Cogniself implements a measurement-first architecture for psychometric interpretation. Validated instruments supply construct-level measurements; fixed scoring functions transform responses into domain, facet, and screening variables; and an evidence-grounded synthesis layer translates those variables into a structured report.16
Five published instruments form the measurement foundation described in this note.
953,398combined observations in the five studies shown below
IPIP-NEO-12001
CATI05
RAADS-1403
CAT-Q04
ASRS v1.102
Combined study observations · source-level evidence
Methodology overview
Cogniself implements a measurement-first interpretation pipeline. Structured self-report responses are transformed with fixed scoring keys into domain-, facet-, and screener-level variables. The resulting score set is supplied to a specialized model alongside retrieved peer-reviewed context. Report synthesis then passes through automated checks for schema conformance, score consistency, citation provenance, completeness, and safety. This architecture preserves the evidentiary status of the source instruments while adding cross-construct synthesis and context-aware explanation.
FIG. 01
Selected foundational validation samples
Scale of the primary instrument-development and validation samples referenced in Cogniself’s methodology.
102103104105106
IPIP-NEO-12001
948,692
CATI05
2,487
RAADS-1403
1,233
CAT-Q04
832
ASRS v1.102
154
Figure 1. Logarithmic scale. The selected studies contribute 953,398 observations or participants in aggregate. This is a study-level evidence map: sample designs, populations, and units of observation vary across publications.
Methods
A six-stage, measurement-first pipeline
Each report follows the same ordered sequence: instrument administration, score derivation, structured profile assembly, literature retrieval, report synthesis, and output verification. Resolving scores and published thresholds before synthesis preserves the source instruments’ scoring logic while enabling cross-construct interpretation.
01
Instrument administration
Published item wording and response scales are presented with battery-integrity checks.
02
Score derivation
Fixed keys calculate domain, facet, dimensional, and screening variables.
03
Structured profile
Calculated variables are assembled with their construct and instrument provenance.
04
Literature retrieval
Construct-specific claims are matched to peer-reviewed records and DOI metadata.
05
Report synthesis
A specialized model integrates the scored profile, verified context, and retrieved evidence.
Selected metrics retain their definitions from the source publications; interpretation is study-, population-, and construct-specific.
WHO ASRS v1.1n = 154 · Kessler et al.2
sensitivity
68.7%
specificity
99.5%
classification accuracy
97.9%
RAADS-14n = 1,233 · Eriksson et al.3
sensitivity
97%
RAADS-14 specificity by comparator
ADHD
46%
Psychiatric
64%
Non-psychiatric
95%
CATIn = 2,487 · English et al.5
internal consistency · α
95%
convergent validity · r ≥
79%
42items · six subscales
Figure 2. Published results from foundational studies. Sensitivity and specificity are conditional on study design, population, comparator group, and threshold; each value characterizes performance within its reported validation setting.
Validity model
Evidence is evaluated at three levels
Cogniself assigns evidence to the layer where it is generated. This preserves the distinction between instrument-level psychometrics, implementation-level reproducibility, and interpretation-level quality assurance.
L1
Measurement
Instrument-level evidence
Source instruments contribute peer-reviewed evidence for reliability, construct validity, and screening performance in the populations studied.
L2
Computation
Implementation-level evidence
Versioned scoring keys and published thresholds are executed deterministically and verified through software quality controls.
L3
Interpretation
Interpretation-level evidence
Structured synthesis integrates the scored profile with retrieved literature and is evaluated for consistency, provenance, completeness, and safety.
Cogniself’s evidentiary basis is cumulative: established constructs and instruments provide the measurement substrate; deterministic scoring provides computational reproducibility; and literature-linked synthesis provides interpretable context.Cogniself methodology statement · 2026
Evidence register
Availability, provenance, and use
Every instrument has a different publication and data-access history. The register distinguishes public-domain items, open publications, supplementary materials, and data available only by request.
Instrument
Construct
Items
Foundational sample
Evidence availability
Cogniself use
IPIP-NEO-1201
Big Five + 30 facets
120
948,692
Public-domain item pool; peer-reviewed paper
Primary personality measurement
WHO ASRS v1.12
Adult ADHD screen
6 / 18
154
Published validation study
Screening anchor; published threshold
RAADS-143
Adult autism screen
14
1,233
Open-access validation article
Screening anchor; published threshold
CAT-Q4
Autistic camouflaging
25
832
Published scale and psychometric study
Contextual dimension
CATI5
Autistic trait dimensions
42
2,487
Open article + scoring supplement; data by request
Contextual dimension
Figure 3. Availability is reported for each cited foundational source, distinguishing item access, publication access, supplementary materials, and author-mediated dataset access.
Conditions of interpretation
Scope, transportability, and appropriate use
Cogniself is developed as psychometric interpretation technology for structured self-understanding, screening, and coaching. Its methodology is developed by a technology team with clinical and methodological input provided through external expert advisory review in the United States. Evidence is reported at the level where it applies: source instrument, scoring implementation, or generated interpretation.
01
Response basis
Interpretation begins with structured self-report and represents patterns in the respondent’s account of their typical behavior and experience.
02
Population transport
Evidence is strongest for the populations, languages, and administration conditions represented in each source study; new settings are treated as transportability questions.
03
Generated synthesis
Interpretations are evaluated against the scored profile, retrieved evidence, and output contract. Consequential applications add independent evidence and qualified human judgment.
04
Screening interpretation
Screening scores estimate signal relative to published thresholds. Professional evaluation integrates those scores with developmental history, differential assessment, and clinical judgment.
References
Primary literature
Instrument foundations are supplemented by a broader literature on personality structure, life outcomes, prediction, and replication.
01
Johnson, J. A. (2014)
Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory.
Cogniself transforms standardized self-report data into scored, literature-linked reports for self-understanding, screening, and coaching. Clinical contexts add qualified assessment and decision-making.
