Identity Resilience Index (IRI) 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
- Disagree
- Partly agree
- Agree
- Completely agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Partly agree
- Agree
- Strongly agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Partly agree
- Agree
- Strongly agree
Identity Resilience Index (IRI) Test - Description and methodology of the test
People facing a transition, demanding decision, or prolonged uncertainty may use the Identity Resilience Index (IRI) Test to pause and examine how secure and adaptable their sense of self feels. An identity resilience assessment offers a structured starting point for noticing patterns that deserve attention, especially when everyday reactions are difficult to interpret in isolation.
What This Assessment Explores
This questionnaire examines whether a person can maintain a coherent sense of self as circumstances, relationships, or demands change. It is a structured identity resilience questionnaire with a descriptive, dimension-focused profile.
The result reports four component scales and one composite index:
- Self-Efficacy (4-20) measures confidence in achieving goals and coping with difficulties: Low 4-9, Moderate 10-15, High 16-20.
- Self-Esteem (4-20) measures perceived personal worth: Low 4-9, Moderate 10-15, High 16-20.
- Uniqueness (4-20) measures a sense of distinctiveness from others: Low 4-9, Moderate 10-14, High 15-20.
- Integrity (4-20) measures identity coherence and continuity between past and present: Low integrity 4-9, Moderate integrity 10-14, High integrity 15-20.
- Identity Resilience Index (16-80) combines the four component scales to indicate identity stability during change: Low stability 16-37, Moderate stability 38-58, High stability 59-80.
Methodology and Evidence Base
Responses use a five-point agreement scale from strong disagreement to strong agreement. The 16 statements address self-evaluation, coping with difficult or unexpected events, continuity between past and present, and uniqueness. This online personal identity questionnaire is a structured self-report exercise, not an interview or performance task.
Scoring is dimensional: responses are summarized within four component areas and combined into the overall index. Displayed ranges describe levels within this questionnaire; they do not show how every response is weighted.
The closest evidence is Identity Resilience Index (Breakwell et al., 2022), a published instrument validated in two UK samples. Breakwell’s framework links identity processes with coping under threat. Vignoles, Chryssochoou, and Breakwell treat self-esteem as one identity motive among several; Simsek and Yalincetin support the relevance of uniqueness. This questionnaire is an online adaptation of that published 16-item measure, not a separate construct.
The online questionnaire has not been standardized against those UK samples. Its displayed bands are questionnaire-specific rather than norms from those samples; interpret them as a structured description. Mood, self-awareness, memory, and socially desirable responding can shape self-report.
- Breakwell, G. M., Fino, E., & Jaspal, R. (2022). The Identity Resilience Index: Development and Validation in Two UK Samples. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 22(2), 166-182. 10.1080/15283488.2021.1957895
- Breakwell, G. M. (2021). Identity resilience: Its origins in identity processes and its role in coping with threat. Contemporary Social Science, 16(5), 573-588. 10.1080/21582041.2021.1999488
- Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2002). Evaluating models of identity motivation: Self-esteem is not the whole story. Self and Identity, 1(3), 201-218. 10.1080/152988602760124847
- Simsek, O. F., & Yalincetin, B. (2010). I feel unique, therefore I am: The development and preliminary validation of the personal sense of uniqueness (PSU) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 576-581. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.006
Updated: