Team Psychological Safety Check
NOESIS adaptation of the Team Psychological Safety Scale (Edmondson, 1999)
~3 min · 7 questions · Free partial report
Seven statements about what it costs to be honest on your team: to admit a mistake, ask for help, disagree out loud, or show up different. Psychological safety is not niceness and not comfort — it is the shared expectation that taking an interpersonal risk will not be punished, and three decades of research link it to whether teams learn or repeat their errors. This assessment reads how safe your team currently feels from where you sit. It is built on the team psychological safety construct of Edmondson (1999). The items are a NOESIS adaptation — independently written and not independently validated — so treat results as structured self-reflection rather than a validated diagnosis of your team.
What does it cost to admit a mistake, ask for help, or disagree on your team? Seven statements put a number on it.
- Name the specific behaviors your team's climate makes expensive — admitting error, asking for help, dissenting, being different — and see whether the discomfort you feel is personal caution or a property of the room.
No signup required to start. The Partial Report is free at the end. The Complete costs $6.90, if and when you want it.
What this test measures
Team Psychological Safety
Low Psychological Safety
Guarded Climate
Moderately Safe Climate
High Psychological Safety
Your result falls into one of these bands.
Discover where you stand on each dimension.
Start for free →No prior signup. Free partial result immediately.
From first click to report.
The process is simple: you respond, the system calculates, and the result appears. No prior signup, no form, no waiting.
- 1
Click "Start for free"
No signup required to start. You identify yourself at the end, when you want to save the result. The test opens immediately.
- 2
Answer the questions
Likert 5-point scale (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). Visible progress bar. You can pause and resume from any device after identifying yourself.
- 3
Get the Partial Report
Immediate and free. A text summary of each dimension, with indication of high, medium, or low.
- 4
Decide if you want the Complete
The Partial already delivers value. The Complete adds percentiles, norm comparison, charts, applied recommendations, and a verifiable Certificate.
- 5
Explore in the Integrative Chat
Talk to an AI about your results. Ask how your profile applies to your career, what a high score means, or compare with other tests.
The Partial is yours right away. The Complete, when it makes sense.
| Free and paid, side by side | Partial Report (free, always) | Complete Report ($6.90) |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretive text per dimension, generated from your answers | ✓ | ✓ |
| Raw score for each dimension | ✓ | ✓ |
| One-paragraph overview reading | ✓ | ✓ |
| Everything in the Partial, expanded to 3–5 paragraphs per dimension | — | ✓ |
| Percentile per dimension, compared to reference norms | — | ✓ |
| Inter-dimensional chart with accessible data table | — | ✓ |
| Applied recommendations: career, relationships, self-care | — | ✓ |
| Certificate with public verification and PDF download | — | ✓ |
- ✓Everything in the Partial, expanded to 3–5 paragraphs per dimension
- ✓Percentile per dimension, compared to reference norms
- ✓Applied recommendations: career, relationships, self-care
- ✓Certificate with public verification and PDF download
You only pay after completing the test, if you want to go beyond the Partial.
- ✓Interpretive text per dimension, generated from your answers
- ✓Raw score for each dimension
- ✓One-paragraph overview reading
- ✓Free trial of the Integrative Chat, unlocked by your first test
Payment via PIX (instant) or credit card. Access for 1 year. After that, the report stays visible in read-only mode.
Why trust this instrument.
Based on the team psychological safety construct of Edmondson (1999), this assessment uses 7 independently developed items — one per conceptual facet, three negatively worded — on a 5-point agreement scale, scored as a raw 7-35 sum with NOESIS-labeled bands. The items were written by NOESIS to represent the published construct and have not been independently validated; the original scale's psychometrics do not apply to them. Treat results as structured self-reflection about your team experience.
- Authors:
- Edmondson
- Year:
- 1999
- DOI:
- 10.2307/2666999
The reliability, norms, and cutoffs shown are those of the original instrument (Team Psychological Safety Scale (Edmondson, 1999)).
This NOESIS adaptation has not yet been independently validated.
- Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
The theory behind this test.
Team Psychological Safety
Theory that teams differ in the shared belief that the group is safe for interpersonal risk taking — admitting error, asking for help, disagreeing, proposing unfinished ideas — and that this belief, more than talent or resources, governs whether a team learns. Psychological safety is a team-level climate, not an individual trait.
Learn more about this theory →Target Audience
Anyone who works in a team — as a member wondering why speaking up feels expensive, or as a lead wondering what their silence is costing them.
Recommended ages: 18+
Questions the report answers.
What does honesty cost on your team right now?
Read the score as a price tag, not a grade. High safety means mistakes, questions, dissent, and difference are cheap to show — so information moves fast and problems surface while they are small. Low safety means each of those carries a tax, and people respond the way people respond to taxes: they minimize the taxed behavior. The team does not get fewer mistakes; it gets fewer reported ones.
Who benefits most.
The newest person on the team
Everyone else seems to know the unwritten rules, and every question feels like it spends credibility. Scoring the climate separates normal new-job caution from a room that actually punishes not-knowing.
A team lead after a failed project
The retrospective was polite and useless — nobody named what everyone knew. A leader wondering why hears it here first: the price of honesty on this team got too high, and the retro was where that became visible.
Someone who has gone quiet in meetings
Six months ago they argued, proposed, pushed back. Now they nod. Whether that is burnout, disengagement, or a rational response to how their last three dissents were received is exactly the question worth taking apart.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly is psychological safety?
The shared belief that your team will not punish you for interpersonal risks: admitting a mistake, asking a basic question, proposing a half-formed idea, disagreeing with someone senior. It was named and measured by Amy Edmondson in 1999, who found — counterintuitively — that better hospital teams appeared to make more errors. They did not. They reported more, because they could afford to.
Is this Edmondson's original scale?
No, and we say so plainly. The construct and its facets follow Edmondson (1999); the seven items are NOESIS's own wording and have not been independently validated. The original scale's published statistics do not apply to these items. If you need a validated instrument for research, use the original; if you want a structured, honest way to examine your own team experience, this is built for that.
I answered about my team. Whose safety does the score describe?
Yours, inside that team. Psychological safety is a team-level climate, but it is experienced — and reported — one person at a time, and it is routinely uneven: the room can be safe for the loudest tenured voice and unsafe for the newest hire. A single response reads one seat. If several teammates take it independently and the numbers diverge sharply, that spread is itself a finding.
My score is low. Does that mean my team is bad?
It means interpersonal risks currently feel expensive from where you sit — which is compatible with good people and bad habits. Low safety is usually built accidentally: a sharp reaction to bad news here, a mocked question there. It is also rebuildable, and the fastest lever is whoever has the most status spending some of it: admitting their own mistake first, asking the naive question themselves.
Should I share my result with my manager?
That is your call, and notice the irony: whether sharing it feels safe is itself a measurement. If it feels easy, your climate is probably better than your worst day suggests. If it feels risky, the result has already told you something — consider starting with the behaviors you would like to see rather than the score itself.
Combine instruments for a fuller profile.
Each test measures different dimensions. The Integrative Chat crosses the results of all tests you complete, revealing connections no single instrument can show.
Transformational Leadership Assessment
~9 min·28 questions
Which of seven leadership behaviors do you actually use, and which do you only intend to? 28 statements, honestly self-scored.
Start for free →Career Interest Profiler (O*NET Mini-IP)
~5 min·30 questions
The U.S. Department of Labor's 30-item interest profiler: rate real work activities, get your Holland (RIASEC) code.
Start for free →Brazilian Psychosocial Risk Assessment (COPSOQ II-Br)
~6 min·40 questions
The validated Brazilian instrument for psychosocial risks at work — 23 dimensions, each read against published safe/attention/risk bands.
Start for free →Psychosocial Work Environment (COPSOQ III)
~9 min·60 questions
The international reference questionnaire on psychosocial working conditions — 26 dimensions of your work environment, one 0-100 reading each.
Start for free →Team Psychological Safety Check
No signup, no time limit. The Partial is free at the end.
The Complete costs $6.90, if and when you want it.
This test is a self-knowledge tool for informational purposes. It does not constitute a psychological or clinical diagnosis and does not replace evaluation by a qualified professional. The report indicates the AI model used in text generation.
© 2026 NOESIS. All items independently developed. Construct based on Edmondson (1999).