Public methodology
How every questionnaire is scored
This page documents the current question counts, formulas, versions, sources, and interpretation limits. It describes what the code calculates; it does not claim that every original questionnaire on this site is independently validated.
Last reviewed: September 3, 2026
Rules shared by all five questionnaires
- • A result is calculated only after the exact manifest question count is present.
- • The scorer verifies question IDs and option IDs against the current question bank. A browser-modified display value is ignored.
- • The same answers, assessment version, and explicit timing inputs produce the same result; no random value is added.
- • Completion time counts active page time and pauses while the tab is hidden. It is not an accuracy, effort, or validity score.
- • Results are browser-saved self-report summaries, not diagnoses, employment screens, compatibility predictions, or fixed identities.
Current version registry
| Questionnaire | Questions | Instrument version | Scoring version | Source status | Review status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| quick-personality | 20 | quick-reflection-2.1.0 | quick-2.1.0 | Original reflection items | Editorial/code review; no external domain sign-off claimed |
| mbti | 68 | four-letter-reflection-2.1.0 | four-letter-2.1.0 | Original reflection items | Editorial/code review; no external domain sign-off claimed |
| big-five | 50 | ipip-goldberg-big-five-markers-50-1.0.0 | ipip-bfm-1.0.0 | Verbatim public-domain source | Editorial/code review; no external domain sign-off claimed |
| disc | 28 | disc-style-reflection-2.1.0 | disc-style-2.1.0 | Original reflection items | Editorial/code review; no external domain sign-off claimed |
| enneagram | 108 | enneagram-reflection-2.1.0 | enneagram-2.1.0 | Original reflection items | Editorial/code review; no external domain sign-off claimed |
Formulas and outputs
Quick four-letter reflection
Open questionnaire- Formula
- Each selected option adds one vote to its keyed pole. Each pair has five questions; the pole with more votes is displayed. The response share is max(left, right) ÷ 5 × 100.
- Displayed output
- Four paired counts, a four-letter shorthand, and close 3–2 splits.
- Scope limit
- A brief original preference reflection, not an official MBTI instrument or validated diagnostic measure.
Four-letter reflection (MBTI-style)
Open questionnaire- Formula
- Each selected option adds one vote to its keyed pole. Each pair has 17 questions; the pole with more votes is displayed. Legacy even-count ties are shown with X rather than silently forced to one side.
- Displayed output
- Four paired counts, response shares, and a four-letter shorthand. This is not the official MBTI instrument.
- Scope limit
- An original four-letter preference reflection, not the official MBTI instrument.
50-item IPIP Big-Five factor markers
Open questionnaire- Formula
- Responses use 1–5. Negative-keyed items use 6 − response. Each dimension raw total is divided by 10 for a 1.00–5.00 mean. Scale position = (mean − 1) ÷ 4 × 100.
- Displayed output
- Five raw totals, means, and positions on the possible response scale. No population percentile is calculated.
- Scope limit
- A self-report snapshot using the 50-item IPIP representation of Goldberg Big-Five factor markers; no population percentile or diagnosis.
DISC-style behavioral snapshot
Open questionnaire- Formula
- Each forced-choice response adds one count to D, I, S, or C. Share = count ÷ 28 × 100. Displayed tenths use largest-remainder allocation so the four shares total exactly 100.0%.
- Displayed output
- Four counts and response shares, including all tied highest patterns. The questionnaire does not measure adapted versus natural style.
- Scope limit
- An original DISC-style response-pattern snapshot, not a licensed DISC assessment or validated employment test.
Enneagram-style reflection
Open questionnaire- Formula
- Responses use 1–5; negative-keyed items use 6 − response. Each of nine pattern totals is divided by 12 for a 1.00–5.00 mean. Scale position = (mean − 1) ÷ 4 × 100.
- Displayed output
- Nine pattern means, all tied highest patterns, and patterns within 0.25 mean points. The 0.25 rule is a display threshold, not statistical significance.
- Scope limit
- An original Enneagram-style reflection; it does not diagnose, establish a definitive type, or infer a wing.
Big Five source record
Big Five is the only current questionnaire using a verbatim public-domain item set. The other four are original reflection tools inspired by named frameworks and should not inherit evidence for proprietary or separately validated instruments.
Known limitations and external review status
Quick, four-letter, DISC-style, and Enneagram-style use original items that have received editorial and automated code review only. They have not completed independent psychometric validation, factor analysis, test–retest analysis, accessibility research with representative users, or sign-off by a named qualified reviewer.
Big Five follows the published IPIP item text and key, but this website has not established local population norms. Its 0–100 display is a position on the possible response scale, not a percentile or comparison with the general population.
All results can vary with language, interpretation, context, role, recent experience, and response style. High and low ends are not universally good or bad.
Version and change record
September 3, 2026: introduced schema v2, stable question/option IDs, strict validation, deterministic calculations, active-time tracking, explicit tie/close handling, safe legacy reads, and a shared result renderer. Removed random health levels, unsupported reliability values, unnormed percentiles, adapted-style claims, and automatic Enneagram wing claims.
Older compatible records may be migrated and labeled as legacy. A record from an incompatible scoring version is not silently interpreted as current.
Questions, corrections, and review evidence
To report a scoring, wording, source, accessibility, or privacy issue, use the contact form or email [email protected]. Claims of scientific validation or named professional review will not be added without auditable evidence.