Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS) Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Strongly disagree
- Somewhat disagree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Somewhat agree
- Strongly agree
- Strongly disagree
- Somewhat disagree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Somewhat agree
- Strongly agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree somewhat
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Agree somewhat
- Strongly agree
Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS) Test - Description and methodology of the test
For readers interested in thinking habits, this intellectual humility questionnaire offers a focused way to examine how personal beliefs meet disagreement, uncertainty, and correction. The Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS) Test gives a structured picture of receptiveness, confidence, and the connection between beliefs and self-worth. It suits anyone who wants to reflect on dialogue, judgment, and the possibility of changing their mind.
What This Assessment Explores
The questionnaire examines reactions when an important opinion is challenged. It covers respect for disagreement, confidence, belief revision, and whether contradiction feels threatening to identity or worth. In this CIHS self-assessment, the result describes tendencies rather than permanent qualities.
Five displayed dimensions are:
- Respect for Alternative Viewpoints (6-30) measures regard for differing opinions: Low respect (6-14), Moderate respect (15-22), High respect (23-30).
- Independence of Intellect From Ego (5-25) measures separation of knowledge from self-worth: Ego-involved (5-12), Mostly objective (13-19), Highly ego-independent (20-25).
- Lack of Intellectual Overconfidence (6-30) measures doubt about being unquestionably right: More overconfident (6-13), Balanced confidence (14-22), Less overconfident (23-30).
- Openness to Revising Personal Beliefs (5-25) measures readiness to update views: Low openness (5-12), Moderate openness (13-18), High openness (19-25).
- Intellectual Humility (22-110) measures fallibility, openness, revision, and respect: Lower humility (22-51), Moderate humility (52-80), Higher humility (81-110).
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item uses a five-point agreement response, from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. The statements address listening, certainty, changing one’s mind, and feeling attacked or diminished when important beliefs are challenged. This format captures habitual reactions rather than factual knowledge.
The CIHS online test reports results as dimension totals and an overall total with the displayed bands; the questionnaire does not specify how individual answers are weighted.
The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the published Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale; a Polish version studied by Kroplewski and colleagues provides related evidence, while Tangney’s theoretical work offers context for humility. These sources link fallibility, openness, revision, and respect for alternative perspectives, but this online questionnaire is not presented as a direct adaptation.
The displayed bands are descriptive labels, not standardized population norms or diagnostic cutoffs. Results may reflect current circumstances, social desirability, and imperfect self-awareness, so they are descriptive patterns rather than definitive judgments.
- Krumrei-Mancuso, Elizabeth J., and Steven V. Rouse. “The Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 209-221, 2016. 10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174
- Kroplewski, Zdzislaw, Elizabeth J. Krumrei-Mancuso, Grazyna Bielecka, and Malgorzata Szczesniak. “A Preliminary Validation of the Polish Version of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS).” Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 3627-3638, 2022. 10.2147/PRBM.S380470
- Tangney, June P. “Humility: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Findings and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 70-82, 2000. 10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.70
Updated: