Methodology
SAMRUM builds on well-established psychological research frameworks, but is not a clinical test or diagnostic tool.
What SAMRUM is not
SAMRUM is not a clinical diagnostic tool.
The test measures continuous tendencies, not diagnoses. A high score on an axis is not an illness, a deficit, or something to be treated.
SAMRUM does not replace therapy or professional help.
In cases of violence, abuse, children's distress or serious couple issues, the report refers to professionals. SAMRUM is a conversation tool, not a treatment.
SAMRUM is not a personality type.
You won't get a four-letter label like MBTI or an Enneagram number. The profile is 10 continuous tendencies — no end of an axis is 'right' or 'wrong'.
What scientific foundation is SAMRUM built on?
SAMRUM is inspired by two well-established research frameworks:
OCEAN (Big Five)
The dominant model in personality psychology, describing five core dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.
IPC (Interpersonal Circumplex)
A model for relational behavior based on two axes: dominance/submission and warmth/hostility. Used to understand dynamics between people.
In the app, we translate this into a family language with 10 themes from everyday life – not abstract personality types.
Why does personality research work for families?
Big Five and IPC are primarily validated in individual and work contexts. Research suggests that the personality structure is robust across contexts — including families. Here's how we've adapted it:
Family-adapted questions
We reformulate questions to family situations ("at home", "in the family") and add situational items that capture dynamics between people. The Big Five structure has been shown to be robust across contexts (Soto & John, 2017; Donnellan et al., 2005).
Open-source item bank
Our questions are inspired by IPIP (International Personality Item Pool) — an open, free item bank (Goldberg et al., 2006). We've adapted and reformulated them for a family context with situational items and trade-off items that capture dynamics between people. This gives us flexibility without licensing restrictions.
From academic model to everyday language
In the app, you'll never encounter terms like "neuroticism" or "agreeableness". We translate into a family language with 10 themes — but the foundation is the same.
What do SAMRUM's 10 axes measure?
Reports use these themes to describe patterns. They're continuous traits – not categories or types. There's no "right" or "wrong" end.
Need for structure
Need for fixed routines and predictability in everyday life.
Predictability ↔ Change
Thriving on repetition versus energy from variation and new experiences.
Social energy
Energy from being together versus need for alone time and quiet.
Warmth & contact style
Need for closeness, expressing care, and tolerance for distance.
Boundaries & direction
Tendency to take charge in decisions versus following others' initiative.
Emotional reactivity
Intensity of reactions and time to calm down again.
Repair after conflict
Speed and willingness to restore after disagreement.
Fairness filter
Sensitivity to inequality and favoritism in the family.
Everyday persistence
Tendency to finish tasks and keep to agreements.
Calm under pressure
Ability to keep overview and tone when things get tense.
How does SAMRUM look at the whole family at once?
SAMRUM describes patterns in the interaction between people — not properties of the individual.
Loops, not blame
Conflicts are described as mutual cycles: "Alma reacts → Julie withdraws → Alma escalates." Never as linear cause-and-effect. This circular causality is the core principle of systemic family therapy (Bateson, 1972; Watzlawick et al., 1967).
The pattern is the system
No person "is" a pattern. The pattern emerges in the interaction between two people's data. The same person can have completely different patterns with different family members (Minuchin, 1974; Gottman, 1994).
Subsystems in the family
A family is several relationships at once: the couple, siblings, parent-child. Our reports analyze each subsystem as a distinct dynamic within the overall system.
Moment guides after conflicts
"Right now" uses the same systemic loop analysis in real-time: after an argument, the guide identifies your active pattern and creates a plan based on both profiles. The repair window closes gradually (Gottman & Silver, 2015), and confirmation bias distorts perception during activation (Kahneman, 2011). The guide validates the feeling without confirming the conclusion.
What is a pattern in a SAMRUM report?
A report isn't about personality per se — it's about the patterns that emerge when several people's profiles meet. Patterns are named, research-anchored dynamics (e.g. “one seeks conversation, the other withdraws”, or “different needs for closeness”). They arise from score combinations across your 10 axes and are the language the report uses to describe what happens between you.
Every statement is anchored in data
Every SAMRUM report has at least one “grounded interpretive anchor” — a named pattern, or, for individual reports, an individual behavioural dynamic, that the AI writes from. The anchor can be traced back to your actual test data. When there isn't enough signal for a named pattern, the report says so explicitly and sticks to shorter, falsifiable statements without inventing a dynamic. Fallback is not a failure — it is an honest anchor, and it's the reason the AI never produces free-form interpretation.
This anchoring is what separates a SAMRUM report from a generic AI conversation about relationships: here it is the data — not the language model — that decides what gets said about you.
How do we get from answers to a report?
This is an illustrative example. It uses a real pattern from our catalogue and shows the chain from your answers to what the report writes.
- 1
Answers
Alex answers consistently that fixed plans and a planned daily life are important, and that it's stressful when plans shift. Nova answers that too tight a schedule feels suffocating, and that energy often comes from things being able to change along the way.
- 2
Zones
The answers are translated to broad zones per theme — not precise numbers. Here Alex sits in the higher end of Theme 2: Predictability ↔ Change, and Nova in the lower end. Other themes (for instance reaction under pressure, repair after conflict) each get their own zone and can change which pattern ends up matching.
- 3
Pattern
The combination of opposite zones on Theme 2 — above a set signal threshold — triggers the pattern “Rhythm and Change”. The pattern is named and defined in advance. The match is rule-based, not produced by AI. If your data points to a different pattern, that one is triggered instead. If no pattern meets the threshold, the report is written more cautiously — with explicit marking that the signal is thin.
- 4
Academic grounding
The pattern draws on Gottman's research on “perpetual problems” — roughly two-thirds of recurring disagreements in couples stem from stable personality differences and cannot be “solved”, only navigated (Gottman, 1999). “Rhythm and Change” is one of the perpetual problems most often seen in couples with opposite needs for predictability.
- 5
Text
Only at this step does AI step in. It turns the chosen pattern into readable language — within the frame of the pattern's fixed themes and tone.
An example of what the report might write:
You experience daily life differently. Alex lands best when the plan is set. Nova gets energy from open ends. That doesn't mean one of you is right — but it does mean you easily pressure each other when the calendar needs to close. Try this next week: …
The AI may only formulate within the chosen pattern's frame. It may not switch patterns, invent a conflict that isn't in the profiles, or add a conclusion that doesn't follow from the pattern's definition.
See what a report looks like
Five real examples from our demo family. Click through to read exactly the kind of report you get — same structure, same depth.
Example: Individual report
A personal report for one adult. Shows your personal profile, how you communicate, what stresses you, and what helps you back to calm.
Example: Couple report
Report for two adults in a couple. Shows your strengths, typical friction patterns, conflict loops, and concrete conversation experiments.
Example: Parent-child report
Report for a parent and a child or teen. Shows your connection moments, developmental context, friction patterns, and concrete things the parent can say.
Example: Sibling report
Report for two siblings. Shows your bond, rivalry patterns, family roles, friction, and how best to support each other.
Example: Family report
Report for the whole family. Shows family portrait, subsystem dynamics, parent-child relationships, tension hotspots, and family-wide experiments.
What doesn't SAMRUM use — and why not?
SAMRUM is designed with clear boundaries for what the tool does and doesn't do.
- ✕No diagnoses
We don't diagnose ADHD, autism, anxiety, or other conditions. That's for professionals.
- ✕Differences are patterns
Reports describe differences as patterns – not as flaws or shortcomings.
- ✕No therapeutic guidance
Reports don't provide therapy. For serious challenges, we recommend professional help.
- ✕No "right/wrong"
Our language avoids morally loaded words. Differences are differences, not faults.
- ✕No numbers or percentages
Users never see scores, percentiles, or numerical comparisons.
How are children and teenagers tested differently?
Children and teenagers are described differently from adults — with respect for their development and perspective.
Children described in situations
Children are measured on the same 10 themes, but results are described in situations: "In situations with many people, Oliver tends to withdraw" — never as fixed traits: "Oliver is introverted." Research in developmental psychology suggests that stable trait attributions are problematic for children under 13 (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978).
Teenagers have their own principles
Teenagers communicate better side-by-side than face-to-face. Pressure for conversation shuts down, availability opens up (Steinberg, 2001; Keijsers & Poulin, 2013). We never use words like "puberty", "hormones" or "your brain isn't fully developed."
Never comparison
Siblings are never compared. They are different individuals with different developmental curves. Comparison activates rivalry and internalized inadequacy (Dunn, 2002; Kramer, 2010).
Expectations must match capacity
A child who "loses focus after 10 minutes" HAS worked for 10 minutes. Persistence is a developmental curve, not a character flaw. Expectations must match the child's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
How are SAMRUM's scores calculated?
The themes are designed to be neutral: neither end is "better" – both high and low scores have strengths and challenges depending on context.
Scoring
Each theme is measured with multiple questions. Reverse-worded questions are flipped before calculation to ensure consistency and catch random response patterns. The theme score is the average of all questions on that theme. Sub-areas (subfacets) are used to explain nuances but don't change the theme score itself. This gives a composite picture per theme rather than individual questions.
Age adaptation
The test exists in three versions adapted for adults, teenagers, and children – with different numbers of questions, scaling, and age-appropriate language.
Data quality
Each theme gets a confidence level based on coverage and balance in the questions. When confidence is low, the wording becomes more cautious, and if overall data quality is too low, we don't generate a report.
Zones and norming
Internally, we compare results to expected levels per age group and translate them into five broad zones (e.g., lower/middle/higher tendency). We show zones rather than numbers to avoid over-precision. In v1, we use conservative standard assumptions until we have enough data to establish more precise norms per theme. The zones are therefore best understood as tendencies for reflection and dialogue – not as a precise placement in a reference population.
Snapshot
Results are a snapshot, not a permanent truth. Life situations, stress, and age affect the answers. A test taken six months later may look different.
Psychometric quality
We assess internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) across many responses when the data foundation is large enough. This is a property of the questionnaire as a whole – not of one person's response – and therefore isn't shown in individual reports.
Privacy
Raw test answers are always private. No family members can see each other's answers – not even in reports.
Report texts
AI transforms the results into readable text. Reports describe patterns and suggest conversation starters and small experiments. The focus is shared language and dialogue – a starting point for conversation.
What is validated, and what is being worked on?
SAMRUM is a reflection tool, not a clinical test instrument. We want to be clear about what we've done — and what we haven't yet.
What we've done
- ✓Items inspired by IPIP and adapted to a family context with situational and trade-off items
- ✓Internal review of questions, axes, and report principles
- ✓Three age-adapted versions with different language, scaling, and number of questions
- ✓Iteration based on pilot testing and user feedback
- ✓Conservative norming assumptions in v1, with zones rather than precise scores
What we haven't published yet
- ○Public reliability report (internal consistency per theme)
- ○Public factor structure (confirmatory factor analysis)
- ○Representative norming per age group
- ○Documentation for comparability across age versions
- ○External validation or peer review
Results should therefore be used as conversation starters and hypotheses for reflection — not as objective truths or clinical assessments.
Which sources is SAMRUM built on?
SAMRUM's approach is inspired by established research in personality psychology, relationship science, systemic therapy, and developmental psychology. Here are the key sources.
- Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books.
- Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1–103.
- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
- Christensen, A. & Heavey, C.L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81.
- Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Donnellan, M.B., Larsen-Rife, D. & Conger, R.D. (2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 562–576.
- Dunn, J. (2004). Children's Friendships: The Beginnings of Intimacy. Blackwell.
- Feinberg, M.E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(2), 95–131.
- Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. & Target, M. (2002). Affect Regulation, Mentalization, and the Development of the Self. Other Press.
- Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., Cloninger, C.R. & Gough, H.G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.
- Gottman, J.M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Gottman, J.M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. W.W. Norton.
- Gottman, J.M. & Silver, N. (2015). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (updated ed.). Harmony Books.
- Johnson, S.M. (2008). Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Little, Brown and Company.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Keijsers, L. & Poulin, F. (2013). Developmental changes in parent–child communication throughout adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2301–2308.
- Kramer, L. (2010). The essential ingredients of successful sibling relationships: An emerging framework for advancing theory and practice. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 80–86.
- Miller, W.R. & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
- Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard University Press.
- Papernow, P. (2013). Surviving and Thriving in Stepfamily Relationships: What Works and What Doesn't. Routledge.
- Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. International Universities Press.
- Porges, S.W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W.W. Norton.
- Siegel, D.J. & Bryson, T.P. (2012). The Whole-Brain Child: 12 Revolutionary Strategies to Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind. Delacorte Press.
- Soto, C.J. & John, O.P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143.
- Stattin, H. & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71(4), 1072–1085.
- Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 1–19.
- Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
- Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. W.W. Norton.
- Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412.
Want to read more?
Not ready to start?
Newsletter
Get updates instead — completely optional.
Written and reviewed by Thomas Silkjær, founder of SAMRUMLast updated