Locus of Control Test

With 40 yes-or-no questions, the Locus of Control Test takes about six minutes to complete. It explores how you view personal responsibility, influence, chance, and control across everyday, relationship, health, and work situations. Your result can support self-reflection and help you recognise patterns in how you approach decisions, difficulties, and achievements.

Questions: 406 minutes

Locus of Control Test: sample question card

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

26,118 views

2,279 completions

1,967 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

1,967 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Planning ReadinessPR

Measures readiness to independently plan and carry out activities while taking responsibility for outcomes.

example score3/8

3/8Low readinessexample score

0 – 3Low readiness

4Moderate readiness

5 – 8High readiness

A score of 3 suggests lower readiness for independent planning and a tendency to rely more on external structure or guidance when organizing and owning tasks.

Readiness to Overcome DifficultiesRtOD

Measures how ready a person feels to engage in activities that involve overcoming obstacles and challenges.

example score3/8

3/8Lower readinessexample score

0 – 3Lower readiness

4 – 5Moderate readiness

6 – 8High readiness

A score of 3 suggests lower readiness to take on or persist through difficult tasks compared with higher scores on this scale.

Denial of AgencyDoA

Measures the extent to which a person views their actions as ineffective, reflecting externality versus readiness for active self-directed influence.

example score7/16

7/16Low denial (more internal)example score

0 – 8Low denial (more internal)

9Borderline

10 – 16High denial (more external)

A score of 7 falls in the low-denial range, suggesting a more internal orientation and greater readiness to see personal actions as meaningful.

Internality in the Health DomainIitHD

Measures the extent to which a person attributes health outcomes and health-related behaviors to their own actions versus external factors.

example score3/8

3/8More externalexample score

0 – 3More external

4 – 5Mixed

6 – 8More internal

A score of 3 falls in the “More external” range, suggesting health outcomes may be perceived as influenced more by circumstances than by personal control.

Internality in Family RelationshipsIiFR

Measures the extent to which a person attributes outcomes in family and marital relationships to their own actions versus external circumstances.

example score3/8

3/8More externalexample score

0 – 3More external

4Mixed

5 – 8More internal

A score of 3 falls in the “More external” range, suggesting the person more often sees family-related outcomes as shaped by circumstances or other people rather than their own influence.

Responsibility in Interpersonal RelationshipsRiIR

Measures the extent to which a person feels personally responsible for outcomes in interpersonal (international-relations) interactions.

example score4/8

4/8Moderate responsibilityexample score

0 – 3Lower responsibility

4Moderate responsibility

5 – 8Higher responsibility

A score of 4 suggests a moderate tendency to take responsibility in interpersonal relationships, balancing personal accountability with consideration of external factors.

Interpersonal CompetenceIC

Assesses how competent a person perceives themselves to be in managing and building interpersonal relationships.

example score4/8

4/8Moderate perceived competenceexample score

0 – 3Lower perceived competence

4Moderate perceived competence

5 – 8Higher perceived competence

A score of 4 suggests a moderate level of perceived competence in interpersonal relationships, indicating a balanced view of one’s interpersonal skills.

Internality in Interpersonal RelationsIiIR

Measures how much a person sees themselves as actively shaping and maintaining their interpersonal relationships.

example score10/16

10/16High internalityexample score

0 – 8Low internality

9Moderate internality

10 – 16High internality

A score of 10 suggests a higher tendency to view the quality and direction of communication as influenced by your own actions rather than mainly by others or circumstances.

Professional Process SkillsPPS

Measures how developed the practical skills are for sustaining the day-to-day process of professional activity.

example score4/8

4/8Developing skillsexample score

0 – 3Skill gaps

4Developing skills

5 – 8Well-developed skills

A score of 4 indicates developing skills, suggesting professional tasks are generally manageable but may require extra effort or support in some process-related areas.

Occupational-Social AspectOSA

Measures the tendency to take initiative and assume responsibility in professional and social interactions at work with supervisors and colleagues.

example score4/8

4/8Lower initiativeexample score

0 – 4Lower initiative

5Moderate initiative

6 – 8Higher initiative

A score of 4 falls in the Lower initiative range, suggesting a comparatively lower tendency to take the lead and assume responsibility in workplace social interactions.

Internality in Professional ActivityIiPA

Measures how strongly a person tends to take personal responsibility for outcomes in professional or academic goal-directed activities.

example score8/16

8/16Lower internalityexample score

0 – 8Lower internality

9 – 16Higher internality

A score of 8 indicates a lower tendency to attribute work or study outcomes to one’s own actions, with responsibility for results more often perceived as unclear or externally influenced.

Self-Blame PronenessSBP

Measures the tendency to blame oneself for failures and attribute successes to external circumstances versus the opposite attribution pattern.

example score-3/8

-3/8Lower self-blameexample score

-8 – -1Lower self-blame

0Optimal balance

1 – 8Higher self-blame

A score of -3 falls in the Lower self-blame range, suggesting you are more likely to see successes as stemming from your own actions and failures as influenced by external circumstances.

Internality in the Domain of FailuresIitDoF

Measures the extent to which a person attributes failures to their own actions versus external circumstances.

example score4/8

4/8More external attributionexample score

0 – 4More external attribution

5 – 8More internal responsibility

A score of 4 suggests a tendency to lean toward external explanations for failures rather than taking personal responsibility.

Internality in the Achievement DomainIitAD

Measures the extent to which a person attributes achievements and success to their own actions and effort versus external circumstances.

example score4/8

4/8Low internalityexample score

0 – 4Low internality

5Moderate internality

6 – 8High internality

A score of 4 indicates low internality in achievement, suggesting success is more often seen as shaped by external factors than by personal effort.

Internality in Describing Personal ExperienceIiDPE

Measures the extent to which a person attributes their personal experiences and emotional states to their own actions and choices rather than external circumstances.

example score5/20

5/20Low internalityexample score

0 – 10Low internality

11 – 20High internality

A score of 5 indicates low internality in describing personal experience, meaning personal experiences are more often explained by external factors than by one’s own actions.

Internality in General Life DescriptionIiGLD

Measures the extent to which a person tends to view their overall life outcomes as primarily shaped by their own actions versus external circumstances.

example score8/20

8/20More externalexample score

0 – 10More external

11 – 20More internal

A score of 8 falls in the “More external” range, suggesting you more often explain life events in general through circumstances, chance, or other people rather than your own influence.

Internality–ExternalityIE

Measures whether a person tends to attribute life outcomes to their own actions and responsibility (internality) versus external forces and circumstances (externality).

example score9/40

9/40Externalityexample score

0 – 20Externality

21 – 40Internality

A score of 9 falls in the Externality range, suggesting a stronger tendency to view outcomes as shaped by outside factors rather than personal control.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Self-development seekers

41%OF USERS

People who want to understand whether they take responsibility for outcomes or blame circumstances, so they can change habits and build confidence.

Coaching and therapy clients

34%OF USERS

Clients in counseling or coaching who need a clear profile of how they explain successes and failures to set realistic goals and track progress.

HR and team leaders

25%OF USERS

Managers and HR specialists assessing initiative, accountability, and risk readiness to support hiring, onboarding, or team development decisions.

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

Readiness for PlanningRfP

You?

Average4.7

Typical rangeTypical3.4 – 6.1

Possible0 – 8

Readiness to Overcome DifficultiesRtOD

You?

Average4.7

Typical rangeTypical3.4 – 6

Possible0 – 8

Denial of activityDoa

You?

Average9.1

Typical rangeTypical6.1 – 12.1

Possible0 – 16

Internality in the Health DomainIitHD

You?

Average3.6

Typical rangeTypical2.2 – 5

Possible0 – 8

Internality in the Realm of Family RelationshipsIitRoFR

You?

Average2.3

Typical rangeTypical0.9 – 3.7

Possible0 – 8

Responsibility in the field of international relationsRitfoir

You?

Average2.5

Typical rangeTypical1.4 – 3.6

Possible0 – 8

Competence in the field of interpersonal relationshipsCitfoir

You?

Average3

Typical rangeTypical1.6 – 4.3

Possible0 – 8

Internality in the Sphere of Interpersonal RelationshipsIitSoIR

You?

Average7.7

Typical rangeTypical4.8 – 10.6

Possible0 – 16

Professional-Process AspectPA

You?

Average3.9

Typical rangeTypical2.8 – 5

Possible0 – 8

Professional and social aspectPasa

You?

Average5

Typical rangeTypical3.8 – 6.2

Possible0 – 8

Internality in Professional ActivityIiPA

You?

Average10.8

Typical rangeTypical8.7 – 12.8

Possible0 – 16

Predisposition to self-blamePts

You?

Average3.4

Typical rangeTypical0.5 – 6.2

Possible-8 – 8

Internality in the Domain of FailuresIitDoF

You?

Average4.9

Typical rangeTypical3.6 – 6.2

Possible0 – 8

Internality in the Domain of AchievementIitDoA

You?

Average5.8

Typical rangeTypical4.5 – 7

Possible0 – 8

Internality in Describing Personal ExperienceIiDPE

You?

Average11.6

Typical rangeTypical8.7 – 14.5

Possible0 – 20

Internality in Describing Life in GeneralIiDLiG

You?

Average13.6

Typical rangeTypical10.4 – 16.8

Possible0 – 20

Externality – InternalityE–I

You?

Average12.2

Typical rangeTypical6 – 18.4

Possible0 – 40

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

You will be presented with statements about life. You may agree or disagree with each statement. If you think, “Yes, I feel about the same,” select “Yes.” If you think, “No, I feel differently,” select “No.”

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

These are 3 of the 40 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Locus of Control Test - Description and methodology of the test

locus of control

People who want to understand how they explain success, setbacks, choices, and responsibility may find the Locus of Control Test useful for structured self-reflection. This locus of control questionnaire shows how perceived influence can vary across health, family, interpersonal, educational, and work situations. Questions also touch persistence through difficulties, self-blame, achievement, and workplace initiative.

What This Assessment Explores

Designed for people seeking a clearer picture of perceived agency, the test links beliefs with effort, luck, blame, cooperation, and achievement. It distinguishes personal influence from expectations that outside forces determine outcomes.

The displayed dimensions include these representative scales and bands:

Planning Readiness (0-8) shows readiness for independent planning and responsibility: Low readiness 0-3; Moderate readiness 4-4; High readiness 5-8.
Denial of Agency (0-16) is reverse-scored: Low denial (more internal) 0-8; Borderline 9-9; High denial (more external) 10-16.
Internality-Externality (0-40) summarizes orientation: Externality 0-20; Internality 21-40.

Together, the profile shows whether initiative and responsibility feel personal or whether luck and other people seem to shape outcomes.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each item is a short statement answered Yes or No. The item groups address responsibility, chance, perceived influence, relationship outcomes, health, achievement, failure, and professional activity. Responses are combined into separate domain scores and an overall orientation. Denial of Agency is reverse-scored relative to the other scales, so higher values indicate stronger externality, while the overall result reads higher for internality.

Methodologically, this locus of control assessment is conceptually consistent with Ksenofontova's revised Subjective Control Level (1999), which organizes perceived control across life domains, and with the domain structure associated with Bazhin, Golynkina, and Etkind (1984). Rotter (1966) supplies the internal versus external locus of control framework. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the cited frameworks but is not presented as a documented full reproduction or adaptation of either published instrument, so their validation findings do not establish validity for this online version.

The displayed bands are the interpretation scheme for this version; no population norms or standardization are stated for the questionnaire. Because answers depend on current context, honesty, and self-awareness, the profile is a structured snapshot rather than a clinical diagnosis.

Author: J. B. Rotter

Literature:

Ksenofontova, E. G. (1999). Study of the localization of personality control: A new version of the Subjective Control Level methodology. Psychological Journal, 20(2), 103-114. [In Russian].
Bazhin, E. F., Golynkina, E. A., & Etkind, A. M. (1984). Method for studying the level of subjective control. Psychological Journal, 5(3), 152-162. [In Russian].
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. 10.1037/h0092976

Updated: 2025-10-02