Open methodology

How the NeuroType tools are built

Evidence, review status, structure, scoring and limits for five original NeuroType reflections, plus the source and licence basis for CAT-Q.

Evidence status, in plain language

NeuroType’s five original tools have not been psychometrically validated. They have no factor analysis, published reliability or validity coefficient, normative sample, or clinical comparison group. They cannot diagnose, confirm, or rule out any condition.

Each original tool was made public after a signed founder originality attestation. That records who takes responsibility for the originality claim; it is not independent clinical, legal, or psychometric review. No clinician, solicitor, or psychometric reviewer has signed off these tools. Documenting a design is not the same as validating it.

What is documented

5 instruments, 34 domains and 136 items. For each one: what it is trying to describe, why it exists in its own wording rather than reusing a published scale, its domain structure with item counts, its response scale, how it is scored, how the output should be read, and what it cannot tell you.

The original item wordings are not included in the open methodology deposit. Its structure, scoring, provenance, and limits are published so the design can still be inspected critically.

Why these tools are original

The ADHD reflection is not the ASRS, the autistic traits reflection is not the RAADS-R, and the masking reflection is not the CAT-Q. The sensory reflection also does not reproduce proprietary sensory profiles. Each uses original wording for its own stated reflection purpose, and its scores are not interchangeable with any published instrument.

NeuroType does not have permission to reproduce the ASRS. A commercial-use route for the RAADS-R was explored and declined on cost. Writing original tools avoided publishing restricted wording, but it also means their scores cannot inherit another instrument’s validation evidence, thresholds, or population comparisons.

CAT-Q source and evidence status

The CAT-Q is different: it is a published questionnaire, not original NeuroType content. NeuroType uses it under CC BY 4.0 with visible attribution. The item wording was checked against the source version identified in the published record.

Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire, CAT Q, from Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M. C., Baron Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., and Petrides, K. V. Development and Validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2019. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Published CAT-Q research does not validate NeuroType’s original tools, turn this website into a diagnostic service, or establish independent clinical review of NeuroType’s result presentation. That review is not documented. NeuroType also does not currently show a population comparison because it has not documented a representative benchmark and presentation method appropriate for this result.

Shared design decisions

Every scored original NeuroType tool documented below uses the same five-point response scale, scored zero to four, and the same four descriptive bands beginning at 0, 25, 50, and 75 percent. These are internal reflection bands, not population norms or clinical thresholds. Domains are scored independently and are never summed into an overall total.

That last decision is deliberate and it is the one most likely to look like a missing feature. A single total invites a threshold, and a threshold invites reading the result as a verdict. Two people with the same total can have entirely different domain profiles describing different experiences, so the profile is what gets shown.

How precise these numbers are not

A domain’s score is a whole number from zero to its item count times four, so the percentage can only land on a fixed set of values. The coarsest domain here has 4 items, giving 17 possible readings roughly 6.3 points apart. A value such as 28 percent is not reachable at all.

This matters most at the top. A reading of 100 percent means every item in that domain was marked at the top of the scale, not that a maximum was measured, and the highest domain is the one most likely to sit there. That is why results show every domain rather than the strongest few: the spread is more informative than any single figure, and a lone high number invites more confidence than the scale can support.

Longer domains would improve this. Doubling the items roughly halves the step. That change has not been made yet, and until it is, treat these percentages as coarse bands rather than measurements.

What would add evidence for the original tools

None of the claims about NeuroType’s five original tools rests on participant response data, because the product does not collect it. Answers stay in the browser and are never sent to a server, so there is no NeuroType dataset from which to report internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, or population norms.

Producing those would need a separate study that people opt into knowingly, kept apart from the product and its privacy promise. If that happens, the figures will appear here with their confidence intervals and sample size, including any that are unflattering. A reliability coefficient this site cannot show is more honest than one it can explain away.

Review by a qualified professional is a different thing again, and worth having, but it cannot substitute. No amount of expert reading can establish whether four items hang together or whether a result holds steady a month later. Only data does that, so a signed clinical review will be reported as exactly that and nothing more.

The five original NeuroType tools

NeuroType Sensory Preferences Questionnaire

32 items across 8 domains · scored 0 to 4 per item

Everyday sensory responsiveness across eight channels, covering both seeking and avoiding. The tool asks how much ordinary sensory input registers for a person and what that costs or restores across a normal week, rather than asking about unusual or extreme events.

Written in original NeuroType wording. Existing sensory profiles are either licensed for clinical use or structured around quadrant models that require a trained administrator to interpret, neither of which suits an unsupervised adult self-reflection context.

Structure, scoring and limits

Auditory4 itemsReflection around sound sensitivity, noise load, and auditory comfort.
Visual4 itemsReflection around light, visual clutter, brightness, and visual comfort.
Tactile4 itemsReflection around touch, texture, clothing comfort, and physical contact preferences.
Taste and smell4 itemsReflection around food texture, strong smells, taste intensity, and sensory comfort around eating.
Proprioceptive4 itemsReflection around pressure, body awareness, movement effort, and grounding through physical input.
Vestibular4 itemsReflection around balance, motion, spinning, travel movement, and movement comfort.
Interoceptive4 itemsReflection around noticing hunger, thirst, fatigue, temperature, pain, or internal body signals.
Social sensory load4 itemsReflection around sensory load in social spaces, group settings, conversation environments, and public places.

Scoring. Each item is answered on a five point scale scored 0 to 4. A domain score is the sum of its item responses, expressed as a percentage of that domain's maximum. Domains are scored independently and are never summed into an overall total, because a single total invites a threshold and a threshold invites reading the result as a verdict.

Interpretation. Each domain percentage is placed in one of 4 reflection bands, lower bound inclusive and upper bound exclusive (lower reflection: 0 up to below 25; moderate reflection: 25 up to below 50; heightened reflection: 50 up to below 75; strong reflection: 75 to 100). Bands describe where a person's own answers clustered. They are not norm referenced, there is no combined total across domains, and no cutoff is published.

Limits

This is an original self-reflection tool, not a validated clinical instrument.
No psychometric validation has been carried out. There is no factor analysis, no published reliability or validity coefficient, no normative sample and no clinical comparison group.
It cannot diagnose, confirm or rule out any condition, and it must not be used to make clinical decisions.
Scores describe patterns in a person's own answers on the day they answered. They are not norm referenced and cannot be compared against a population.
Traits covered here are distributed across the whole population. Recognising them is not the same as meeting diagnostic criteria, which depend on developmental history, daily impact and other possible explanations.
Wording is in English and has not been translated or culturally adapted.

NeuroType Masking and Camouflaging Reflection

24 items across 6 domains · scored 0 to 4 per item

Social camouflaging effort across six domains, including what the effort costs afterwards. It deliberately extends past the preparation and in-the-moment monitoring that published camouflaging measures cover, into recovery time and identity strain, because those are where adults most often report the cost showing up.

Written in original NeuroType wording. It is explicitly not the CAT-Q, which the site hosts separately under its own Creative Commons licence with attribution. The two are not interchangeable and their scores are not comparable.

Structure, scoring and limits

Social preparation4 itemsReflection around planning, rehearsing, or preparing for interactions before they happen.
Self monitoring4 itemsReflection around tracking tone, facial expression, body language, or wording during interactions.
Suppression4 itemsReflection around holding back natural reactions, movements, interests, needs, or communication style.
Social performance4 itemsReflection around appearing more comfortable, confident, agreeable, or socially fluent than you feel.
Recovery after interaction4 itemsReflection around tiredness, decompression, replaying events, or needing quiet after social effort.
Identity strain4 itemsReflection around comfort, effort, choice, and different ways of presenting across settings.

Limits

This is an original self-reflection tool, not a validated clinical instrument.
No psychometric validation has been carried out. There is no factor analysis, no published reliability or validity coefficient, no normative sample and no clinical comparison group.
It cannot diagnose, confirm or rule out any condition, and it must not be used to make clinical decisions.
Scores describe patterns in a person's own answers on the day they answered. They are not norm referenced and cannot be compared against a population.
Traits covered here are distributed across the whole population. Recognising them is not the same as meeting diagnostic criteria, which depend on developmental history, daily impact and other possible explanations.
Wording is in English and has not been translated or culturally adapted.
Camouflaging effort is reported by autistic and non-autistic people alike. A high score does not indicate autism, and the tool records the effort rather than its cause.

NeuroType ADHD Trait and Executive Function Reflection

32 items across 8 domains · scored 0 to 4 per item

Everyday executive function across eight domains, from starting a task through to finishing it, including the emotional and environmental conditions that change how hard any of it feels.

Written in original NeuroType wording. It is explicitly not the ASRS. The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale carries a World Health Organization copyright and requires permission to reproduce whether or not the use is commercial; that permission has not been granted to NeuroType, so an original tool was written for the same reflection need. Scores are not comparable to an ASRS score.

Structure, scoring and limits

Task initiation4 itemsReflection around beginning tasks, moving from intention to action, and getting past the first step.
Planning and sequencing4 itemsReflection around breaking tasks into steps, choosing an order, and knowing what comes next.
Working memory4 itemsReflection around holding information in mind while doing something else.
Time awareness4 itemsReflection around estimating time, noticing time passing, and matching plans to available time.
Environmental friction4 itemsReflection around how the space, tools, and small interruptions around you shape whether tasks get going and keep going.
Attention switching4 itemsReflection around moving attention between tasks, stopping one activity, and restarting another.
Emotional regulation during tasks4 itemsReflection around avoidance, overwhelm, frustration, or emotional weight around tasks.
Follow through and completion4 itemsReflection around finishing, revisiting, or maintaining tasks after the initial start.

Limits

This is an original self-reflection tool, not a validated clinical instrument.
No psychometric validation has been carried out. There is no factor analysis, no published reliability or validity coefficient, no normative sample and no clinical comparison group.
It cannot diagnose, confirm or rule out any condition, and it must not be used to make clinical decisions.
Scores describe patterns in a person's own answers on the day they answered. They are not norm referenced and cannot be compared against a population.
Traits covered here are distributed across the whole population. Recognising them is not the same as meeting diagnostic criteria, which depend on developmental history, daily impact and other possible explanations.
Wording is in English and has not been translated or culturally adapted.
Executive function difficulty is common to many situations, including tiredness, stress, low mood, illness and periods of high demand. It is not specific to ADHD.

NeuroType Autistic Traits Reflection

30 items across 6 domains · scored 0 to 4 per item

Autistic trait patterns across six areas of everyday adult life, described in plain language rather than in deficit terms, and scored per area rather than as a single quantity.

Written in original NeuroType wording. It is explicitly not the RAADS-R, and does not reproduce or paraphrase RAADS-R items. A licence for the RAADS-R was sought and declined on cost, so an original tool was written for the same reflection need. Scores are not comparable to a RAADS-R score.

Structure, scoring and limits

Social exchange5 itemsReflection around conversation flow, turn taking, small talk, and how much of it runs on conscious effort.
Communication style5 itemsReflection around directness, precision, taking words at face value, and how hints and implication land.
Routine and predictability5 itemsReflection around routine, advance notice, transitions, and what unplanned change costs.
Focused interests5 itemsReflection around depth of interest, absorption, and how satisfying detailed knowledge is in its own right.
Social energy5 itemsReflection around group settings, recovery time, and the difference between wanting company and having capacity for it.
Pattern and detail5 itemsReflection around noticing detail, spotting inconsistency, and preferring things ordered in a particular way.

Limits

This is an original self-reflection tool, not a validated clinical instrument.
No psychometric validation has been carried out. There is no factor analysis, no published reliability or validity coefficient, no normative sample and no clinical comparison group.
It cannot diagnose, confirm or rule out any condition, and it must not be used to make clinical decisions.
Scores describe patterns in a person's own answers on the day they answered. They are not norm referenced and cannot be compared against a population.
Traits covered here are distributed across the whole population. Recognising them is not the same as meeting diagnostic criteria, which depend on developmental history, daily impact and other possible explanations.
Wording is in English and has not been translated or culturally adapted.

NeuroType Rejection Sensitivity Reflection Guide

18 prompts across 6 themes · unscored

Structured reflection prompts on rejection sensitivity across six themes, from the immediate response through to repair and support. It offers language for an experience many adults find hard to describe.

Written in original NeuroType wording. Rejection sensitive dysphoria is community language rather than a standalone diagnostic category, which is one reason this guide is deliberately unscored.

Structure, scoring and limits

Immediate response3 promptsHow a perceived criticism, dismissal, or rejection lands in the first few moments.
Internal replay3 promptsHow often interactions are mentally revisited and reinterpreted afterwards.
Anticipation3 promptsHow feedback, performance moments, or possible disappointment are prepared for in advance.
Adjustment and repair3 promptsHow behaviour is adjusted to prevent perceived rejection or smooth a situation afterwards.
Body and aftermath3 promptsHow the body and energy levels respond during and after difficult interactions.
Relationships and support3 promptsHow these patterns shape closeness, openness, and asking for support.

Scoring. Not scored. This guide produces no numeric output of any kind. Prompts are grouped by theme to support reflection and note taking, and no response is treated as more or less indicative than another.

Interpretation. There is no score, no band and no threshold. The intended output is the person's own written notes, which stay in their browser.

Limits

This is an original reflection guide, not a validated clinical instrument and not a questionnaire.
It produces no score and must not be presented as measuring anything.
Rejection sensitive dysphoria is not a standalone diagnostic category in current diagnostic manuals.
It cannot diagnose, confirm or rule out any condition.
Wording is in English and has not been translated or culturally adapted.

Licence and citation

This documentation is published under CC BY 4.0. You may reuse it, including commercially, with attribution. Version 1.0.0, prepared 2026-08-03.

Citable record: 10.5281/zenodo.21780690, deposited with Zenodo on 2026-08-03.

Safety note

Reflection tools can surface patterns; they can't confirm or rule out a condition. Take any concerns about your mental health or neurodevelopment to a qualified clinician.