Create tests
Author questions, import questionnaires, select appropriate IPIP items, define response scales, and build clearly named constructs.
Research without unnecessary barriers
Better assessment.
Open to the world.
Our goal: make rigorous psychological assessment and experimental psychometric research freely accessible worldwide—while preserving scientific integrity, participant privacy, and reproducibility.
Important: This page describes an in-development research platform. Google sign-in and researcher-created API keys are available. Research functions remain experimental and should not be used for clinical or employment decisions.
Designed for researchers
Six ways to advance research
A free platform for universities, psychologists, independent researchers, educators, and developers to create, administer, score, compare, and share assessments—with a usable web interface as well as an API.
Tune scoring
Experiment with item weights, reverse-keyed answers, missing-data rules, subscales, thresholds, and alternative algorithms.
Run studies
Compare scoring methods, test hypotheses, estimate measurement quality, and examine item behavior using authorized research data.
Invite participants
Share an assessment link, use an accessible questionnaire, embed a study, or integrate sessions with the API.
Analyze findings
Calculate appropriate statistics, compare populations responsibly, and export data that researchers are authorized to access.
Publish & collaborate
Share instruments with author credit, publish scoring configurations, and enable independent replication and peer review.
Watch · Listen · Read
Research concepts, explained clearly
Choose the captioned video lecture or complete written transcript. The 98-second illustrated lecture below explains reference scoring and researcher scoring; it is an illustrated demo, not footage of a university student.
Select play to read synchronized captions below the video.
Two ways to score a questionnaire
Reference scoring follows a documented procedure. Research scoring explores new hypotheses and formulas. Both can serve science when their methods and limitations are accurately described.
This short illustrated lecture uses captions. The previous synthetic narration is being replaced because it did not meet our quality standard. Read the full transcript for accessible text.
Read the complete explanation
A clear difference in scoring
When a questionnaire is scored, the rules matter. At Peostectica we distinguish a published reference scoring method from a researcher-designed experiment. Both have a purpose, but their results mean different things.
Preserve the published method
Established scoring follows a documented set of items, response codes and reverse-scored questions. It records which instrument and scoring version were used. That allows another investigator to reproduce the calculation.
Investigate new ideas
Researcher scoring lets investigators test different item weights, combine subscales or compare candidate formulas. Such flexibility helps formulate hypotheses. However a correctly calculated experimental score is not automatically validated.
Never silently overwrite
The reference score remains available. The experimental model is saved separately and given its own version. With appropriate participant authorization, earlier responses can be re-scored to compare the two methods.
Consent and context first
People should understand what assessment they are taking and why. Researchers must explain limitations, protect private responses, and never present an exploratory personality score as proof of honesty, morality or job fitness.
Make results reproducible
The goal is not to declare one method best by intuition. It is to give the research community transparent tools to test ideas, document evidence and improve measurement over time. Full text transcripts remain available.
Methods you can trust and inspect
Reference scoring and research scoring
We will keep published reference procedures separate from experimental variants. Researchers can explore new scoring methods without silently changing established instruments or past results.
| Reference scoring | Experimental research scoring |
|---|---|
| Preserves documented source keys | Permits investigator-defined weights and formulas |
| Uses a specified version of an established instrument | Supports newly authored or shortened instruments |
| Reports published evidence and limitations | Labels changes and validation status prominently |
| Reproducible reference scoring procedures | Versioned experiment configurations and comparisons |
| Uses reference norms only where justified | Allows appropriate study-specific reference groups |
Every instrument version and scoring configuration should be immutable. Science must be reproducible—even when the scoring improves.
A new algorithm can be computed precisely without being scientifically validated. Results must say which is which.
Independent evidence matters
Scientific integrity is part of the product
Our long-term goal is to support careful psychometric work, not to convert personality scores into unsupported judgments about a person.
- Preserve exact source wording, item IDs, scoring direction, provenance and version histories.
- Separate measurement reliability, construct validity, and demonstrated real-world dependability.
- Estimate internal consistency and other relevant statistics only when data are sufficient, and report uncertainty and assumptions.
- Never assume a custom subset, weighting change or translation inherits the original instrument's validation.
- Use reference percentiles only with suitable samples and a clear explanation of applicability.
- Support investigator review, replication and correction instead of silently overwriting prior findings.
- Do not turn a personality score alone into an automatic employment, contributor, or moderator acceptance/rejection decision.
People before datasets
Consent, privacy and responsible access
The core scoring service is designed to score explicitly consented responses without persisting participant identifiers or raw answers. Any future researcher workspace that retains study responses must operate under separate, clearly disclosed data-handling policies.
- Obtain informed, purpose-specific consent before collecting assessment answers.
- Keep organizations, studies and investigators isolated by authorization boundaries.
- Minimize personal information and provide retention, access, export and deletion controls.
- Publish submitted instruments only when their authors can authorize sharing; keep private instruments private.
- Use documented security reviews, HTTPS, server-side credentials, safe rate limits, and redacted logs before Internet release.
- Make participation voluntary. Ordinary RFC-AI community reading and contribution must never require a hidden assessment.
Build with it
API quickstart & reference
The research API is available over HTTPS. Sign in to create, view and revoke your API keys, then try a request with the examples in your dashboard. The endpoints below are experimental and subject to published versioning.
| Prototype endpoint | Purpose |
|---|---|
GET /api/healthz | Prototype health response |
GET /api/v1/instruments | List available instruments |
POST /api/v1/keys | Generate a key while signed in (browser-session + CSRF token) |
POST /api/v1/instruments | Create a private experimental instrument with an authenticated researcher session or authorized bearer key |
The live experimental backend also supports study creation, participant sessions, scoring models and comparison analyses. Use the researcher dashboard to explore the currently implemented routes; validation and public-release gates remain separate.
POST /api/v1/instruments # create an experiment POST /api/v1/studies # create a study POST /api/v1/sessions # start a session POST /api/v1/responses # submit responses POST /api/v1/models # create scoring model POST /api/v1/analyses # compare models
For scoring integration, the bearer token belongs on the calling server and must never be embedded in page JavaScript. No personal information should be put into URLs or screenshots.
Open research community
Built to be useful beyond Peostectica
Researchers should be able to publish their instruments, describe the intended population, explain scoring methods, provide evidence, compare versions and invite replication. The goal is a widely accessible tool—not an official endorsement of any particular research finding.
We plan to introduce the service to university researchers, open-science communities, and maintainers of relevant IPIP resources after the reference scoring, privacy safeguards, and real deployment have been independently verified.
Make rigorous psychological assessment and experimental psychometric research freely accessible worldwide, while preserving scientific integrity, participant privacy, and reproducibility.
IPIP stands for International Personality Item Pool. This is an independent Peostectica project, not an official IPIP, university, or professional-association service or endorsement.
Support independent science
Keep open research accessible
Voluntary contributions can help support accessible assessments, researcher documentation, server infrastructure, and free educational materials. Research access never depends on a contribution.
Support Open Research
Choose a contribution in USD. This is a functional interface preview; a payment processor has not yet been connected.
Selected contribution$100.00
One-time · USD
No payment is collected by this prototype. If payment processing is enabled later, the payment page will clearly identify the receiving entity and terms. Peostectica, LLC contributions are not represented as tax deductible.
Transparent development
What exists and what's next
Verified project documentation: a standalone PHP prototype, a preliminary 40-item IPIP Honesty–Humility-related instrument, a versioned REST contract, and local tests have been documented. The intended domain is ipip-api.peostectica.com.
Not yet verified as deployed: publicly accessible HTTPS service, production authentication and rate limiting, end-to-end privacy and security controls, and the expanded researcher platform described above.
Researcher roadmap: full IPIP-NEO-300 support; researcher-authored tests; independently versioned scoring configurations; consent-based study sessions; accessible and optional read-aloud questionnaires; analysis and reproducible exports; internationalization and translation workflows.
We will not claim that planned features work until they are implemented and tested. Product updates will identify changes by version and release status.