Report behavior, not ideals
The past-four-weeks frame asks what happened recently. Almost never through almost always are frequency anchors, not marks of good or bad character.
Loading…
What happens between what you mean and what others receive? Examine five communication behavior groups across recent coordination, disagreement, sensitive, group, written, and unfamiliar-perspective situations. Get a complete, inspectable result—without being assigned a fixed style or competence grade.
What the result preserves
Five separate signals
Framing, listening, attunement, voice, and repair remain independent rather than becoming one communication grade.
Literal score ledger
Each signal shows the keyed raw sum out of 24, mean out of 4, and transparent 0–100 response-range position.
Exact ties and caution states
Equal scores remain equal; response patterns can add caution or withhold comparative claims without deleting evidence.
Context-checking experiments
Every behavior group includes a boundary, reflection prompt, and one small practice to test in a safe situation.
The response design
Think about the past four weeks and conversations that mattered enough to handle well, across home, work or study, groups and online. Rate what you actually did, not your ideal. If a setting barely occurred, use the closest recent comparable interaction. Each set rotates all five behavior groups before the next setting, reducing the chance that one topic or relationship dominates a whole section.
The past-four-weeks frame asks what happened recently. Almost never through almost always are frequency anchors, not marks of good or bad character.
Each signal includes three behavior and three counter-behavior statements. The browser never receives which direction or construct belongs to an item.
Hidden keying stays on the server. The browser stores the exact visible prompt, selected anchor, versioned semantic response, and strictly validated canonical result.
The five behavior groups
Communication is jointly produced and context-dependent. These practical groups help separate where shared meaning is framed, heard, relationally held, voiced, and repaired.
Effectiveness, co-orientation, common-ground management and audience adaptation.
Making purpose, relevant context, assumptions and the requested next step visible enough for other people to build shared meaning.
This is not verbal intelligence, eloquence or language proficiency. Useful detail, brevity and directness depend on the audience, medium and purpose.
Altercentrism, active-empathic listening, attention, understanding checks and response adaptation.
Directing attention toward another person's meaning, using inquiry and summaries, and updating your interpretation when new information appears.
Listening does not require agreement, eye contact, silence or one culturally specific display. Communication mode, neurotype and access needs can change how attention is shown.
Empathy, affiliation and support, appropriateness, immediacy and attention to relational impact.
Tracking how content, tone and timing affect the relationship, while showing regard for another person's experience and dignity.
Attunement is not mind-reading, endless emotional labour or tolerating harm. Cultural norms, power and safety can make the appropriate response very different.
Assertiveness, expressiveness and self-disclosure balanced with appropriateness and regard for others.
Making positions, needs, uncertainty and boundaries understandable without turning directness into domination or personal attack.
More direct expression is not always safer or more appropriate. Power differences, culture and risk can make caution protective rather than deficient.
Interaction management, behavioral flexibility, conversational repair, grounding and medium adaptation.
Detecting a breakdown and changing wording, timing, channel or coordination so participants can rebuild workable shared understanding.
Not every interaction can or should be repaired. Coercion, abuse and persistent bad-faith behavior are not communication puzzles one person is responsible for solving.
Important evidence boundary
Five context-spanning behavior groups scored independently; no global communication-competence total, personality type, conflict style or population percentile is produced. All 30 statements, scoring rules, and interpretations are original Ikigain content informed by communication research rather than a reproduction of ICCS, AELS, or another published scale.
No reliability, factor structure, measurement invariance, predictive validity, population norms, or meaningful-change thresholds have been established for this original form. Use it to generate observations and small experiments.
Construct references, not copied test content
Explication and Test of a Model of Communicative Competence
The contextual model of interaction management, empathy, affiliation/support, behavioral flexibility and social relaxation; no model item wording was used.
Open source for Wiemann, J. M. (1977), Explication and Test of a Model of Communicative Competence; opens in a new tabA Component Model of Relational Competence
The view that communication skill is episode- and relationship-dependent and relates to both participants' evaluations, rather than being a fixed type.
Open source for Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984), A Component Model of Relational Competence; opens in a new tabDevelopment of a Measure of Interpersonal Communication Competence
Construct boundaries around assertiveness, expressiveness, empathy, altercentrism, supportiveness and interaction management; no ICCS item wording or scoring was used.
Open source for Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994), Development of a Measure of Interpersonal Communication Competence; opens in a new tabThe Active-Empathic Listening Scale: Conceptualization and Evidence of Validity Within the Interpersonal Domain
Treating listening as active processing and response rather than silence or agreement; no AELS item wording or scoring was used.
Open source for Bodie, G. D. (2011), The Active-Empathic Listening Scale: Conceptualization and Evidence of Validity Within the Interpersonal Domain; opens in a new tabGrounding in Communication
Shared understanding as collaborative grounding whose costs and repair strategies vary by communication medium.
Open source for Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991), Grounding in Communication; opens in a new tabRepair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition
Conversational repair as detecting and resolving problems in speaking, hearing and understanding; no repair taxonomy is scored directly.
Open source for Albert, S., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2018), Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition; opens in a new tabQuestions before you begin
No. It reports five groups of recent, self-reported behaviors separately. A context-spanning summary cannot establish one fixed style, personality, competence level, or prediction about how another person experiences you.
Each behavior group contains balanced wording so repeatedly agreeing with everything does not automatically create a high profile. Key directions and construct assignments remain server-side. Counter-behaviors also need cognitive testing because wording effects can influence responses.
No. A score only locates six keyed frequency responses inside their possible range. Directness, detail, listening displays, emotional acknowledgement, pausing, and repair can be more or less appropriate depending on culture, power, safety, disability, language, relationship, and medium.
A recent window is easier to inspect than a permanent identity claim. It still averages across different relationships and settings, so use the result as a prompt to notice where a behavior changes—not as proof that it is stable everywhere.
Transparent response-pattern checks change how comparisons are presented. A uniform pattern with balanced wording withholds comparative interpretation; narrow, endpoint-heavy, or midpoint-heavy patterns add review notes. These are not validated honesty or effort detectors.
No. Self-reported communication frequency cannot establish emotion-recognition accuracy, empathy, social intelligence, another person's experience, relationship quality, or responsibility for a harmful interaction. It is not a clinical or high-stakes instrument.
No. The complete result appears immediately. A short-lived browser cache may hold only pending responses until secure server acknowledgement; completed results come from the exact server-scored attempt. A retake creates a new immutable result rather than overwriting the earlier one.
Language release rule: Do not auto-translate or publish duplicated language forms. Native adaptation must review directness, turn-taking, disagreement, repair, hierarchy, politeness, disability access and communication-channel norms in every context; preserve behavior rather than moral-character wording; run bilingual key review and cognitive interviews across relevant groups; and create new locale-specific instrument and interpretation versions with separate response-process and structure evidence.
Ready to inspect recent interactions?
The complete result is free, no email is required, and a scoring interruption never discards your saved semantic responses.