Error-Making Questionnaire Test

Designed for self-reflection, the Error-Making Questionnaire Test contains 50 questions and takes about 10 minutes. It explores thinking habits linked with worry, self-criticism, and rigid demands, helping you recognize patterns in how you interpret setbacks and identify areas for more balanced responses in everyday life.

Questions: 5010 minutes

Error-Making Questionnaire Test: test ticket with numbers

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

28,366 views

2,827 completions

2,285 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

2,285 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Yes, But...YB

Measures how strongly a person tends to respond to positives with a “yes, but…” counterpoint that highlights negatives or justifies negative outcomes.

example score18/20

18/20Highexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 18 falls in the High range, suggesting a frequent tendency to discount positives by focusing on drawbacks or exceptions.

Must StatementsMS

Measures the tendency to hold rigid, absolute “must/should” demands toward oneself that can increase inner pressure and guilt.

example score13/20

13/20Elevated pressureexample score

0 – 6Flexible demands

7 – 13Elevated pressure

14 – 20Rigid demands

A score of 13 suggests an elevated tendency to use self-directed “must” statements, which may heighten internal tension in stressful situations.

What IfWI

Measures how often a person engages in hypothetical “what if…” worry that amplifies anxiety about unlikely problems.

example score6/20

6/20Lowexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 6 falls in the Low range, suggesting “what if…” worry is present but typically not a dominant thinking pattern.

Painful ComparisonPC

Measures how strongly a person tends to compare themselves unfavorably to others or internalize negative judgments.

example score13/20

13/20Moderateexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 13 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting painful comparisons occur fairly often and may affect confidence in some situations.

PerfectionismP

Measures the tendency to set unrealistically high standards and pursue perfection in thinking and self-evaluation.

example score3/20

3/20Lowexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 3 falls in the Low range, suggesting perfectionistic all-or-nothing standards are relatively infrequent for you in this assessment.

Trust in CriticsTiC

Measures the tendency to accept criticism automatically without evaluating its accuracy or usefulness.

example score10/20

10/20Somewhat trustingexample score

0 – 6Balanced

7 – 13Somewhat trusting

14 – 20Highly trusting

A score of 10 falls in the “Somewhat trusting” range, suggesting you may sometimes take criticism at face value and benefit from pausing to check its relevance and evidence.

Trust in One's SpokespersonTiOS

Measures the tendency to overgeneralize success by assuming achievements in one area guarantee success in others without additional effort.

example score15/20

15/20Highexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 15 falls in the High range, suggesting you often lean toward assuming past wins will carry over to new domains without extra preparation.

PersonalizationP

Measures how often a person tends to interpret events as being caused by or directed at them, taking responsibility even when factors are outside their control.

example score7/20

7/20Moderateexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 7 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting a noticeable but not pervasive tendency to take some situations personally and feel undue responsibility.

Mind ReadingMR

Measures how often you assume you know what others think or expect others to infer your needs without clear communication.

example score8/20

8/20Moderateexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 8 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting mind-reading assumptions show up sometimes and may occasionally complicate communication.

Chicken Little SyndromeCLS

Measures the tendency to catastrophize and exaggerate danger based on minor events.

example score15/20

15/20Highexample score

0 – 6Low

7 – 13Moderate

14 – 20High

A score of 15 falls in the High range, suggesting frequent catastrophic interpretations and heightened perceived threat in response to relatively small difficulties.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Anxiety and mood strugglers

44%OF USERS

People dealing with anxiety, low mood, or overwhelm take it to spot the thinking traps that intensify distress and learn what to challenge first.

Therapy and coaching clients

33%OF USERS

People already in therapy or coaching use it to quickly map their common cognitive distortions and track changes over time.

Self-improvement and mindfulness seekers

23%OF USERS

Curious self-reflective people take it to understand biased thought habits in everyday conflicts, decisions, and relationships.

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

Yes, but…Yb

You?

Average9.7

Typical rangeTypical6.3 – 13.1

Possible0 – 20

You must!Ym

You?

Average13.3

Typical rangeTypical9.7 – 16.9

Possible0 – 20

What if…Wi

You?

Average11.5

Typical rangeTypical9 – 14.1

Possible0 – 20

Painful ComparisonPC

You?

Average7.4

Typical rangeTypical4.8 – 9.9

Possible0 – 20

MaximalismM

You?

Average11.2

Typical rangeTypical8.5 – 14

Possible0 – 20

Trusting CriticsTC

You?

Average5.7

Typical rangeTypical2.6 – 8.8

Possible0 – 20

Trusting Your Press SecretaryTYPS

You?

Average5.5

Typical rangeTypical2.7 – 8.2

Possible0 – 20

Tendency to take everything personallyTttep

You?

Average11.8

Typical rangeTypical8.2 – 15.5

Possible0 – 20

Mind ReadingMR

You?

Average9.1

Typical rangeTypical6.2 – 12

Possible0 – 20

The Little Chick SyndromeTLCS

You?

Average12.5

Typical rangeTypical8.9 – 16.2

Possible0 – 20

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

- This statement never applies to me under any circumstances
- This statement applies to me only in the most extreme cases
- This statement sometimes applies to me
- This statement applies to me very often
- This statement is true of me in most cases
- This statement is never true of me under any circumstances
- This statement is true of me only in the most extreme cases
- This statement is sometimes true of me
- This statement is very often true of me
- This statement is true of me in most cases
- This statement never applies to me under any circumstances
- This statement applies to me only in the most extreme cases
- This statement sometimes applies to me
- This statement applies to me very often
- This statement applies to me in most cases

These are 3 of the 50 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Error-Making Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test

cognitive therapy

cognitive distortions

cbt

People who want to understand how reactions take shape can use the Error-Making Questionnaire Test to decide which situations, expectations, or feedback deserve closer attention. Cognitive errors can influence how those situations are interpreted. It is intended for readers seeking a structured profile of responsibility, achievement, uncertainty, and interpersonal signals. The result helps compare these tendencies and select areas for deliberate reflection.

What This Assessment Explores

Items in the online error-making questionnaire cover criticism, comparison, responsibility, achievement, standards, danger, uncertainty, and assumptions about others. Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement. The dimensions are:

Yes, But... (0-20) measures negative focus or rationalization; What If (0-20) measures worry about unlikely problems.
Must Statements (0-20) measures rigid, nonnegotiable demands; Perfectionism (0-20) measures pursuit of unattainable standards.
Painful Comparison (0-20) measures unfavorable comparisons; Trust in Critics (0-20) measures accepting criticism without testing its validity.
Trust in One's Spokesperson (0-20) measures overconfidence across achievements; Personalization (0-20) measures assuming responsibility beyond one's control.
Mind Reading (0-20) measures assumed knowledge of others' thoughts; Chicken Little Syndrome (0-20) measures catastrophic danger judgments.

Most scales use Low 0-6, Moderate 7-13, High 14-20. Must Statements uses Flexible demands 0-6, Elevated pressure 7-13, Rigid demands 14-20; Trust in Critics uses Balanced 0-6, Somewhat trusting 7-13, Highly trusting 14-20.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each statement uses a self-report format with five ordered choices, from never or only in extreme cases to very often or true in most situations. Ratings capture how strongly a thought or reaction fits the respondent, not factual accuracy.

Results are reported across ten displayed scales with descriptive bands. No standardized scoring method or population norms are established for this online questionnaire, so the bands organize the respondent's pattern rather than locate it against a reference group.

Freeman and DeWolf's book presents the Cognitive Mistakes Questionnaire. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with that instrument rather than a validated adaptation of it. Bobrov and Faizrakhmanova's study connects cognitive mistakes with anxiety, which can help explain why worry-related patterns matter, but it does not establish validity for these online scores.

For interpretation, the profile maps recurring appraisals so respondents can compare patterns across situations and decide which assumptions to examine. Current mood, memory, honesty, and self-awareness can affect responses, so a high band identifies a pattern to examine rather than establishing a disorder or its cause.

Author: Donald A. Norman, James Reason

Literature:

Bobrov, A. E., & Faizrakhmanova, E. V. (2017). The Cognitive Mistakes Questionnaire as a Tool for Assessing Components of Pathological Anxiety.. Neurology and Psychiatry, 8(137), 59-65.
Freeman, A. M., & DeWolf, R. (1992). The 10 Dumbest Mistakes Smart People Make and How to Avoid Them: Simple and Sure Techniques for Gaining Greater Control of Your Life. HarperCollins.
Raskaliev, R. A., Kalyuta, T. Yu., Andriyanova, E. A., & Fedonnikov, A. S. (2024). Thinking Style and Nature of Stress Experience in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Russian Journal of Cardiology, 29(11), 6137. 10.15829/1560-4071-2024-6137.
Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. L. (1985). Anxiety Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective. Basic Books.

Updated: 2025-10-02