The beassessed method
beassessed comes from one simple principle: serious psychological measurement is not improvised. Every part of the platform, from the questionnaires to the report, follows precise rules. Here they are.
1. Solo strumenti fondati
The validated questionnaires on the platform are used in their official version, citing the authors and the year, unchanged. The screenings built by beassessed are designed in a structured way, consistent with the research literature, and are presented for what they are: informational tools for orientation, not diagnostic tests.
2. Pathways, not isolated tests
A single questionnaire says little. Every section of beassessed is a pathway: an initial screening covering several areas, follow-ups consistent with what emerges, and a space in which the person speaks in their own words, the narrative "Understand Yourself" module in the screening pathways, and the opening interview with open questions in the Professional assessment, where the clinician can also add an assessment sheet. The final report brings all the parts together, so that the numbers and the story can be read against each other.
3. The professional stays at the centre
The platform automates administration and calculation, never judgement. Under no circumstances does the screening replace a professional's clinical opinion: only a psychologist can read the results as a whole and make an assessment or a diagnosis. In the Professional assessment the report is read, written and signed by a psychologist on the professional register, and the feedback consultation is part of it: psychodiagnostic results are not handed over without someone to explain them. In the self-service pathways the report states its own limits plainly, and the consultation can be booked separately.
"At the centre" means something precise: the report is composed by the professional, section by section. Every part of the document, the synthesis relating the scores to one another, the case formulation, the tables, the free-text sheets, their clinical interpretation, is included or left out by them. Automated processing, artificial intelligence included, is support they can use or leave: what reaches the patient is what the clinician has chosen to make their own, and the document says so.
4. Safety first
Alcuni questionari contengono item sentinella: questions that name self-harm explicitly. Where they are present, an answer indicating risk stops the pathway and offers sources of help straight away. They are not in every instrument: they come with the mood and distress scales, which enter the pathways where that theme is relevant. In the others the questionnaire is not a safety net, and does not claim to be one, if you are struggling right now, do not wait for a screening to finish: call 112 or Telefono Amico on 02 2327 2327. The suggestions shown in the reports are drawn from the research literature and international guidelines (WHO, NHS, NICE, Istituto Superiore di Sanità) and, in the highest score bands, do not propose self-help: they point you to a professional.
5. Data treated as it deserves
Answers to the questionnaires are health data: kept on servers in Europe, protected under the GDPR, and retained for the period required by law. In the Professional assessment your professional is theonly person who reads them, bound by professional confidentiality; in the screening pathways no one reads them, because the report is produced automatically.
To compose the report, the scores and the answers you write in your own words in the follow-up modules are processed by a fornitore tecnologico acting on behalf of the data controller, receiving neither your name nor your email address and unable to use them to train its own systems. We write this because saying "only your psychologist sees them" would be simpler, and would not be true. The details are in theinformativa privacy.
6. Limiti dichiarati
No self-report instrument is infallible: the mood of the day, the setting and the way you read yourself all shape the answers. This is why the reports speak of "bands" and "indications", never of certainties, and why monitoring over time (repeating the measure weeks apart) is worth more than a single snapshot. Saying plainly what an instrument cannot do is part of the method.