Home1
Psychological tests2
Childhood Emotional Neglect Test3

Childhood Emotional Neglect Test

With 103 yes-or-no questions and an estimated completion time of 19 minutes, this childhood emotional neglect test examines a child’s experiences across family and educational settings, including anxiety, communication, play, self-awareness, and social adjustment. Results can support thoughtful reflection on the child’s environment and highlight areas deserving closer attention.

Questions: 10319 minutes

Childhood Emotional Neglect Test: sample question card

October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published

30,400 views

2,824 completions

2,367 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

2,367 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

In KindergartenIK

Assesses how the kindergarten learning environment and everyday interactions influence the child's adaptation and relationships with teachers and peers.

example score7/10

7/10Low difficultiesexample score

0 – 8Low difficulties

9 – 10Elevated difficulties

A score of 7 suggests generally manageable kindergarten-related difficulties, with some areas that may still affect comfort, behavior, or peer/teacher interactions.

In the FamilyItF

Assesses how the family environment and parenting conditions support or hinder the child’s development and socialization.

example score13/15

13/15Pronounced difficultiesexample score

0 – 5Favorable

6 – 10Mixed/variable

11 – 15Pronounced difficulties

A score of 13 falls in the “Pronounced difficulties” range, suggesting the family educational microsystem is currently associated with significant challenges for the child’s development and socialization.

Childrearing Microsocial EnvironmentCME

Assesses how the family and educational setting may contribute to the child's socio-pedagogical difficulties through the educational microsystem.

example score22/50

22/50Moderate concernexample score

0 – 9Favorable / low concern

10 – 25Moderate concern

26 – 50Unfavorable / high concern

A score of 22 falls in the Moderate concern range, suggesting noticeable but not extreme challenges in the child's educational microsystem that may be influencing adaptation and behavior.

In KindergartenIK

Assesses the child's level of anxiety in the preschool setting and how comfortably they adapt to the group environment.

example score5/12

5/12Lowexample score

0 – 8Low

9 – 12Elevated

A score of 5 falls in the Low range, suggesting generally calm adjustment to the preschool group with no prominent anxiety signs in this setting.

In the FamilyItF

Measures the intensity of a child's anxiety associated with the family environment and relationships with close relatives.

example score8/10

8/10Highexample score

0 – 3Low

4 – 6Moderate

7 – 10High

A score of 8 falls in the High range, indicating pronounced family-related anxiety that may be reflected in the child's behavior and interactions at home.

General AnxietyGA

Assesses the child’s overall anxiety level across everyday situations and contexts.

example score20/50

20/50Moderateexample score

0 – 9Low

10 – 25Moderate

26 – 50High

A score of 20 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting a noticeable but not pronounced level of general anxiety that may be associated with some adjustment or emotional difficulties.

Play ReflectionPR

Assesses how well the child can understand and analyze their own play activities.

example score2/5

2/5Moderate reflectionexample score

0 – 1Low reflection

2 – 3Moderate reflection

4 – 5High reflection

A score of 2 indicates moderate game reflection, suggesting the child shows some ability to think about their play but may do so inconsistently or with limited detail.

Play ActivityPA

Assesses the child's engagement in play activities and initiative during games.

example score2/6

2/6Lowexample score

0 – 2Low

3 – 4Moderate

5 – 6High

A score of 2 indicates low play engagement, with limited initiative or participation during games.

Play SkillsPS

Assesses how well a child has developed basic play skills needed for full participation in games.

example score3/7

3/7Developing play skillsexample score

0 – 2Limited play skills

3 – 5Developing play skills

6 – 7Well-developed play skills

A score of 3 suggests the child’s play skills are developing, with some key abilities present but not yet consistently used in gameplay.

Activity AgentAA

Assesses the child’s development as an active subject of activity, including play skills, initiative, and reflection.

example score28/50

28/50Highexample score

0 – 9Low

10 – 25Moderate

26 – 50High

A score of 28 falls in the High range, suggesting relatively well-developed play activity, initiative, and reflective skills compared with lower scores.

Communication SubjectCS

Assesses the development of a child’s communicative traits and typical engagement in social interaction.

example score4/50

4/50Adequate communicative developmentexample score

0 – 9Adequate communicative development

10 – 25Elevated communication difficulties

26 – 50High communication difficulties

A score of 4 falls in the Adequate communicative development range, suggesting generally sufficient communicative traits with no pronounced indicators of reduced communicative activity on this scale.

Self-AwarenessSA

Assesses the child’s level of self-awareness and self-identification as reflected in behavior and social adaptation.

example score7/50

7/50Low risk indicatorsexample score

0 – 9Low risk indicators

10 – 25Moderate risk indicators

26 – 50High risk indicators

A score of 7 falls in the Low risk indicators range, suggesting few observable signs of self-identification or self-esteem difficulties on this scale.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

School psychologists and counselors

41%OF USERS

Use it to quickly clarify whether a child’s difficulties reflect socio-pedagogical neglect and to outline priority support steps with input from adults around the child.

Class teachers and homeroom staff

34%OF USERS

Take it when a student shows persistent behavior, learning, or adaptation issues and a structured, multi-adult view is needed for referrals and interventions.

Social workers and guardians

25%OF USERS

Apply it to document signs of neglect-related risks and coordinate help plans by comparing parent, teacher, and specialist observations.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.

Shaded area — where most people score

Dot — the average

You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test

In kindergartenIk

You?

Average4.2

Typical rangeTypical2.3 – 6

Possible0 – 10

In the familyItf

You?

Average5.7

Typical rangeTypical3 – 8.4

Possible0 – 15

V. Educational MicrosystemVEM

You?

Average34.7

Typical rangeTypical28.4 – 41

Possible0 – 50

At preschoolAp

You?

Average5

Typical rangeTypical3.5 – 6.6

Possible0 – 12

In the FamilyItF

You?

Average5.5

Typical rangeTypical4 – 7.1

Possible0 – 10

IV. General AnxietyIGA

You?

Average33.2

Typical rangeTypical24.2 – 42.1

Possible0 – 50

Game ReflectionGR

You?

Average2.3

Typical rangeTypical1.3 – 3.2

Possible0 – 5

Gaming ActivityGA

You?

Average3.4

Typical rangeTypical2.7 – 4.2

Possible0 – 6

Gaming AbilitiesGA

You?

Average4.7

Typical rangeTypical3.4 – 6

Possible0 – 7

III. The Subject of ActivityITSoA

You?

Average28.5

Typical rangeTypical21.6 – 35.5

Possible0 – 50

II. The Subject of CommunicationITSoC

You?

Average34.1

Typical rangeTypical25.1 – 43.1

Possible0 – 50

I. The Subject of Self-ConsciousnessITSoS

You?

Average35.1

Typical rangeTypical28.4 – 41.8

Possible0 – 50

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

Please read each statement carefully. If the statement describes your child, select “Yes”; otherwise, select “No.” Honest responses will support an accurate assessment of the situation and help identify ways to address your child’s current difficulties. In the final section of the questionnaire, the statements will refer to the child’s parents and teachers (caregivers/educators).

- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No

These are 3 of the 103 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Childhood Emotional Neglect Test - Description and methodology of the test

adaptation

deviations

For families, educators, and practitioners trying to understand a child’s social and emotional environment, a childhood emotional neglect test can organize observations that may otherwise seem disconnected. It is intended for situations in which behavior, relationships, play, or adaptation raise questions about support and development. This childhood neglect questionnaire produces a structured profile of areas that may deserve discussion and closer observation.

What This Assessment Explores

These four result areas show how an emotional neglect test organizes the child’s context, anxiety, play, communication, and self-awareness:

Environmental influence covers In Kindergarten 0-10 [Low difficulties 0-8; Elevated difficulties 9-10], In the Family 0-15 [Favorable 0-5; Mixed/variable 6-10; Pronounced difficulties 11-15], and Childrearing Microsocial Environment 0-50 [Favorable / low concern 0-9; Moderate concern 10-25; Unfavorable / high concern 26-50].
Anxiety is represented by In Kindergarten 0-12 [Low 0-8; Elevated 9-12], In the Family 0-10 [Low 0-3; Moderate 4-6; High 7-10], and General Anxiety 0-50 [Low 0-9; Moderate 10-25; High 26-50].
Play development is represented by Play Reflection 0-5 [Low reflection 0-1; Moderate reflection 2-3; High reflection 4-5], Play Activity 0-6 [Low 0-2; Moderate 3-4; High 5-6], Play Skills 0-7 [Limited play skills 0-2; Developing play skills 3-5; Well-developed play skills 6-7], and Activity Agent 0-50 [Low 0-9; Moderate 10-25; High 26-50].
Communication and self-awareness are represented by Communication Subject 0-50 [Adequate communicative development 0-9; Elevated communication difficulties 10-25; High communication difficulties 26-50] and Self-Awareness 0-50 [Low risk indicators 0-9; Moderate risk indicators 10-25; High risk indicators 26-50].

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Respondents mark Yes or No to statements about a child’s behavior, feelings, relationships, play, and surrounding adults. Responses are combined into displayed subscales rather than one global judgment, and each result follows its scale definition. No equal point value should be inferred for every answer. Higher scores do not mean the same thing everywhere: anxiety and communication scores indicate more difficulty, while higher Activity Agent scores may indicate better-formed play.

MEDOS (Ovcharova, 2014) is the methodological anchor. It examines social and pedagogical neglect through development within family and educational microsystems, including communication, activity, self-awareness, anxiety, and environmental influence. Ovcharova’s 2008 monograph and 2010 diagnostic discussion provide context; the 2021 comparative study offers related evidence, not validation of this online form.

This childhood emotional neglect assessment is conceptually consistent with that work, but is not presented as a standardized reproduction and does not inherit the source studies’ norms. Answers can shift with current circumstances, observer perspective, social desirability, and the child’s self-awareness. It is a screening and reflection profile, not a diagnosis.

Author: Thomas M. Achenbach

Literature:

Ovcharova, Raisa Viktorovna. Psychodiagnostic Complex MEDOS: A Method of Comprehensive Express Diagnostics of Social and Pedagogical Neglect in Children and Adolescents. Moscow: Moscow Psychological and Social University, 2014, 88 pp. ISBN 978-5-9770-0799-3.
Ovcharova, Raisa Viktorovna. Social and Pedagogical Neglect of Children and Adolescents: A Monograph. Kurgan: Kurgan State University, 2008, 376 pp. ISBN 978-5-86328-933-5.
Ovcharova, Raisa Viktorovna. Problems of Diagnostics and Correction of Social-Pedagogical Neglect of Children and Teenagers. Pedagogical Education in Russia, no. 1, 2010, pp. 52-56.
Ovcharova, Raisa. Comparative Analysis of Adolescence Resilience (Norm, Neglect, Delinquency). European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 112, 2021, pp. 185-194. 10.15405/epsbs.2021.06.04.22.

Updated: 2025-10-02