Core Values 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
- Not important at all
- Of little importance
- Moderately important
- Important
- Very important to me
- Not at all important
- Of little importance
- Moderately
- Important
- Very important to me
- Not important at all
- Slightly important
- Moderately
- Important
- Very important to me
Core Values Test - Description and methodology of the test
Students and other readers weighing study, work, relationships, or future plans can use this assessment to pause over the principles behind a decision. The core values quiz places those reflections in a structured profile. That profile can clarify tensions between competing priorities before a person chooses a goal, commitment, or next step. A values quiz offers a simple prompt for discussing why one option feels more important than another.
What This Assessment Explores
Questions rate goals; this values test groups dimensions:
- Life direction covers Material Values, High Aspirations, Erudition, Education, Power, Social Approval, Achievement Orientation, Inner Satisfaction, Professional Values, Development and Self-Improvement, Social Status Values, Universal Human Values, Communication, Knowledge and Learning (1-5: Low 1-2, Moderate 3-3, High 4-5).
- Agency covers Initiative, Personal Traits, Competence, Independence, Personal Responsibility, Instrumental Values, Active Life, Competitiveness; first four: 1-2, 3-3, 4-5; rest: Low 1-2.3, Moderate 2.4-3.6, High 3.7-5.
- Work, Pleasure, and Terminal Values capture priorities. Work uses Lower priority 1-2, Balanced 3-3, High priority 4-5; Pleasure uses Lower emphasis on pleasure 1-2, Moderate emphasis on pleasure 3-3, Higher emphasis on pleasure 4-5; Terminal Values uses Less defined 1-2, Balanced 3-3, Highly defined 4-5.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
The core values test uses five-point importance responses, from not important at all or of little importance to very important to me, with intermediate choices. Self-ratings describe present priorities, and the result displays scale scores from 1-5.
Methodologically, the questionnaire is conceptually consistent with Rogov's 1999 work on values and motives, not documented as its adaptation or verbatim reproduction. Schwartz's 1992 theory treats values as motivational priorities that may compete, while Rokeach distinguishes desired end states from qualities or means used to pursue them.
Displayed bands label the questionnaire's score ranges. Current circumstances, social desirability, and limited self-awareness can affect self-report, so use the profile to examine choices across study, work, and relationships. The profile uses displayed bands rather than stated normative standardization or clinical cutoffs, so a high score indicates a stronger expressed priority on that scale, not a universal ranking.
- Rogov, Mikhail Georgievich. Values and Motives of the Individual in the System of Continuous Professional Education: Doctoral Dissertation in Psychology. Kazan, 1999, 349 pp.
- Schwartz, Shalom H. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 1-65. Academic Press, 1992. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
- Rokeach, Milton. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York, 1973, 438 pp.
Updated: