Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS) 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
- Somewhat disagree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Somewhat agree
- Strongly agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree somewhat
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Agree somewhat
- Strongly agree
- Strongly disagree
- Somewhat disagree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Somewhat agree
- Strongly agree
Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS) Test - Description and methodology of the test
People who want to examine how safe, connected, and settled they feel around others can use the Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS) Test as a structured self-reflection. It is suitable for considering experiences of trust, expression, bodily calm, and care in a social setting. This psychological safety questionnaire can make patterns in interpersonal comfort easier to notice and discuss.
What This Assessment Explores
The items examine safety as a lived experience: how the body settles, how a person relates to others, and whether the social environment feels trustworthy. They suit people reflecting on a relationship, group, or recent interaction rather than one fixed setting. A neuroception assessment of this kind turns those experiences into a profile with four displayed dimensions:
- Bodily Sensations (1-5) measures awareness of physical signals linked with safety; higher scores mean stronger attunement. Low awareness is 1-3.1; High awareness is 3.2-5.
- Compassion (1-5) reflects empathy and readiness to support others. Lower compassion is 1-3.3; Higher compassion is 3.4-5.
- Social Engagement (1-5) reflects openness and active participation in interaction. Low social activity is 1-3.2; Typical social activity is 3.3-5.
- Psychological Safety (1-5) reflects perceived protection, trust, and interpersonal comfort. Low safety is 1-3.2; High safety is 3.3-5.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each statement uses a five-point agreement format from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Items address relationships, compassionate responses, and bodily cues, while results organize responses into four displayed 1-5 dimensions. Because the questionnaire does not specify item weights, reverse coding, or an aggregation formula, no extra scoring rule should be inferred.
The questionnaire is an online adaptation of the Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS) described by Morton et al. (2024), with its items corresponding to the four displayed dimensions. Cogan et al. (2024, 2025) report validation studies in UK health and social care and adult community samples, and Porges (2022) provides the Polyvagal Theory framework for bodily and social safety responses. Those studies do not establish norms for this online questionnaire.
In practice, the psychological safety assessment gives a descriptive profile, not diagnostic cutoffs. Scores may shift with current stress, context, self-awareness, and honesty in self-report, so interpret the pattern alongside the situation that prompted it.
- Morton, L., Cogan, N., Kolacz, J., Calderwood, C., Nikolic, M., Bacon, T., Pathe, E., Williams, D., & Porges, S. W. (2024). A new measure of feeling safe: Developing psychometric properties of the Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS). Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 16(4), 701-708. 10.1037/tra0001313
- Cogan, N., Morton, L., Campbell, J., Irvine Fitzpatrick, L., Lamb, D., De Kock, J., Ali, A., Young, D., & Porges, S. W. (2025). Neuroception of psychological safety scale (NPSS): Validation with a UK based adult community sample. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 16(1), 2490329. 10.1080/20008066.2025.2490329
- Cogan, N., Campbell, J., Morton, L., Young, D., & Porges, S. W. (2024). Validation of the Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS) Among Health and Social Care Workers in the UK. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(12), 1551. 10.3390/ijerph21121551
- Porges, S. W. (2022). Polyvagal Theory: A Science of Safety. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 16, 871227. 10.3389/fnint.2022.871227
Updated: