Plan Strength Assessment with an Eight-Week Re-MeasureEvery assessment you can buy ends when you finish reading it.
This one is built around the second sitting. Measure now, change one thing, sit it again in eight weeks — with the number a movement would have to beat printed on the report before you start.
A threshold, printed on the first sitting, that says what would count as real
Two products in this whole market offer a re-take and neither ties it to an action. There is a reason beyond laziness: a re-measurement is worthless unless the report can tell the difference between a real change and the ordinary wobble of measuring the same person twice, and almost nothing published in this category reports the error band that would make that possible. So a second sitting produces a second number, the two get compared, and any difference is drawn as an arrow.
This is built the other way round. Twenty exercises put four versions of the same intention side by side and ask which is still going to be running in eight weeks. The versions differ on one thing at a time: whether the trigger is an event that happens anyway or a decision you have to make again, whether the first action is small enough to finish on a bad day, whether the likeliest obstacle has a prepared response attached, and what the plan says happens after a miss. Every keyed answer comes from published work on why plans survive — implementation intentions, mental contrasting, habit formation, and what an all-or-nothing restart rule does to a working plan.
The exercises are built as two matched halves measuring the same four things with different content. That is not decoration. It is what lets the report show you, on your own answers, how far apart two measurements of the same person land when nothing about them has changed — and therefore how big a movement would have to be, at your re-sitting, before it could be called real. That threshold is printed as a number of points, with the date eight weeks out and one if-then sentence to change in between.
Twenty more exercises come at the same thing from three other directions, so no single answering habit carries you through the sitting. Eight ask which features you would build into a plan you actually mean to keep. Six ask you to rank four versions of one intention from the most durable to the least. Six put a plain claim about how habits work in front of you — several of them things most people believe and the evidence does not support — and ask whether it is true or false. All three are reported separately and all three are deliberately kept out of the score that gets re-measured, so the second sitting is comparing one thing with itself.
And then the report does the thing the rest of the market will not: a difference smaller than the threshold is drawn flat, greyed and dashed, and labelled as being inside measurement error — including the difference between your own two halves, on your first sitting. It is greyed rather than coloured so it survives a black-and-white print. Most reports draw every small movement as an arrow. The refusal to is the product.
What you walk away with
How well you tell a plan built to survive from one that is not, on a signed scale where zero is what a typical chooser would score.
Printed on the first sitting, in points, from the reliable change index — with the modelled spread and the assumed reliability behind it stated rather than buried.
Eight weeks out, named on the page, with one if-then sentence to change in between. One change, because four changes cannot be told apart afterwards.
Your two matched halves drawn as a pair. If the difference is inside the threshold it is drawn flat, greyed and dashed and labelled as measurement error, which is exactly what will happen to a small movement at the re-sitting.
Naming the moment, anticipating what stops you, making it small enough and planning the restart — what getting each right gets you, and where each one goes wrong when it is overdone.
Printed twice, beside the threshold and in the table, because a noisier measurement should demand a bigger movement and the reader is entitled to see that arithmetic.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
The number on the right is the one that matters. It is how far the number on the left would have to move before the movement meant anything at all.
Most reports draw every small movement as an arrow. This one draws it flat, greyed and dashed, and says so — on your first sitting, so you know what the re-measure will and will not be able to tell you.
If I write down something I intend to do regularly, then I will name the everyday event it happens after, rather than the time of day.
A movement of 21 points or more, in either direction, would exceed measurement error. Anything smaller is not a change you can act on.
Built for
- Anyone who has started the same thing three times and would like to know which part keeps failing
- People who write plans for other people and want to know whether the plans are built to survive
- Coaches, managers and L&D teams who need a defensible before-and-after rather than two unconnected numbers
- Anyone who wants a measurement that comes back rather than a report that ends
Measure it, change one thing, and find out in eight weeks
20 exercises in two matched halves, plus 20 selection, ranking and true/false exercises · about 35 minutes · full bespoke report with your change threshold, your re-measure date and one if-then action.
₹549 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
It is the number of points a movement would have to exceed before it could be called real rather than measurement noise, computed with the reliable change index at the ninety-five per cent level. It uses a modelled spread built from the authored answer priors on a simulated set of respondents, and an assumed reliability. Both of those are printed on the report as assumptions rather than measurements, and both will be replaced by observed values once enough people have sat this twice — at which point the threshold will move, and most likely up.
So the report can show you the threshold working, on your own answers, before you have a second sitting. The two halves measure the same four things with different content, and the difference between them is what two measurements of an unchanged person look like. If it falls inside the threshold, the report draws it flat and greyed and says so, which is exactly what a small movement at your re-sitting will get. The halves are answered one after the other, so any difference carries an order effect as well as noise, and the report says that too and treats it as a demonstration rather than a finding about you.
No, and the report says so plainly. It measures how well you can tell a plan built to survive an ordinary eight weeks from one that is not. Knowing what makes a plan hold is not the same as holding one, and no report can tell you the second thing from a single sitting. That is a large part of why the re-measurement exists.
Retakes are allowed on this assessment. The report names the date eight weeks out and prints the threshold so that when you do come back, the comparison means something rather than being two numbers next to each other.
About thirty-five minutes for twenty keyed exercises and twenty further selection, ranking and true/false exercises. ₹549 in India, inclusive of GST, or US$5.99 elsewhere, one-time, for the sitting and the full report. Nothing here is timed by exercise and no part of the score uses how fast you answered.
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: Twenty original exercises in two matched parallel halves, each presenting four versions of one intention that differ on a single named property of plan strength, plus eight plan-feature selection exercises, six durability rankings and six true/false belief claims, each reported separately and none of them carried into the re-measured score. Construct statement: It measures how well somebody can tell a plan that is built to survive an ordinary eight weeks from one that is not - whether the trigger will fire without being remembered, whether the first action is small enough to do on a bad day, whether the likeliest obstacle has a written response, and whether there is a rule for restarting after a miss. It does not measure willpower, motivation, discipline, conscientiousness, character, or whether you will personally keep any particular plan. Declared response instruction: knowledge throughout for the scored exercises - each asks which version is most likely to survive. The eight plan-feature exercises ask what the respondent would build in, and are declared and reported as a separate stated-intention strand rather than folded into the score. Construct grounding, drawn across sources rather than from one framework: implementation intentions and the if-then structure, with a meta-analysis across ninety-four studies giving a medium-to-large effect on goal attainment (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006); mental contrasting with implementation intentions and the necessity of pairing an obstacle with a response (Oettingen, 2012; Oettingen and Gollwitzer, 2010); habit formation, automaticity and the finding that a single missed occasion does not materially damage habit strength (Lally, van Jaarsveld, Potts and Wardle, 2010); context-dependent repetition and the fragility of habits when the cue environment changes (Wood, Tam and Guerrero Witt, 2005); goal-setting theory on specificity and proximal sub-goals (Locke and Latham, 2002); the abstinence violation effect and the cost of all-or-nothing restart rules (Marlatt and Gordon, 1985); action control and the difference between goal intentions and action plans (Kuhl, 1985; Sheeran and Webb, 2016 on the intention-behaviour gap); and the reliable change index as the standard for deciding whether an individual movement exceeds measurement error (Jacobson and Truax, 1991), with the distinction from a minimally important difference kept explicit. Scoring design C15, a reliable change index built to be usable before any second sitting exists: the composite is chance-corrected against authored per-option base rates; the standard deviation behind the index comes from a declared modelled reference distribution and is labelled as modelled; the reliability is an assumed omega stated on the report; and the change threshold is printed as a number of points on the same scale as the score, alongside the date eight weeks after the sitting. The two matched halves are administered as a first and a second block, so any difference between them carries an order effect as well as measurement noise, and the report says so and treats the within-sitting difference as a demonstration of the gate rather than as a finding about the person. No subscale of fewer than eight items carries a number, and no percentile appears anywhere. All items are original works. No trademarked instrument, scale name, report section or item is reproduced, and no affiliation with any assessment publisher is claimed or implied.