We get this question often: is this just another copy of a standard questionnaire? The short answer: every question, scenario, label and explanation on Tracemira was written in-house. We study published psychology for the underlying ideas — then build our own instruments from real-life situations, because copied scales test the 1990s, not your actual week.
Our three rules
1. Scenarios, not scales. “Your partner replies ‘k’ after you poured your heart out” measures something an abstract statement like “I fear abandonment” can’t reach.
2. Research in, wording original. Frameworks come from published work; every item, label and report line is ours.
3. Honest by design. Free means fully free; no account to start; we never claim clinical validity we don’t have.
One row per test — what it’s built on, what’s ours, and the work behind it. Updated every time a test is added or revised.
Built on: Adult attachment theory (Bowlby; Hazan & Shaver’s three-style model), scored against modern ECR-style dimension practice
Original where it counts: All 24 items are everyday scenarios written in-house — no items from any published inventory.
Research sources reviewed: 12 · rewrite rounds: 3 · original scenario items: 24
Built on: The five love languages framework popularized by Gary Chapman
Original where it counts: Each item is a concrete “which would feel most loving” situation, rewritten for daily-life recognition.
Research sources reviewed: 8 · rewrite rounds: 2 · original scenario items: 10
Built on: The classic nine Enneagram types across Gut / Heart / Head centers
Original where it counts: 27 scenario questions engineered so every type gets exactly 9 exposures — no type is advantaged.
Research sources reviewed: 10 · rewrite rounds: 2 · original scenario items: 27
Built on: Fully original framework — behavioral “scripts” observed in everyday relationship friction
Original where it counts: 12 original roast-flavored labels and every scenario written from scratch.
Research sources reviewed: 6 · rewrite rounds: 2 · original scenario items: 12
Built on: Mental-load and repair research (fair-play literature; Gottman’s repair-attempt work)
Original where it counts: Measures what you did in the last 30 days, not how you see yourself — an original behavioral design.
Research sources reviewed: 9 · rewrite rounds: 3 · original scenario items: 20
Built on: Money-conflict research (Dew, Britt & Huston 2012), Gottman’s perpetual problems, motivated-inaccuracy research (Simpson, Ickes & Blackstone 1995), family-systems theory (Bowen; Minuchin), dyadic coping (Bodenmann), sliding-vs-deciding (Stanley)
Original where it counts: A two-person format built from scratch: same situation, both answer, then reveal whether you read each other right.
Research sources reviewed: 14 · rewrite rounds: 3 · original scenario items: 12
• No clinical or diagnostic claims — the frameworks inform our designs, but a 5-minute self-reflection test is not an assessment tool a psychologist would administer.
• No borrowed branding — we reference ideas by author and year, and we don’t use trademarked names or copied item banks.
• No fake statistics — when we quote percentages, they come from published studies you can look up, and we link the source.
Anyone can buy a standard scale and re-skin it. Writing every item from scratch is slower — it’s also why our results read like they were written by someone who has actually texted “k” back. If you want the one-page version of our honesty policy, it lives here.