Open methodology

How the NeuroType tools are built

Construct, structure, scoring and limits for five original self-reflection tools. Published so the design can be inspected and criticised.

These are not validated instruments

No psychometric validation has been carried out on any tool documented here. There is no factor analysis, no published reliability or validity coefficient, no normative sample and no clinical comparison group. None of them can diagnose, confirm or rule out any condition.

They are published openly anyway, because a self-reflection tool that will not show its own construction is asking for trust it has not earned. Documenting the design is not the same as validating it, and this page should not be read as a claim to either.

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.

Item wordings are not published here. The structure, scoring and limits are what make a design assessable, and those are all present.

Why these tools are original

Three of them exist because a published instrument was not available on terms this site could meet. A RAADS-R licence was sought and declined on cost. The ASRS carries a World Health Organization copyright and requires permission to reproduce whether or not the use is commercial, and that permission has not been granted here.

The alternative to writing original tools would have been publishing instruments this site has no right to publish, which a number of free test sites do. Original wording was the honest option, and the cost of it is that no score here is comparable to a published scale. Each record below says so explicitly.

The one exception is the CAT-Q, which is a published questionnaire used here under its own Creative Commons licence with attribution shown on the page. It is not documented below because it is not ours to document.

Shared design decisions

Every scored tool uses the same five point response scale, scored zero to four, and the same four interpretation bands at 0, 25, 50 and 75 percent. 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.

The instruments

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 feeling distant from your natural self or unsure which version of you is expected.

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 and clinical description rather than a diagnostic category in its own right, 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.