and understand why some rooms energize you while others slowly flatten you. This is an educational, reflective tool, not a verdict on your future.
A 30-item self-report measure of psychological resilience — your capacity to adapt, recover, and grow under real pressure. Inspired by the Connor-Davidson resilience construct (Connor & Davidson, 2003), it maps six evidence-based dimensions: adaptability, optimism, emotion regulation, support-seeking, persistence, and meaning-making. Items are written as concrete, hard-to-fake moments rather than abstract trait statements, with reverse-keyed items in every dimension to catch automatic agreement. Items are original to this assessment; this is not the CD-RISC and reproduces none of its copyrighted wording. For education and self-reflection, not a clinical diagnosis.
A 42-item self-report measure of psychological maturity — the part of growing up that has nothing to do with your birthday. Inspired by developmental and clinical models of emotional maturity (Erikson's psychosocial stages, Gross's process model of emotion regulation, Bowen's concept of self-differentiation, and contemporary work on accountability and post-adversity growth), it assesses six dimensions: Emotional Regulation, Accountability, Boundaries, Empathy, Self-Awareness, and Resilience. Each item describes a concrete, recognizable moment rather than an abstract trait, and every dimension includes reverse-keyed items to catch reflexive agreement. Your total maps to a psychological age-equivalent between roughly 15 and 65. Items are original and written for this assessment; it reproduces no copyrighted instrument. For education and self-reflection, not a clinical or developmental diagnosis.
A 42-item situational assessment that maps which of five core emotional wounds runs deepest in you: Abandonment, Rejection, Humiliation, Injustice, and Betrayal. Inspired by Lise Bourbeau's five-wounds model and the early maladaptive schema framework of schema therapy (Jeffrey Young). Every item is original and describes a specific everyday moment, reaction, or choice rather than diagnosing you, and each subscale includes reverse-keyed items to balance the picture. Your overall score reflects how active these wounds are on average, and the breakdown shows which wound runs deepest (your primary) and which is next (your secondary). Built for self-understanding and reflection, not clinical diagnosis.
An original 36-item self-report of dispositional authenticity inspired by Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis and Joseph's (2008) person-centred model — the interplay of authentic living (acting in line with your real values and feelings), resisting external influence (not letting others' expectations overwrite you), and low self-alienation (knowing and trusting your true self). It maps these processes across four arenas where the pressure to perform differs sharply: work, close relationships, wider social settings, and time alone. The result estimates the overall percentage of your life lived as the real you, and shows where you stay true versus where you quietly switch into a version others expect. Items are original to this assessment and reproduce no copyrighted scale. For education and self-reflection only — not a clinical or diagnostic instrument.
A 36-item self-report profile that maps the six engines of self-defeating behavior: procrastination, perfectionism, fear of success, self-handicapping, avoidance, and comfort-zone clinging. Inspired by the self-defeating behavior literature — Baumeister and Scher's framework of counterproductive behavior, Berglas and Jones's self-handicapping theory, Hewitt and Flett's multidimensional perfectionism model, Steel's procrastination research, and the experiential-avoidance tradition (Hayes). Each subscale carries forward- and reverse-keyed items to control acquiescence bias. Items describe concrete moments rather than abstract traits, so the score reflects what you actually do under pressure rather than how you'd like to see yourself. For educational and self-reflection purposes only — not a clinical diagnosis.
A 30-item educational self-reflection tool inspired by Dr. Stephen Porges's Polyvagal Theory, which describes the autonomic nervous system as moving through three hierarchically organized states: the ventral vagal state (safety, social engagement, calm connection), the sympathetic state (mobilized fight-or-flight activation), and the dorsal vagal state (immobilized shutdown, collapse, and numbness). Every item is written as a concrete, body-level moment rather than an abstract trait, so the test reads your lived physiology instead of your self-image. Each of the three states is measured by ten original items — including reverse-keyed items in every subscale to catch automatic agreeing — and the instrument yields both an overall regulation profile and a breakdown of which state currently runs you. Items are written specifically for this assessment and reproduce no copyrighted instrument. This is a framework for understanding patterns, not a medical or clinical diagnosis.
Mindfulness is not a mood or a personality trait you either have or lack — it is a measurable quality of attention: how often you are actually in the room where your life is happening, and whether you can meet what shows up without flinching into judgment or sliding into autopilot. This 32-item instrument is inspired by the dispositional mindfulness literature and measures four facets of everyday awareness. Present-moment attention asks whether your mind is where your body is. Non-judgment asks whether you can watch a thought or feeling without instantly grading it as wrong. Awareness of inner and outer experience asks whether the early, quiet signals — a tightening jaw, a shift in someone's voice, the edge in your own mood — register before they become problems. Freedom from autopilot asks whether routine quietly drives while you ride along. It does not measure how much you meditate; it measures how you move through ordinary, unguarded days. The items are deliberately specific and a little uncomfortable, because vague self-flattery tells you nothing. Answer for how you actually are, not how you'd like to sound. This is an original PsychIQ scale inspired by the dispositional-mindfulness literature; it is not the Brown & Ryan Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS).
An ability-based test of social intelligence: how accurately you read people and situations and choose effective responses — not how socially skilled you believe you are. Every item is a real scenario with a more and a less socially intelligent answer, keyed to social-cognitive research and the competencies measured by instruments like the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (social information processing, social skills, and social awareness). It taps three abilities: reading the situation, choosing a social strategy, and perspective-taking — inferring others' mental states and how you come across. For education and self-reflection.
This test draws on attention research and the science of behavioral reinforcement — the variable-reward loops and dopamine-driven cycles that make phones, feeds, and short video so hard to put down. It maps four dimensions of modern attention capture: reflexive checking, fractured focus, novelty craving, and the discomfort of being offline. It's a mirror, not a diagnosis.
An educational self-assessment inspired by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson): emotional exhaustion + depersonalization/cynicism + reduced personal accomplishment. It surrounds those three classic dimensions with a fourth — recovery capacity — because burnout is as much about whether you can refill as about how fast you drain. Items describe specific work and life-energy situations rather than vague traits. This is a reflective screening tool to help you see patterns in your own energy, not a clinical diagnosis.
A full-length, 48-item character-strengths profile inspired by the VIA (Values in Action) classification of 24 character strengths organized under six universal virtues: Wisdom, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, and Transcendence. Each strength is measured by two original, behaviorally anchored items — one forward-keyed and one reverse-keyed — written from the published construct definitions rather than copied from any proprietary instrument. Instead of asking whether you 'value' a trait, each item drops you into a specific, recognizable moment and asks what you actually do, so the result is harder to fake and harder to flatter. Your six virtue scores are reported separately, and your highest-scoring strengths surface as your likely signature strengths. For education and self-reflection, not clinical diagnosis or hiring.
An original, CBT-grounded self-reflection instrument based on the cognitive distortions described by Aaron Beck and David Burns. Instead of asking whether you "think negatively," it drops you into specific, recognizable moments — the unanswered text, the one critical comment in a sea of praise, the plan that falls through — and asks how your mind actually moves. It maps nine classic thinking traps: all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralization, mental filtering, catastrophizing, mind reading, personalization, should-statements, emotional reasoning, and labeling. Built for self-awareness and psychoeducation; it is not a diagnosis or a substitute for therapy.
An original 30-item conflict-style assessment inspired by Thomas-Kilmann conflict-mode theory, which maps how you handle disagreement along two axes: assertiveness (how hard you pursue your own concerns) and cooperativeness (how much you attend to the other person's). Their intersection defines five modes — Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, and Accommodating. Instead of asking how you'd like to think you behave, every item drops you into a concrete, slightly uncomfortable moment — the second a plan gets challenged, the silence after you've been overruled, the text you draft and delete — and asks what you actually do. Reverse-keyed items in every mode guard against simply agreeing with everything. The result surfaces your go-to move, the modes you under-use, and where your default helps versus quietly costs you. Educational and reflective only; it is not therapy, relationship advice, or a clinical evaluation.
This assessment measures future-self continuity — how vividly you can picture the person you'll become, how much they still feel like you, and whether that bond actually changes what you do today. It is inspired by Hal Hershfield's research on future-self continuity and the wider psychology of prospection and intertemporal choice, which finds that people who experience their future self as a real, similar, and cared-for continuation of who they are now make wiser long-horizon choices about money, health, and follow-through — while those who relate to their future self as a stranger discount the future and quietly shortchange the person they're about to be. It uses 30 original items across five facets: Vividness (how clearly you can picture future you), Connectedness (how much future you still feels like the same self), Similarity (how alike present and future you feel), Positivity (the warmth and hope you feel toward future you), and Behavioral Consequences (whether the bond shows up in saving, health, and persistence). Each facet includes reverse-keyed items to catch acquiescent answering. Your result estimates the point on your own timeline where future you starts to feel like a stranger. This is an educational, reflective profile — not a clinical or diagnostic measure, and not a substitute for professional advice.
An original, educational self-reflection instrument inspired by the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale. Instead of asking whether you "feel like a fraud," it drops you into specific work and achievement moments — the praise you deflect, the win you credit to luck, the email you over-edit at midnight — and asks how you actually move. It maps four facets of the impostor pattern: fear of being a fraud, discounting your own success, attributing wins to luck or timing, and fear of being exposed. Built for self-awareness and psychoeducation; it is not a diagnosis or a substitute for professional care.
Grounded in the UCLA Loneliness Scale tradition and Robert Weiss's distinction between social loneliness (lacking a network) and emotional loneliness (lacking deep intimacy), with belonging and mattering research woven in. Loneliness is the gap between the connection you have and the connection you long for — which is why you can feel it in a crowded room or a full group chat. This measures that felt gap honestly, without shame.
This test maps your manifestation orientation onto the psychology that actually explains why 'raising your vibration' sometimes works: Bandura's self-efficacy, Rotter's internal locus of control, Dweck's growth mindset, and the goal-priming that makes your attention notice opportunities you'd otherwise miss. It respects the belief while separating the part that changes your life from the part that quietly asks you to wait. The honest finding of the science is simple: intention plus action moves outcomes; intention alone mostly moves your mood.
A reflective measure of felt meaning, drawn from Viktor Frankl's logotherapy, the Meaning in Life research on presence versus search, and the three-facet model of coherence, purpose, and mattering (Martela & Steger). It looks honestly at how rooted you feel right now — not to judge, but to show you where the ground is solid and where it has thinned.
This test measures your emotional relationship with money, not your income. It draws on Brad Klontz's money scripts framework (money avoidance, worship, status, and vigilance) and scarcity-mindset research to surface the story you learned about money long before you had any of your own.
An original, educational self-reflection instrument inspired by the Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS) and the broader research on repetitive negative thinking. Instead of asking whether you "overthink," it drops you into concrete loops — the replayed conversation, the 2am spiral, the mistake you keep re-litigating — and maps four facets of how your mind churns: brooding, reflection (the healthier, problem-solving facet), rumination on mistakes, and future-worry. It is built for insight and psychoeducation, not diagnosis, and is not a substitute for a mental-health professional.
An original, behaviorally-anchored assessment inspired by Beck's concept of sociotropy, Helgeson's "unmitigated communion," and the assertiveness-deficit literature. It maps the habit of managing other people's feelings at your own expense across four facets: approval-seeking, conflict-avoidance, self-silencing, and boundary difficulty. It is educational and reflective, not a diagnosis or a substitute for therapy; it describes a tendency, not a disorder.
Perfectionism is not one thing. Drawing on the multidimensional perfectionism frameworks of Frost and of Hewitt & Flett, this test separates the striving that drives you from the self-criticism, fear, and pressure that can quietly cost you. It measures four dimensions to show whether your standards are a strength or a source of suffering.
Procrastination isn't a time-management flaw or laziness — research reframes it as an emotion-regulation problem: we put off tasks to escape how they make us feel right now. Grounded in Temporal Motivation Theory (Steel), this test measures four distinct engines of delay so you can see which one actually drives yours. Higher scores mean a stronger pull toward putting things off.
A full-length, behaviorally-anchored profile inspired by the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP), which separates two distinct strands: primary psychopathy (a callous, manipulative, self-serving orientation toward other people) and secondary psychopathy (impulsivity, poor planning, short fuse, and an antisocial, self-defeating streak). This version expands the LSRP cores into four readable dimensions — primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, callousness, and impulsivity — using original items written around concrete, real-life moments rather than abstract trait labels, so they are harder to game. Roughly a third of items are reverse-keyed (they state the warm, empathic, conscientious pole) to control for yea-saying. These traits sit on a continuum that nearly everyone carries to some degree; this is an educational mirror for self-reflection, not a clinical diagnosis, and a high score does not mean you are dangerous or untreatable. For education and self-understanding only.
A behavioral self-assessment of the psychological patterns most reliably associated with difficulty forming or sustaining close romantic relationships. Drawing on the Fear of Intimacy Scale (Descutner & Thelen, 1991), the Experiences in Close Relationships — Revised (Fraley, Waller & Brennan, 2000), Bowlby's attachment theory (1969), and Brené Brown's empirical vulnerability research (2010), this profile measures seven dimensions: fear of being truly known; expectation of abandonment or loss; use of independence as emotional armor; romantic self-worth deficits; avoidance of emotional disclosure; influence of unprocessed past hurt; and structural readiness for connection right now. Items are behavioral rather than abstract — they ask about what you actually do, not what you believe about yourself in theory. Higher scores indicate more active blocking in that dimension. For self-reflection and education only, not a clinical diagnosis or a substitute for professional support.
An original self-honesty assessment inspired by Paulhus's Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) and the self-deceptive enhancement literature. Most validity scales measure how much you spin OTHER people; this one turns that science inward to ask how much you spin yourself. It maps four engines of self-deception — honestly-held but inflated self-views (Self-Deceptive Enhancement), the quiet refusal to look at inconvenient truths (Denial & Avoidance), the after-the-fact reasons that make your behavior sound fine (Rationalization), and the parts of yourself you genuinely can't see (Blind Spots) — using concrete, real-life moments rather than abstract traits. It returns a single Self-Honesty score plus a profile across the four engines. Educational and reflective, not a clinical diagnosis.
An in-depth, 28-item self-esteem profile inspired by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and contingent self-worth research (Crocker, Deci & Ryan, Kernis). Rather than a single "high or low" number, it separates four strands that ordinary self-esteem tests blur together: global self-worth (the baseline sense that you are fundamentally okay), self-competence (trusting that you can handle what you set out to do), self-liking (warmth and acceptance toward yourself, including your flaws), and contingency/fragility (how much your worth rises and crashes with achievements, approval, and comparison). The items are original and behaviorally anchored — built around concrete moments rather than abstract trait statements — so they are harder to fake and more revealing to answer, with roughly a third reverse-keyed to control for agreement bias. This distinction matters because two people can score the same on a simple scale yet have completely different esteem: one stable and self-sustaining, the other high but brittle and propped up by constant proof. Educational and for self-reflection only — not a clinical or diagnostic instrument.
An original depth-psychology self-awareness assessment inspired by Jung's concept of the shadow (the disowned material the conscious persona refuses to integrate), the Johari Window's "blind area" (what others see that you do not), classic ego defense mechanisms (Anna Freud; projection, rationalization, denial, reaction formation), the mechanism of projection, and experiential avoidance from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes and colleagues). It maps five facets of the unseen self through concrete, everyday moments rather than abstract traits: persona-shadow distance, the blind spot between self-image and impact, projection of disowned traits onto others, habitual defensive maneuvers, and the avoidance of inner experience. Each subscale includes reverse-keyed items to counter agreement bias, and items were written specifically for this assessment to reflect these published construct definitions without reproducing wording from any copyrighted instrument. For self-insight and reflection only; it is not a clinical or diagnostic tool.
Spiritual intelligence is a capacity, not a creed: the ability to draw on meaning, connection, awareness, and inner stillness to live and cope well. This test is built on David King's Spiritual Intelligence model and the SISRI-24 (critical existential thinking, personal meaning production, transcendental awareness, conscious state expansion), alongside research on felt connectedness and present-moment awareness. It measures how you relate to the big questions and the wider whole — inclusive of any faith or none.
A reflective instrument inspired by Schwartz's theory of basic human values. Rather than asking which ideals you endorse — almost everyone endorses the flattering ones — it probes the concrete moments where values get tested: where you spend your free hour, what you do when no one is watching, the tradeoffs you actually make under pressure. It maps six core value orientations (Self-Direction, Achievement, Benevolence, Universalism, Security, Stimulation) and then measures the alignment gap — the distance between the values you hold and the life you are presently living. Educational and reflective, not a clinical or diagnostic instrument.
If you've been feeling not-quite-right lately and can't put your finger on it, this check maps the six areas life pressure usually hides in: mood, anxiety, stress, connection, meaning, and self-worth. It's a transdiagnostic well-being screen, not a diagnosis. The real value is the breakdown at the end, which shows you which area is weighing on you most so you know where to look next.
PsychIQ is designed for adults curious about how they think, feel, relate, and grow. The assessments are for education and self-reflection. They are not medical or psychiatric diagnoses, and they should not be used for hiring, legal, custody, or clinical decisions. A screener can flag patterns worth exploring; only a qualified professional can diagnose. If a result concerns you, please treat it as a prompt to talk to someone — not a verdict.
PsychIQ assessments are for education and self-reflection. They are not medical diagnoses and do not replace evaluation by a qualified professional.