About Traitmark
Free, private self-screening tools for people exploring neurodivergent traits. Research-backed. No account. No data collection. Nothing to sell you.
The short version
- Traitmark is free, private, and has nothing to sell you. Your data never leaves your browser.
- Self-identification is valid and research-supported. A formal diagnosis is one path to self-understanding, not the only one.
- Every test here is peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal.
- A screening score is a starting point for reflection and conversation, not a diagnosis.
- Language on this site describes how people experience the world. It does not frame neurodivergence as deficit.
Why this exists
I'm Jess. I'm autistic, and I was diagnosed as an adult. By then I'd spent years feeling like I was failing at things that came easily to everyone else, without understanding why.
When I finally started looking for answers, I found that the tools designed to help were either locked behind a clinician's referral, sitting behind a research institution's paywall, or framed entirely as deficit checklists. You weren't a person exploring your experience. You were a list of things you couldn't do.
Neurodivergence is not a collection of deficits. It's a different way of processing the world. Autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and related conditions represent genuine variation in how human minds work. They bring real challenges, and they bring real strengths. Both are true at once.
Traitmark exists because understanding yourself shouldn't cost money or require permission. These tools are here for reflection, for self-understanding, and as a starting point for any conversations you choose to have with clinicians or community.
Research and further reading
The neurodiversity paradigm
The term "neurodiversity" was coined by Judy Singer, an autistic sociologist, in 1998. She proposed that neurological differences are a natural and valuable part of human variation, comparable to biodiversity in ecosystems. This reframing shifted the lens from pathology toward difference.
Singer, J. (1999). Why can't you be normal for once in your life? From a 'problem with no name' to the emergence of a new category of difference. In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability Discourse. Open University Press.Nick Walker's writing has been central to developing the neurodiversity paradigm as a framework for understanding autism and related conditions outside of the medical model.
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Autonomous Press.On the gap in accessible screening
Formal assessment for autism in Australia typically costs between $1,500 and $3,500 out of pocket, with public waitlists often exceeding two years in major cities and longer in regional areas. Many people who eventually receive a formal diagnosis report spending years in a diagnostic gap, knowing something was different but lacking the language or resources to explore it.
Self-identification is valid
Knowing yourself doesn't require a piece of paper. Research consistently shows that autistic people who self-identify report high accuracy when compared with formal diagnostic outcomes. Many people live their entire lives with accurate self-knowledge that was never validated by a clinician.
Formal diagnosis is inaccessible for many people. It's expensive. Waitlists are long. Diagnostic criteria were built around a narrow demographic and miss a lot of people, particularly women, non-binary people, and people of colour. A professional assessment is one valid path to self-understanding. It's not the only one.
These tools won't diagnose you. A score is not a diagnosis. What a high score tells you is that your experience overlaps meaningfully with the experiences the researchers were measuring. That's useful information.
Research and further reading
Accuracy of self-diagnosis
Research with autistic adults supports the validity of self-identification. Lewis (2016) found that self-diagnosed autistic adults described their experiences in ways that were consistent with formally diagnosed adults, and that community self-diagnosis often emerged from careful research and comparison of lived experience against established criteria.
Lewis, L.F. (2016). Exploring the experience of self-diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in adults. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 30(5), 575–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2016.05.003Barriers to formal assessment
Leedham et al. (2020) interviewed autistic women who received late diagnoses and found consistent themes: childhood and adolescent traits had been missed or reframed as personality characteristics; assessment was often triggered by a child's diagnosis rather than recognition of the adult's own experience; and the journey to diagnosis was frequently lengthy, costly, and emotionally taxing.
Leedham, A., Thompson, A.R., Smith, R., & Freeth, M. (2020). 'I was exhausted trying to figure it out': The experiences of autistic women diagnosed in adulthood. Autism, 24(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319853442Gender bias in diagnostic criteria
Bargiela, Steward, and Mandy (2016) found that autistic women received diagnosis significantly later than autistic men. Presenting traits were frequently misinterpreted, and many women had been previously diagnosed with anxiety, depression, or personality disorders before autism was identified.
Bargiela, S., Steward, R., & Mandy, W. (2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with autism spectrum conditions: An investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(10), 3281–3294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2872-8 Lai, M.-C., Lombardo, M.V., Auyeung, B., Chakrabarti, B., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Sex/gender differences and autism: Setting the scene for future research. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2014.10.003Language that doesn't flatten who you are
Traitmark uses identity-first language by default ("autistic person" rather than "person with autism") because that's what most autistic people prefer, based on consistent survey data from the community. We follow the person's own preference where one is stated.
The results pages avoid framing like "deficits," "impairments," or "lacks." A high score on an alexithymia measure doesn't mean you're broken at emotions. It means your emotional processing works differently. A high camouflaging score doesn't mean you're deceptive. It means you've learned to adapt in ways that cost you something.
The difference between "can't read social cues" and "processes social information differently" isn't just phrasing. It shapes how a person understands themselves and what they believe is possible for them. Words carry weight. These pages choose theirs carefully.
Research and further reading
Identity-first vs person-first language preferences
Kenny et al. (2016) surveyed autistic people, family members, and professionals about language preferences. Autistic people showed a strong preference for identity-first language ("autistic person"), while many non-autistic family members and professionals preferred person-first language ("person with autism"). The survey found that language choice reflects underlying beliefs about the nature of autism as identity versus condition.
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E. (2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315588200The harm of deficit framing
Milton (2012) proposed the "double empathy problem" as a reframing of autistic social difference. Rather than autistic people lacking social understanding, he argued that communication difficulties emerge from a mismatch between different kinds of minds. Neither party is deficient; they simply need to learn each other's style. This shift has been influential in how researchers and clinicians now frame autistic experience.
Milton, D.E.M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The 'double empathy problem'. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008Camouflaging and its costs
Hull et al. (2017) found that camouflaging autistic traits was associated with significantly higher rates of burnout, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. The effort of sustained performance to meet neurotypical norms has measurable costs. This is part of why Traitmark names what camouflaging is, rather than treating it as a skill to be optimised.
Hull, L., Petrides, K.V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). "Putting on my best normal": Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5Free, and actually free
There is no premium tier. No account. No subscription. No upsell waiting behind your results.
Your answers are processed entirely in your browser. Nothing is transmitted to a server. Nothing is stored anywhere but your own device. Traitmark has no visibility into what you score, which tests you take, or whether you come back.
Identity isn't a product. The knowledge you gain from exploring your neurodivergent traits belongs to you, not a company's user database.
What these tests can and can't do
Every test here is a screening tool. Screening is a starting point, not a finish line. It tells you whether your experience is in a range worth exploring further; it doesn't tell you what you are.
What a screening score can do
- Give you language for experiences you've struggled to name
- Show you whether your experience overlaps with a research-validated trait profile
- Give you a starting point for a conversation with a clinician
- Help you understand specific dimensions of your experience (camouflaging, sensory sensitivity, alexithymia)
- Confirm that what you're experiencing is real and recognised
What a screening score can't do
- Diagnose you with autism, ADHD, or any other condition
- Rule anything out; low scores don't mean a condition isn't present
- Account for the ways camouflaging suppresses scores on trait-focused tests
- Replace a comprehensive assessment that looks at your full history and context
- Tell you what support you need or what accommodations you qualify for
Research and further reading
Sensitivity, specificity, and what they mean in plain language
Sensitivity is the proportion of people who actually have a trait that a test correctly identifies. Specificity is the proportion of people who don't have the trait that the test correctly identifies as not having it. A highly sensitive test catches most true positives but may also flag some false positives. A highly specific test produces few false positives but may miss some true cases.
The RAADS-R, for example, reported 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity in its original validation study. This means it missed very few autistic people and produced no false positives in that sample. However, the original sample was clinically referred adults, which differs from a general community sample. Real-world sensitivity and specificity depend on the population being screened.
Ritvo, R.A., Ritvo, E.R., Guthrie, D., Ritvo, M.J., Hufnagel, D.H., McMahon, W., Tonge, B., Mataix-Cols, D., Jassi, A., Attwood, T., & Eloff, J. (2011). The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R): A scale to assist the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(8), 1076–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1133-6Norming sample limitations
Most autism screening tools were developed with samples that skewed male, white, university-educated, and in English-speaking Western countries. This matters because a test's cut-off scores and normative ranges are calibrated to the people used to build them. Scores for people outside those demographics may not behave the same way.
Lai et al. (2019) found meaningful differences in how autistic traits present across gender, including differences that standard instruments may not fully capture.
Lai, M.-C., Lombardo, M.V., Ruigrok, A.N.V., Chakrabarti, B., Auyeung, B., Szatmari, P., Happé, F., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2017). Quantifying and exploring camouflaging in men and women with autism. Autism, 21(6), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012On low scores not ruling anything out
Camouflaging directly suppresses scores on trait-focused measures. A person who has spent years masking their autistic responses will often score lower on the AQ and similar tools than their actual trait level would predict. The CAT-Q was developed specifically to measure this concealment effect. Used alongside general trait measures, it gives a fuller picture.
How the tests were chosen
Every tool on Traitmark is peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal. Where items are reproduced, they're used under Creative Commons licences or with appropriate attribution as permitted by the original authors.
Tests are grouped into two tiers based on their norming samples and validation status.
| Tier | What it means |
|---|---|
| Current / best-practice | More recently validated; broader representation in norming samples; generally performs better across gender and presentation type. |
| Older / classic | Widely used and recognised in research and clinical practice, but validated primarily on male samples. Still useful; worth knowing the limitation. |
Some widely known tests aren't here. That's intentional. Tests are excluded when the licensing is unclear, when there's no peer-reviewed validation, or when the test relies on theoretical frameworks that current research doesn't support. A test being popular doesn't make it valid.
Research and further reading
On licence and open access
Academic research is increasingly moving toward open licences. The CAT-Q (Hull et al., 2019), for example, is published under CC BY 4.0, meaning it can be reproduced freely with attribution. Other instruments like the RAADS-R are free for clinical and research use with citation. Where a licence was ambiguous or a response from authors is pending, the instrument is held off the site until that's resolved.
On peer review and validation
Validation studies test whether an instrument measures what it claims to measure (construct validity), whether it produces consistent results across similar populations (reliability), and whether it accurately identifies the trait or condition in question (criterion validity). Traitmark only includes instruments that have passed this process in published form.
Privacy isn't a feature, it's the point
Exploring whether you might be autistic or ADHD is a personal process. It can bring up a lot. You might be working through years of confusion, grief, or relief. That's not information you should have to hand to a company in exchange for access to a questionnaire.
Traitmark stores your results in your browser's localStorage. This means your scores persist across visits on the same device, in the same browser. You can clear them any time using your browser's settings. Nothing leaves your device.
The site makes zero external requests. No Google Fonts, no analytics, no CDN, no error tracking, no A/B testing framework. Every file is served from a single location. The site works fully offline once loaded.
Research and further reading
Why mental health data deserves particular protection
Mental health and neurodevelopmental information carries significant sensitivity. In Australia, health information is classified as sensitive under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), with specific requirements around collection, use, and disclosure. Even where legal obligations permit collection, there are strong ethical arguments for not collecting data that people haven't explicitly chosen to share.
People exploring a potential neurodivergent diagnosis are often doing so at a vulnerable point in their self-understanding. The design decision to collect nothing is a direct response to that context.
Where to go from here
A screening score is a starting point. Here are some directions to take it further.
- Finding a neurodivergent-affirming clinician (Australia) The Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) professional directory lists practitioners across Australia. Look for language about "affirming practice" or "neurodiversity-informed" in profiles. Ask directly whether the clinician uses the neurodiversity framework before booking an assessment.
- Peer support and community Amaze (Victoria) and Autism Awareness Australia both offer information and community connections. Online communities, including the r/autism and r/ADHD subreddits and various Discord servers, can provide peer perspective from people with lived experience.
- Using your results in a clinical conversation You can take a printout or screenshot of your results to a GP or psychologist appointment. Frame it as "I explored some validated screening tools and here's what came up" rather than "I think I have X." Your GP can refer you for a formal assessment; a psychologist specialising in autism or ADHD can conduct it.
- ADHD-specific resources (Australia) ADHD Australia provides information on diagnosis pathways, support networks, and advocacy. The Australian ADHD Professionals Association publishes clinical guidelines and a practitioner directory.
- If this has brought up difficult feelings Discovering or exploring a late neurodivergent diagnosis can stir grief, relief, anger, or confusion, sometimes all at once. That's a normal response to something significant. Support is available. Lifeline: 13 11 14 (24/7). Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636.