Digital Parenting & Online Safety JudgmentDigital Parenting & Online Safety Judgment. The setting you bought is not what keeps your child safe.
What keeps a child safe is whether they will tell you when something goes wrong. This is a scored profile of the judgment behind that — spotting a real problem, answering it in proportion, keeping money and rules straight, and staying the person your child comes to.
Not a parental-control guide and not a lecture — a scored profile of your judgment
Every year the tools get better and the research finds the same thing: controls and rules predict very little on their own, and the behaviour that actually protects a child is whether they will bring an adult the problem. This assessment puts you inside 19 ordinary situations — a late night that turned into a fortnight, money leaving the account beside a new silence about a game, a stranger asking to move the chat somewhere private, a photograph of your child that they have asked you to take down — and scores what you would actually do.
The Open Door is a new scoring design. Every option carries a hidden disclosure weight, from punishing a child for telling you through to making it obviously safer to come to you again, and a hidden protection weight, from leaving a real risk in place through to reporting it to the platform, the school or the service whose job it is. Both are scored apart from answer quality, because a house where nothing is allowed and nothing is said is not a safe house. The report draws a door opened to the width of your Disclosure Index beside a shield filled to your Protection Index, and names your posture: Open and Protected, Open but Exposed, Protected but Shut, or Reactive.
Its signature figure is the two-sided error. It counts, separately, how often you banned where a smaller step would have done the job, and how often you let something stand that needed action — then adds them. A parent who bans in half the situations and ignores the rest is not balanced, and the report says so: that reads as Inconsistent, never as a sensible middle. Every situation is global and generic. No app, game, platform, country, law or organisation is named anywhere in it.
What you walk away with
A Disclosure Index from shut to wide open, showing how safe it currently is for your child to tell you something has gone wrong.
A Protection Index from risks left standing to risks removed or reported, scored separately from how well you talk to your child.
How often you over-blocked, how often you under-reacted, and the combined misfit rate that decides whether your responses are fitted or unpredictable.
Four situations carry a genuine sign. The report shows which ones you met calmly and reported, and which were met with a device coming away.
Sleep, money, contact, content and sharing, with the weakest named as the arena to start with, and two specific things to change this week.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Built for
- Parents and carers of children roughly eight to sixteen, at any level of confidence with technology
- Schools and colleges running parent evenings and family online-safety programmes
- Employers and family-support services offering digital-parenting help to working parents
Find out whether your child would still tell you
30 scored exercises · about 25 minutes · full bespoke report with your open door, protection shield, two-sided error, five arenas, warning-sign recognition and two things to change this week.
₹449 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Four competencies: keeping the channel open, proportionate response, spotting a real problem, and rules, money and repair. It measures judgment across 19 realistic situations — a tablet taken to bed, money leaving an account beside new secrecy about a game, an unknown adult asking to move a chat somewhere private, a mean message in a class group, a photograph of your child you posted that they want taken down. It is written for parents and carers of children roughly eight to sixteen, and it never tests technical knowledge of any app or device.
Every option carries a graded quality score keyed to published constructs, plus two hidden weights. A disclosure weight from minus two to plus two records whether the choice punishes a child for telling you, changes nothing, or makes it clearly safer to come to you again. A protection weight from zero to three records whether the choice leaves a real risk standing, makes a gesture, reduces it, or removes it and reports it to the platform, the school or the service whose job it is. Those produce your Disclosure Index, Protection Index, Overblock Rate, Underreact Rate, combined Misfit Rate and a named posture.
Parents and carers of children roughly eight to sixteen, and the schools, colleges, employers and family-support services that run online-safety programmes for them. No prior technical knowledge is needed and no app, game, platform, country, law or organisation is named anywhere in it, so a family in Pune, Manchester or Toronto reads exactly the same situations.
About 25 minutes for 30 scored exercises. You get a full report drawn as a door opened to the width of your Disclosure Index beside a shield filled to your Protection Index, with your posture named in words, a two-sided error showing over-blocking and under-reacting separately and combined, five arena scores for sleep, money, contact, content and sharing, your warning-sign recognition out of four, four banded competencies and two things to change this week — downloadable as a colour PDF.
Rs 449 in India (including GST) or US$4.99 elsewhere, one-time, for one full sitting and report. Online-safety courses for parents are priced per seat and teach rather than measure, parental-control subscriptions charge every month and tell you nothing about your own judgment, and free safety checklists give no scored profile at all. Schools and employers running family programmes can use AssessAll credits at 15 credits per person.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures applied digital-parenting judgment through original situational items keyed to published constructs: the parental-mediation literature and its three styles, restrictive, active or instructive, and co-use, together with the repeated finding that each style produces a different outcome; the evidence that restrictive mediation reduces exposure while also reducing disclosure, online opportunity and resilience; child-disclosure research on what makes a young person tell an adult, and on the expected cost of telling as the strongest single predictor; the authoritative parenting dimensions of warmth and structure, and the finding that both together outperform either alone; self-determination theory and the autonomy-supportive parenting research on rules that are explained, agreed and reviewed; digital-resilience frameworks that treat coping and recovery as the outcome rather than avoidance of all exposure; the displacement research on screen use, bedtime and sleep, including the evidence about the device in the bedroom rather than the total hours; behavioural research on the design of in-game and in-app spending, including frictionless purchase and stored payment details; the risk-migration finding that covert monitoring, once discovered, shifts activity to devices and houses the parent cannot see; online grooming and unwanted-contact recognition research written for lay adults, used here only as behavioural signs such as an unknown adult moving a conversation somewhere private; reporting-and-preservation guidance on keeping what is there and passing it to a platform, a school or a local service rather than acting alone; the repair-after-rupture literature on parent-child conflict and the value of returning to a row rather than winning it; the sharenting and child-consent work on adults posting pictures of their own children; and situational-judgment-test validity and behavioural-tendency response instructions. All items are original works. No trademarked instrument is reproduced, no assessment, safety or regulatory body is named as an endorser, and no affiliation with any of the sources above is claimed. This assessment gives parenting-judgment feedback and is not legal, clinical or child-protection advice. Anyone who believes a child is at risk should contact the platform, the school or the local child-protection service.