Posttraumatic Growth and Devaluation Questionnaire Test

People reflecting on how a crisis has changed their outlook, relationships, and sense of self may find the Posttraumatic Growth and Devaluation Questionnaire Test useful. As a posttraumatic growth questionnaire, it offers a structured profile of constructive and difficult shifts, helping respondents identify areas that feel strengthened, constrained, or unsettled. It suits reflection after an adverse experience.

What This Assessment Measures

This posttraumatic growth and devaluation questionnaire presents mixed change.

These scales have bands:

• Disappointment and Skepticism and Loss of Meaning in Life (0-5) measure distrust/emptiness; Low 0-1, Moderate 2-3, High 4-5.
• Interpersonal Exhaustion and Inner Constraint (0-5) measure depletion/tension; Low 0-1/0-1.6, Moderate 2-3/1.7-3.3, High 4-5/3.4-5.
• Posttraumatic Devaluation and Posttraumatic Growth (0-5) measure negative/positive change: Low devaluation 0-1.6, Moderate devaluation 1.7-3.3, High devaluation 3.4-5; Low growth 0-1.6, Moderate growth 1.7-3.3, High growth 3.4-5.
• Interpersonal Optimism, Empathy Capacity, and Inner Freedom (0-5) measure trust/support/adaptability; first and last use Low 0-1, Moderate 2-3, High 4-5; Empathy Capacity uses Lower empathy 0-1, Moderate empathy 2-3, Higher empathy 4-5.
• Meaning in Life (0-5) measures purpose; Low 0-1.6, Moderate 1.7-3.3, High 3.4-5.

Methodology and Evidence

Each item uses six ordered responses from 0, meaning no crisis-related change, to 5, meaning change to a very great extent. The format measures perceived extent, not an objective before-and-after difference. Responses are organized into dimension scores, but no item-by-item weighting rule is specified; read the profile descriptively rather than as one total severity score.

Evidence is closest to PTGDI-X (Bocharov et al., 2024), whose paired growth-and-depreciation structure matches the content. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with that instrument, not presented as a validated adaptation. Taku et al. (2021) supports the broader PTG-PTD model; Baker et al. (2008) treats growth and depreciation as distinct; Tedeschi and Calhoun’s PTGI (1996) supplies the growth framework.

Displayed labels organize self-report results, not population norms. Current circumstances and willingness to disclose can shift answers, so the profile cannot establish a diagnosis or replace broader assessment. As a posttraumatic growth assessment, it helps identify patterns for further reflection.