Urban Residents' Psychological Safety Scale (URPS) Test

People who want to understand how their surroundings, access to services, work prospects, and relationships shape their sense of security may find this assessment useful. The Urban Residents' Psychological Safety Scale (URPS) Test examines security in everyday urban life. Its profile helps respondents identify supportive areas and sources of concern. As a self-report assessment of perceived urban safety, it records respondents' perceptions rather than objective city conditions.

What This Assessment Explores

The questionnaire links external conditions with inner expectations. Its items cover environment, healthcare, work and finances, future confidence, and relationships. Viewed as a psychological safety scale for urban residents, the profile shows each domain's reported safety level or band rather than ranking raw scores across scales.

The displayed result types are:

• Environmental Safety (5-25) measures perceived environmental safety: Low 5-11; Moderate 12-18; High 19-25.
• Medical and Social Safety (4-20) reflects perceived access to quality medical care: Low security 4-9; Moderate security 10-14; High security 15-20.
• Social Security (5-25) reflects financial stability and employment confidence: Low 5-11; Moderate 12-18; High 19-25.
• Psychological Safety domain (6-30) reflects perceived confidence about future life and relationships: Low 6-13; Moderate 14-22; High 23-30.
• Overall Psychological Safety score (20-100) indicates the overall sense of psychological safety in the urban environment: Low 20-46; Moderate 47-73; High 74-100.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each statement is answered on a five-point agreement scale, from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree, with a neutral option. Questions cover personal feelings, relationships, work, healthcare, pollution, climate, food safety, and natural hazards. The format records degrees of agreement across these topics, while results are displayed within the listed score ranges and result bands, without a separate clinical cutoff or diagnostic rule.

Its structure is conceptually consistent with the scale developed by Wang et al. (2019), but this questionnaire is not an adaptation of that published instrument and has not been independently validated. The Security Questionnaire developed by Cong and An (2004) and Maslow’s work on psychological security provide related measurement and theoretical context. This urban safety questionnaire is best read as a structured self-report profile: higher scores indicate greater perceived security under each scale’s definition. The online version has no stated standardization or clinical norms, and results can shift with current circumstances, local events, health worries, financial pressure, and willingness to disclose. These themes connect personal concerns with concrete urban conditions and show how context may shape responses.