Freudly+971 508685814hello@freudly.ai
Freudly
attitude towards illness

Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment Questionnaire Test

Take the online Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment Questionnaire Test - AI psychologist FreudlyYou can take Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment Questionnaire Test here. Online version of a simple and accurate psychological test with interpretation.en
In about two minutes, the Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment Questionnaire Test helps you reflect on how illness may affect finances, work, family relationships, appearance, energy, leisure, and social contact. Its 10 questions provide a structured profile of perceived impacts, supporting clearer self-reflection about the areas that feel most difficult.
Questions: 102 minutes
Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment: situation and reply bubbles
October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published
30,749 views
2,232 completions
1,944 likes
Daniel HallPsychologist · Test reviewer
1,944 likes
Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Financial LossFL
Measures perceived financial losses and material impact associated with the illness.
example score4/5
4/5High impactexample score
0 – 1Low impact
2 – 3Moderate impact
4 – 5High impact
A score of 4 suggests the illness is perceived as having a high material impact, with notable financial strain or losses.
Development of Feelings of InferiorityDoFoI
Measures how strongly the person feels personal inferiority related to their illness in social contexts.
example score3/5
3/5Moderateexample score
0 – 1Low
2 – 3Moderate
4 – 5High
A score of 3 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting a noticeable but not extreme sense of personal inadequacy linked to the illness.
Reduced Physical AttractivenessRPA
Assesses how strongly a person feels their illness has reduced their appearance and physical attractiveness.
example score2/5
2/5Moderate impactexample score
0 – 1Low impact
2 – 3Moderate impact
4 – 5High impact
A score of 2 suggests a moderate perceived impact of illness on physical attractiveness, with some associated discomfort but not severe distress.
Inability to Pursue a CareerItPaC
Assesses how strongly illness-related limitations are perceived to restrict career development and professional advancement.
example score4/5
4/5High impactexample score
0 – 1Low impact
2 – 3Moderate impact
4 – 5High impact
A score of 4 indicates a high perceived impact of the illness on career prospects and professional self-identity.
Leisure Time RestrictionLTR
Measures how much illness restricts leisure activities and available free time.
example score3/5
3/5Moderate limitationexample score
0 – 1Low limitation
2 – 3Moderate limitation
4 – 5High limitation
A score of 3 indicates a moderate level of illness-related restriction of free time, with noticeable but not maximal impact on relaxation and personal interests.
Deterioration of Workplace RelationshipsDoWR
Measures how much the illness is perceived to worsen professional relationships and the workplace atmosphere.
example score4/5
4/5Strong impactexample score
0 – 1Minimal impact
2 – 3Noticeable impact
4 – 5Strong impact
A score of 4 indicates a strong perceived negative impact of the illness on relationships at work and the overall workplace climate.
Withdrawal From PleasuresWFP
Measures how much illness limits a person’s ability to enjoy their usual pleasures and everyday joys.
example score3/5
3/5Noticeable limitsexample score
0 – 1Minimal limits
2 – 3Noticeable limits
4 – 5Strong limits
A score of 3 indicates noticeable limitations in customary pleasures, suggesting a meaningful reduction in perceived day-to-day enjoyment.
Deterioration of Family RelationshipsDoFR
Measures the extent to which illness is perceived to strain or disrupt relationships with family members.
example score3/5
3/5Moderate difficultiesexample score
0 – 1Minimal impact
2 – 3Moderate difficulties
4 – 5Severe difficulties
A score of 3 indicates a moderate level of illness-related difficulties in family relationships.
Perceived Loss of Strength and EnergyPLoSaE
Measures how strongly the illness is associated with a subjective loss of vitality and energy in daily functioning.
example score2/5
2/5Moderate impactexample score
0 – 1Low impact
2 – 3Moderate impact
4 – 5High impact
A score of 2 indicates a moderate perceived loss of strength and energy associated with the illness, with some impact on physical well-being and activity.
Social Interaction RestrictionSIR
Assesses how much the illness limits a person’s social contacts and everyday communication.
example score3/5
3/5Moderate restrictionexample score
0 – 1Minimal restriction
2 – 3Moderate restriction
4 – 5Severe restriction
A score of 3 indicates a moderate level of communication restriction, suggesting noticeable but not extreme limitations in social interaction due to the illness.
just completed the test
DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

People with chronic illness
46%OF USERS
They take it to understand how a long-term condition is changing their role at work, in the family, and in social circles.
Recently diagnosed patients
32%OF USERS
They use it to quickly gauge how a new diagnosis is affecting confidence, communication, and how others treat them.
Rehab and disability applicants
22%OF USERS
They take it to document social and occupational difficulties related to illness when seeking accommodations or support.
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
Material damageMd
You?
Average1.7
Typical rangeTypical1 – 2.5
Possible0 – 5
Developing a Sense of InferiorityDaSoI
You?
Average2
Typical rangeTypical1.1 – 2.9
Possible0 – 5
Decreased physical attractivenessDpa
You?
Average3.1
Typical rangeTypical2.3 – 3.8
Possible0 – 5
Inability to Build a CareerItBaC
You?
Average2
Typical rangeTypical1.2 – 2.9
Possible0 – 5
Limitation of free timeLoft
You?
Average2.7
Typical rangeTypical2.1 – 3.4
Possible0 – 5
Worsening Relationship at WorkWRaW
You?
Average3.1
Typical rangeTypical2.3 – 3.9
Possible0 – 5
Renouncing PleasuresRP
You?
Average3.3
Typical rangeTypical2.6 – 3.9
Possible0 – 5
Deterioration of family relationshipsDofr
You?
Average2.9
Typical rangeTypical2 – 3.9
Possible0 – 5
Feeling of loss of strength and energyFolosae
You?
Average1.4
Typical rangeTypical0.5 – 2.3
Possible0 – 5
Communication RestrictionsCR
You?
Average3
Typical rangeTypical2 – 3.9
Possible0 – 5
Featured On
SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

    • Definitely not
    • Probably not
    • Not sure
    • Probably yes
    • Definitely yes
    • Definitely not
    • Probably not
    • Not sure
    • Probably yes
    • Definitely yes
    • Definitely not
    • Probably not
    • Not sure
    • Probably yes
    • Definitely yes
WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test

attitude towards illness

For people who want to understand how a health condition affects everyday roles and relationships, the Illness Social Significance Self-Assessment Questionnaire Test offers a structured way to examine perceived consequences. This illness impact self-assessment suits people reflecting on financial pressure, work, family life, appearance, energy, pleasure, and social contact. Its result highlights areas that feel most affected.

What This Assessment Explores

The questionnaire examines the social significance of illness: the way a condition can change material security, work, self-image, energy, enjoyment, communication, and relationships. Viewed as a social significance of illness questionnaire, it focuses on perceived effects rather than disease severity or treatment response, making it useful for people reflecting on changed daily participation.

Its dimensions connect practical restrictions with emotional and social consequences. Financial pressure appears alongside career barriers, workplace strain, family difficulty, appearance concerns, self-worth concerns, lower vitality, limited leisure, reduced enjoyment, and less contact with others. This profile helps show which parts of ordinary life feel most disrupted.

Higher results indicate a stronger perceived effect in the relevant domain. The pattern can organize self-reflection and support a conversation about priorities, support, and adjustment, while distinguishing changes linked to illness from the person’s experience of them.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Five response options yield 0-5 scores; higher values indicate greater impact. Bands:

  • Financial Loss (0-5), Reduced Physical Attractiveness (0-5), Inability to Pursue a Career (0-5), and Perceived Loss of Strength and Energy (0-5) show financial, appearance, career and vitality; bands: Low impact 0-1, Moderate impact 2-3, and High impact 4-5.
  • Development of Feelings of Inferiority (0-5), Leisure Time Restriction (0-5), and Withdrawal From Pleasures (0-5) show inferiority, recreation, enjoyment; bands: Low/Low limitation/Minimal limits 0-1, Moderate/Moderate limitation/Noticeable limits 2-3, and High/High limitation/Strong limits 4-5.
  • Deterioration of Workplace Relationships (0-5), Deterioration of Family Relationships (0-5), and Social Interaction Restriction (0-5) show workplace, family, contact; bands: Minimal impact/Minimal impact/Minimal restriction 0-1, Noticeable impact/Moderate difficulties/Moderate restriction 2-3, and Strong impact/Severe difficulties/Severe restriction 4-5.

Serdyuk Questionnaire (1994) is the closest source. Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model and Sharova-Vazhenin provide context; it is not adapted from them. Self-report and current context shape this illness consequences assessment.

Author: Howard Leventhal
Literature:
  • Mikhailov, B. V., Serdyuk, A. I., & Fedoseev, V. A. (2002). Psychotherapy in General Somatic Medicine: A Clinical Guide. Kharkiv: Prapor, 128 pp.
  • Sharova, O. N., & Vazhenin, A. V. (2017). Values in the Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Model of Persons with Oncological Diseases. Palliative Medicine and Rehabilitation, no. 4, pp. 32-38.
  • Leventhal, H., Meyer, D., & Nerenz, D. (1980). The Common Sense Representation of Illness Danger. In S. Rachman (Ed.), Contributions to Medical Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 7-30). New York: Pergamon Press.
  • Leventhal, H., Phillips, L. A., & Burns, E. (2016). The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): A Dynamic Framework for Understanding Illness Self-Management. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39(6), 935-946. 10.1007/s10865-016-9782-2

Updated:

Popular tests
Comments
Leave a Comment