Working document · last revised July 2026 · accessible at all times, with or without a completed assessment or account
The Physiotropism assessment estimates self-reported discrepancybetween preferred and actual states across four dimensions: circadian timing, social contact, novelty/stimulation, and value-consistent action. It is a structured self-reflection instrument, not a diagnostic test. All figures presented in the report are normalized distances from the respondent’s own stated preferences ("set points"); they carry no population norms and are not standardized scores.
Item formats draw on constructs with substantial independent literatures. The circadian items adapt the logic of morningness–eveningness and mid-sleep measures [1, 2], including the free-day/workday contrast underlying social jetlag [3]. The waking-ease slope follows the pragmatic tradition of single-item circadian screening [2]. The values items adapt the importance-versus-consistency structure of the Valued Living Questionnaire [4], and the internal-blocker items follow the experiential-avoidance and psychological-inflexibility constructs measured by the AAQ-II and related scales [5, 6]. The distinction drawn in the report between avoidance-driven and distraction-driven gaps reflects process-based accounts in acceptance and commitment therapy [6, 7]. Preference–environment discrepancy as a wellbeing predictor is consistent with person–environment fit theory [8].
This specific battery has not undergone formal reliability testing, factor analysis, or criterion validation. Several dimensions rest on single items or very short scales, trading precision for brevity; test–retest stability is unknown. Conditional branching means different respondents complete different item sets, which complicates between-person comparison. The 2-hour cap on circadian mismatch, the 12-hour social-allocation frame, the importance-weighting of value gaps, and the blocker amplifier (1.0–1.5×) are design choices made for interpretability, not empirically estimated parameters. Severity bands (low to high) are heuristic cut points, not clinical thresholds.
All inputs are self-report and subject to recall bias, current-mood effects, and social desirability. Stated "ideal" preferences elicited in a single sitting can drift with circumstances and framing. Discrepancy scores establish association at best; nothing in this instrument establishes causation between any measured gap and any symptom or outcome. Clinical footnotes shown in some reports are pattern flags intended to prompt professional consultation; they are explicitly not diagnoses, and their sensitivity and specificity are unquantified.
We do not claim this assessment diagnoses any condition, predicts clinical outcomes, or substitutes for professional evaluation. Statements about treatability in the report refer to the general treatment literature for the underlying conditions (e.g., social anxiety disorder [9]; circadian rhythm sleep–wake disorders [10]), not to anything this instrument can establish about an individual. Every percentage is presented as distance from the respondent’s own set point, with the computation shown beneath each chart.
Planned work includes item-level reliability estimation on a consented research sample, convergent validation against the established instruments cited below, and calibration of severity bands against wellbeing outcomes. Until then, results should be read as structured self-reflection.
The two-column figures on the home page are illustrative summaries drawn from the literatures below. Each measures a single preference–environment mismatch (or its alignment) in a distinct sample; they are not additive, not drawn from one cohort, and not claims about this instrument. Effect sizes are reported as published and, where noted, re-expressed for a general audience.