Work Strain and Recovery Self-Check for Employees and ManagersNot a diagnosis. A card that says which row has crossed the line, who can move it, and where to go next.
Forty-two short items about your last four weeks: how the load compared with the hours, whether work stopped when the day did, how far sleep and energy have moved from your own usual, whether the work still means anything, and whether anybody is helping. The report is one card. Its first line, in the largest type on the page, says this is not a diagnosis and no number on it is one. Its second says whether any of the five rows has crossed its declared referral threshold, tested against the lower end of the band rather than a point, and addresses the action to the person who can actually move that row. It ends with named routes, including a doctor and India's Tele-MANAS helpline. Free to sit; the report is the product.
The first strain self-check whose honest product is a route, not a score
The Work Strain and Recovery Self-Check is a fifteen-minute self-insight profile for anyone in paid work. It measures strain and recovery over the last four weeks as five positions between named ends, tests each against a declared referral threshold using the lower end of its band, names who can move each row, and ends with routes rather than a score.
Free online burnout quizzes give you a colour and a label with no band, no threshold logic and no route. Licensed workplace wellbeing instruments sit far above this price and are not sold to an individual at all. Neither tells you the one thing that decides what you do next: whether any part of the last four weeks has crossed a line that a declared rule, printed on the page with its reasoning, says is worth a conversation with somebody who can move it. This card prints that, and only that, with the refusal above it in the largest type on the page.
The five rows take their names and their place from a published open-access framework, the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, third version, published by the COPSOQ International Network and cited here with no endorsement implied: load against the hours, switching off after work, sleep and energy against your own usual, meaning and distance from the work, and help around you. Every item on the form is original. The job demands-resources model and the recovery and detachment literature stand behind the rows, and the World Health Organization's classification of burn-out as an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition, is what licenses the card's first line.
Twenty of the forty-two items are statements about the last four weeks to agree or disagree with; ten ask how often something happened on a six-point scale with a named end on each side; ten ask which of six lines describe your month; and two match a pattern to what the recovery evidence says it blocks, reported apart from everything else. Half the scale items are keyed to the ordinary end, so agreeing with everything, disagreeing with everything, and pressing the middle each land at about fifty on every row, below every threshold; the form has been pushed through those habits and the report says what they earned.
Each row is drawn between its two named ends with the 68 and 95 per cent bands drawn and written in words, the ordinary respondent marked and named on the drawing, and the referral threshold drawn as a gate with its reasoning beside it. The ordinary respondent is read off declared marginals authored toward the strained end, because self-reports of load and exhaustion sit above the midpoint and a midpoint reference would tell every reader they are above ordinary. A row counts as crossed only when the whole band is past the line; a point past the line with a band across it is printed as touching, with a conversation attached rather than a referral.
Every row says who can move it: you, your manager, or the organisation. The action is addressed to that person in the second person, and the three lists beneath the rows make the design visible: where the load is not yours to move, your list is shorter, and the page says so rather than handing you the whole list. A reading below every threshold is printed at full size in its own place and is explicitly not a clearance.
Below the rows: the strength paired with its cost, including the tolerance that lets a person carry an overrun without their sleep moving; one boxed if-then sentence; the named date four weeks out on which to sit it again, with the movement per row that would count as real change; the reliability table with every refusal printed; what the ordinary mark means; and the plain list of what the page does not say. The card ends with a doctor, your employer's assistance programme where one exists, and Tele-MANAS on 14416, printed at the same size as everything above them. At Rs 249 the sitting is free and the report is the product.
What you walk away with
The top of the card says this is not a diagnosis, not a screen, not a clinical instrument, and that no number on the page is one, before any figure appears. Beside it: whether any row has crossed its referral threshold, with the band printed next to the verdict, because a threshold read off a point would turn measurement error into a statement about your health.
Load against the hours, switching off after work, sleep and energy against your own usual, meaning and distance, and help around you, each drawn between its two ends with the 68 and 95 per cent bands, the ordinary respondent marked, and the declared threshold drawn as a gate with its reasoning. Rows are ordered by distance past the line, never by level.
Every row names its owner: you, your manager, or the organisation. The action is written in the second person to that person, and three lists beneath the rows show where the load is not yours to move. Your list is shorter there, on purpose, and the page says so.
A row that has not crossed is a finding, not an absence. It is printed in its own place in the same type, with the words that a reading below every threshold is not a clearance and that somebody who feels unwell should talk to a professional whatever the page says.
A registered medical practitioner; your organisation's employee-assistance programme where one exists, with no confidentiality promised on anybody's behalf; and in India the Government of India's Tele-MANAS helpline on 14416, verified against the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's own releases. A referral printed smaller than a score would tell you which one the instrument thinks matters.
The row furthest below its line paired with what that end costs, including the tolerance that lets an overrun stay invisible; one boxed if-then sentence; and the named date four weeks out on which to sit it again, with the movement per row that would count as real change rather than measurement error.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Not a screen, not a clinical instrument, not a prediction that you will become ill. Five rows describing your last four weeks, one declared threshold each, who can move each one, and where to go next.
One row has crossed its referral threshold: sleep and energy against your own usual
Sleep and energy against your own usual: 95 per cent band 76 to 100, threshold 70, the lower end 6 points past it.
One row’s band touches its threshold; a band that includes the line is not counted as crossed, and that row carries a conversation rather than a referral.
A row counts as crossed only when the LOWER end of its 95 per cent band is past the declared threshold, and the band is printed beside the verdict. A threshold read off a point estimate would turn measurement error into a statement about your health.
A reading below every threshold is not a clearance. If you feel unwell, talk to a professional whatever this page says.
- A registered medical practitioner. Your own doctor, or any general practitioner, when sleep or energy have sat well below your usual for four weeks, and whenever you feel unwell.
- Your organisation’s employee-assistance programme, where one exists. No confidentiality is promised here on anybody’s behalf.
- Tele-MANAS (India) · 14416. The Government of India’s national tele-mental-health helpline, toll-free, 24 hours a day.
| Row | 95% band | Threshold | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Load against the hours | 73–100 | 75 | Band touches the threshold — not counted as crossed |
| Sleep and energy against your own usual | 76–100 | 70 | Crossed the referral threshold |
| Help around you | 39–69 | 72 | Below the referral threshold |
How to read it: the refusal is the largest type on the page and comes before any figure. The verdict beneath it is the only summary the card carries; there is no total, no percentile and no type label.
About two chances in three that a re-sitting today would put this row between 80 and 96; nineteen in twenty between 73 and 100. The ordinary respondent sits at 59; the referral threshold is 75.
the organisation, through your manager
To your manager: You set this load. This week, take one task off this person's list or move one deadline, and say which one you moved.
About two chances in three that a re-sitting today would put this row between 83 and 99; nineteen in twenty between 76 and 100. The ordinary respondent sits at 58; the referral threshold is 70.
you, with a doctor on the route
To you: Keep the same wake time seven days a week for three weeks, and take any leave you are owed. If sleep or energy are still well below your usual after that, talk to your doctor.
About two chances in three that a re-sitting today would put this row between 46 and 62; nineteen in twenty between 39 and 69. The ordinary respondent sits at 57; the referral threshold is 72.
your manager, and the organisation behind them
Nothing to move: Somebody is helping carry it; say so to them once, because it is rarer than it should be.
Your list has 1 line; your manager’s has 2; the organisation’s has 1. That is the design: the load row is not yours to move, and your list is shorter because of it.
| Row | You | 68% | 95% | Ordinary | Threshold |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Load against the hours | 88 | 80–96 | 73–100 | 59 | 75 |
| Sleep and energy against your own usual | 91 | 83–99 | 76–100 | 58 | 70 |
| Help around you | 54 | 46–62 | 39–69 | 57 | 72 |
How to read it: rows are ordered by distance past the threshold, then by departure from the ordinary respondent in standard errors, never by level. A row that has not crossed is printed at full size in its own place; it is a finding, not a clearance.
Built for
- Employees who have had a heavy month and want an honest read of it that does not pretend to be a medical opinion
- Managers who want to sit it themselves before asking a team to, and who want the action on each row addressed to whoever can take it
- HR and people partners who need a self-check that names routes rather than scores, and that refuses to be a screen
- Anybody whose free online quiz gave them a colour and a label and left them with nothing to do about it
See which row has crossed the line, who can move it, and where to go next
42 items across four formats · about 15 minutes · the sitting is free and the report is the product: the refusal first, five rows with both bands and a declared threshold each, the owner and the action on every row, three lists, named routes, one boxed change and a date to sit it again. Report Rs 249 in India inclusive of GST, or US$2.99 elsewhere. Sit it again in four weeks.
Take free · full report ₹249 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
No, and the card says so in the largest type on the page before any figure appears. It is not a diagnosis, not a screen, not a clinical instrument, and no number on it is one. The World Health Organization classifies burn-out as an occupational phenomenon and not a medical condition, and this self-check stays on the occupational side of that line: it describes five positions over your last four weeks and tells you whether any has crossed a declared threshold that is worth a conversation with the person who can move it. A reading below every threshold is not a clearance, and if you feel unwell you should talk to a professional whatever the page says.
Each of the five rows carries a declared threshold, printed on its rail with the reasoning beside it. A row counts as crossed only when the lower end of its 95 per cent band is past the line, not when the point estimate is. A point two rail points past the line with a band fifteen points wide is measurement error, and the card prints it as touching the threshold with a conversation attached, not a referral. The test runs this way because a threshold read off a point would turn measurement error into a statement about your health, and the page explains that beside the verdict.
Every row names who can move it: you, your manager, or the organisation. The load against the hours belongs to whoever sets the load; help around you belongs to your manager; sleep and energy are yours, with a doctor on the route; switching off and meaning are shared. The action on each row is written in the second person to that person, and the three lists beneath the rows show the split. Where the load is not yours to move, your list is shorter, on purpose, and the card says so rather than handing you the whole list and calling it self-care.
The Work Environment and Job Demands assessment measures the job, describing five conditions as they are, and refuses to measure strain. This measures your last four weeks under that job and is the complement it names. The Resilience and Stress Management assessment and the Emotional Regulation and Resilience profile measure coping and regulation as skills; this measures a state over a declared window and says nothing about skill. A person who regulates well can have a high reading here, and a person who does not can have a low one.
The sitting is free and the report is the product: Rs 249 in India inclusive of GST, or US$2.99 elsewhere, one time. Forty-two items across four formats take about fifteen minutes. The card ends with three named routes printed at the same size as everything above them: a registered medical practitioner, your organisation's employee-assistance programme where one exists, and in India the Government of India's Tele-MANAS helpline on 14416, verified against the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's own published releases. The card names a date four weeks out to sit it again and prints, per row, the movement that would count as real change.
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: Forty-two original items across four formats: twenty five-point statements agreed or disagreed with, ten six-point frequency presses with a named end on each side, ten select-every-line items of six lines each, and two match-the-following knowledge checks reported apart. DECLARED RESPONSE INSTRUCTION: one instruction for the forty self-report items, experiential self-report over a fixed window, the last four weeks, describing the month as it was; the two knowledge checks carry their own instruction and are never mixed into a row. CONSTRUCT STATEMENT: five positions between two named ends over the last four weeks: load against the hours, switching off after work, sleep and energy against your own usual, meaning and distance from the work, and help around you. It is not a diagnosis, not a screen, not a clinical instrument, not a prediction of illness, not a measure of resilience, coping, personality or the job itself. FRAMEWORK ANCHOR: the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, third version, COPSOQ III (Burr, Berthelsen, Moncada, Nubling, Dupret, Demiral, Oudyk, Kristensen, Llorens, Navarro, Lincke, Bocerean, Sahan, Smith and Pohrt, Safety and Health at Work, 2019, volume 10, pages 443 to 456, open access under CC BY-NC-ND), published by the COPSOQ International Network, whose dimensions are public constructs: quantitative demands and work pace, work-life conflict, burnout and stress and sleeping troubles, meaning of work, social support from supervisor and colleagues, and recognition. Only the dimension names and their published structure are used; every item here is original and no COPSOQ item, scale or norm is reproduced; no endorsement by the COPSOQ International Network is implied. SCORING DESIGN, C12 one-tailed risk with a declared threshold per row, reported as D26 the Threshold Referral Card: Risk_k = max(0, theta_k - tau_k) / (100 - tau_k), theta_k the position toward the strained end over answered items, tau_k a declared threshold printed with its reasoning, crossed only when the lower end of the 95 per cent band is past it; each row reported as a flag with a described behaviour and situation, never a percentile; rows ordered by distance past the threshold then by departure from the ordinary respondent in standard errors, never by level; the ordinary respondent read off declared marginals authored toward the strained end; reliability as McDonald's omega in Spearman-Brown form from an assumed inter-item correlation of .35, every figure with its SEM and its 68 and 95 per cent bands, a row under eight answered items or omega under .70 refused a figure; balanced keying, three reverse items of six scale items per row. SOURCES: Burr et al., The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (Safety and Health at Work, 2019), for the dimension structure; World Health Organization, Burn-out an occupational phenomenon: International Classification of Diseases, ICD-11 QD85 (28 May 2019), for the classification of burn-out as an occupational phenomenon and not a medical condition, which licenses the report's refusal; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli, The job demands-resources model of burnout (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001), and Bakker and Demerouti, The job demands-resources model: state of the art (Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2007), for demands outrunning resources; Sonnentag and Fritz, The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2007), for psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery and control as recovery experiences; Sonnentag and Fritz, Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework (Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2015), for detachment as the mechanism; Sonnentag and Bayer, Switching off mentally: predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2005), for after-hours work and detachment; Meijman and Mulder, Psychological aspects of workload (Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1998), for the effort-recovery model; Van Dongen, Maislin, Mullington and Dinges, The cumulative cost of additional wakefulness (Sleep, 2003), for sleep debt accumulating across days; de Bloom, Kompier, Geurts, de Weerth, Taris and Sonnentag, Do we recover from vacation? Meta-analysis of vacation effects on health and well-being (Journal of Occupational Health, 2009), for leave as the long block and the fade-out after it; Albulescu, Macsinga, Rusu, Sulea, Bodnaru and Tulbure, Give me a break! A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of micro-breaks for increasing well-being and performance (PLOS ONE, 2022), for within-day breaks; Hobfoll, Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress (American Psychologist, 1989), for resource loss; Karasek, Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain (Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979), for the demand side of strain; Siegrist, Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1996), for recognition as a resource; Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Tele-MANAS launch release (Press Information Bureau, 10 October 2022) and the Directorate General of Health Services National Mental Health Programme page, for the helpline name and number; Jacobson and Truax, Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1991), for the re-measurement threshold; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2006), for the if-then form of the one change; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, Response styles in marketing research (Journal of Marketing Research, 2001), for balanced keying; Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez, A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines (Applied Measurement in Education, 2002), for line-length control on the select-every-line items. All forty-two items are original works written for this instrument; no item from any published questionnaire, clinical scale or commercial wellbeing product is reproduced or adapted, no branded instrument is named or used, no competitor is named, and the instrument is not affiliated with or endorsed by any author, body or organisation named above. The sitting is free at Rs 249 under the platform's pay-first floor and the report is the product.