Home1
Psychological tests2
Value-Availability Ratio Scale3

Value-Availability Ratio Scale Test

With 132 paired-choice questions completed in about 25 minutes, the Value-Availability Ratio Scale Test compares the values you consider important with those you find accessible. Your result highlights balance, unmet priorities, and areas of excess or dissatisfaction, supporting thoughtful self-reflection about your current life opportunities.

Questions: 13225 minutes

Value-Availability Ratio Scale Test: situation and reply bubbles

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

28,503 views

2,002 completions

1,702 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

1,702 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Neutral ZoneNZ

Measures how balanced your life areas are by indicating where the difference between what you value and what is realistically accessible is minimal.

example score43/100

43/100Moderate neutral zoneexample score

0 – 33Low neutral zone

34 – 66Moderate neutral zone

67 – 100High neutral zone

A score of 43 indicates a moderate neutral zone, suggesting several life areas feel relatively balanced while others may still show noticeable value–accessibility gaps.

Internal VacuumIV

Measures the degree to which perceived availability exceeds personal value (A > V), reflecting a sense of redundancy or under-meaning in life domains.

example score76/100

76/100Highexample score

0 – 33Low

34 – 66Moderate

67 – 100High

A score of 76 falls in the High range, suggesting a pronounced pattern where what is available outweighs what feels personally valuable, which may be experienced as emptiness or dissatisfaction in certain areas.

Internal ConflictIC

Measures how strongly a person’s important values exceed their perceived availability, indicating the intensity of unmet needs and inner contradictions.

example score49/100

49/100Moderate conflictexample score

0 – 33Low conflict

34 – 66Moderate conflict

67 – 100High conflict

A score of 49 falls in the Moderate conflict range, suggesting noticeable gaps where valued areas feel less available, creating manageable but persistent internal tension.

Value-Availability Discrepancy IndexVADI

Measures the size of the gap between how important life values are to a person and how accessible those values feel in their current reality.

example score51/72

51/72High discrepancyexample score

0 – 36Low discrepancy

37 – 50Moderate discrepancy

51 – 72High discrepancy

A score of 51 falls in the High discrepancy range, suggesting a pronounced mismatch between desired values and perceived availability across life areas, which may be associated with stronger internal tension.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Stuck and torn inside

41%OF USERS

People feeling ongoing tension between what matters to them and what their current life realistically allows, looking to pinpoint the main conflict areas.

In therapy or coaching

33%OF USERS

Clients already working on goals, motivation, or life balance who want a clear map of mismatched values and resources to guide sessions.

Psychologists and coaches

26%OF USERS

Practitioners who need a structured, time-efficient assessment to identify and prioritize clients’ value conflicts and their intensity.

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

Neutral ZoneNZ

You?

Average28.5

Typical rangeTypical13.5 – 43.4

Possible0 – 100

Inner VacuumIV

You?

Average55

Typical rangeTypical39.5 – 70.5

Possible0 – 100

Internal ConflictIC

You?

Average46.4

Typical rangeTypical28.8 – 64

Possible0 – 100

Value-Accessibility Discrepancy IndexVDI

You?

Average23.7

Typical rangeTypical10.2 – 37.2

Possible0 – 72

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

You are presented with a list of twelve concepts, each representing a universal human value: 1. An active, engaged life 2. Health (physical and mental health) 3. Interesting work 4. The beauty of nature and art 5. Love (spiritual and physical closeness with a loved one) 6. Material security (absence of financial hardship) 7. Having good and loyal friends 8. Self-confidence (freedom from inner conflict and doubt) 9. Knowledge (opportunities to broaden one’s education, outlook, and general culture, as well as intellectual development) 10. Freedom as independence in one’s actions and behavior 11. A happy family life 12. Creativity (opportunities for creative activity) You will compare all of these value concepts in pairs using two criteria. In the first part of the questionnaire (66 items), comparisons are based on the assumption that the values listed differ in their importance and attractiveness for you. For each pair, select the value that seems more important within that pair. Respond as quickly as possible, based on your first impression. In the second part of the questionnaire, comparisons are based on the assumption that some of the listed values are more accessible and easier to attain in life than others. For each pair, select the value that is easier for you to attain.

- An active, engaged life
- Health (physical and mental)
- An active, engaged life
- Interesting work
- An active, engaged life
- The beauty of nature and art

These are 3 of the 132 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Value-Availability Ratio Scale Test - Description and methodology of the test

values

internal conflict

For readers examining how personal values fit their experienced opportunities, the Value-Availability Ratio Scale Test offers a structured way to reflect on daily choices and priorities. As a value availability assessment, it records which life values matter more to you, rather than judging their objective worth. The resulting profile can support clearer reflection on where current circumstances make some priorities easier or harder to pursue.

What This Assessment Explores

Questions compare values: health, relationships, work, security, freedom, creativity, knowledge, love, and self-confidence with perceived accessibility. Results create a value availability profile across four dimensions, showing where priorities and opportunities align or diverge.

Neutral Zone (0-100) reflects minimal discrepancy; Low neutral zone (0-33), Moderate neutral zone (34-66), High neutral zone (67-100).
Internal Vacuum (0-100): availability exceeds value (A > V), suggesting excess or low need; Low (0-33), Moderate (34-66), High (67-100).
Internal Conflict (0-100): value exceeds availability (V > A), suggesting contradictions and unmet needs; Low conflict (0-33), Moderate (34-66), High (67-100).
Value-Availability Discrepancy Index (0-72) reflects a desire-opportunity gap; low levels show satisfied desires, while moderate and high levels indicate greater discrepancy; Low discrepancy (0-36), Moderate discrepancy (37-50), and High discrepancy (51-72).

Methodology and Evidence Base

The questionnaire uses paired comparisons in separate importance and accessibility sets: respondents choose the more important value in one set and the more accessible, easier-to-attain value in another. These selections are then compared as value selections (V) and accessibility selections (A), producing indicators of balance, excess, unmet need, and distance between desire and opportunity.

The value availability questionnaire is conceptually consistent with Fantalova’s value-accessibility work, including the Value-Availability Ratio Questionnaire (2011), but it is not presented as that published instrument. Fantalova’s 2010 study and 2001 book describe the relevant framework, while Xu’s 2019 Chinese version is evidence from a different language version, not validation of this wording.

The questionnaire has no stated population norms or reliability coefficients, and no per-answer scoring rule is provided beyond the displayed bands; these bands are profile categories. Current circumstances, self-awareness, and pressure to appear consistent may affect responses, while forced comparisons can simplify complex priorities. Read the result as a snapshot of perceived opportunities and tensions, not a fixed description of the person.

Author: Shalom H. Schwartz

Literature:

Fantalova, E. B. (2010). Psychometric Study of the Indicators of the Methodology “Level of Correlation Between Value and Accessibility in Various Life Spheres.” Journal of the Practicing Psychologist, 17, 175-201.
Fantalova, E. B. (2011). The Level of Correlation Between “Value” and “Accessibility” in Various Life Spheres: A Psychometric Study of the Indicators. Methodology. World of Psychology, 2(66), 228-243.
Fantalova, E. B. (2001). Diagnostics and Psychotherapy of Internal Conflict. Samara: Bakhrakh-M. ISBN 5-89570-016-0.
Xu, Y. (2019). The Chinese Version of the Questionnaire on the Value-Accessibility Ratio in Various Life Areas. Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogy, 3, 98-104. 10.24158/spp.2019.3.16.

Updated: 2025-10-02