Observe supporting actions while preserving choice and limits.
Read NP supporting actions, raw frequency scores, higher or lower readings, missing information and examples without certifying kindness or empathy.
For NP, recall how often each of four actions occurred in the past four weeks when a relevant occasion arose, from 1 Never to 5 Almost always. All items are direct; none reverses. Four valid ratings produce a raw total of 4–20 and a descriptive mean from the unrounded sum divided by four, shown to two decimals. For example, 4, 3, 2, 5 total 14 with a mean of 3.50. Any NA leaves this group insufficient while other complete groups remain readable. The five groups are not added or normalised into energy percentages, a dominant type or an ideal shape. Ordered-category sums and decimals establish no measurement precision.
NP: concrete actions of support and acceptance
This group borrows the label Nurturing Parent, or NP, for four concrete actions: asking whether support is wanted, naming a specific effort, leaving room to repair a small mistake and offering time or an adjusted arrangement when circumstances allow. It does not determine kindness, accurate recognition of needs or whether you made anyone feel safe; another person’s needs and experience require separate information. Parent is framework terminology, not a duty to become a caregiver or take a superior relationship position. These four actions do not exhaust care. Rate the opportunities in your recent four weeks without interpreting their absence as missing compassion.
How the four frequency ratings are scored
For NP, recall how often each of four actions occurred in the past four weeks when a relevant occasion arose, from 1 Never to 5 Almost always. All items are direct; none reverses. Four valid ratings produce a raw total of 4–20 and a descriptive mean from the unrounded sum divided by four, shown to two decimals. For example, 4, 3, 2, 5 total 14 with a mean of 3.50. Any NA leaves this group insufficient while other complete groups remain readable. The five groups are not added or normalised into energy percentages, a dominant type or an ideal shape. Ordered-category sums and decimals establish no measurement precision.
Higher: supporting actions occur more often
A higher result means these supporting actions were more frequent in your account, perhaps because this period brought more opportunities to coordinate or care. It proves neither effective help, dependency, durable relationships nor over-giving. Asking whether help is wanted differs from deciding for someone, and this form cannot discover your true motivation. Put an instance back into context: whether support was wanted, what resources you had and what scope was agreed. You may stop an arrangement you cannot sustain, and the other person may decline it. A higher NP score creates no duty to keep giving or expect acceptance as a return.
Lower: support can take other forms
A lower result may reflect few relevant opportunities, support provided by reliably completing agreed tasks, limited time or resources, or forms of care not listed in these four items. It establishes neither coldness, untrustworthiness nor indifference and does not require seeking people in difficulty to look after. Clear limits and timely refusal of an unsustainable task may provide useful coordination information, although that ability was not independently measured here. Use NA when an item had no relevant opportunity, or rate an action honestly if it was simply infrequent. Lower frequency is no moral debt and no need to prove a relationship’s worth through a higher NP score.
Four forms of support need not move together
You may often acknowledge effort but have little time to adjust arrangements, or leave room for repair without frequently asking whether help is wanted. People with equal totals may support others differently. Three is no normal amount of caregiving, and a maximum is no ideal care. Any NA leaves this group’s total insufficient while other groups remain separate; they cannot fill its missing information. All five groups can be higher or lower together without reducing NP to release energy for another state. The chart establishes no burnout, dependence or reciprocity in a relationship. Those matters need their own actual circumstances and accounts rather than a score pattern.
Example and counterexample: support while preparing an activity
While preparing an activity, a companion says that time is tight. You might ask whether checking a materials list would help or whether they prefer to organise it themselves, offering only a small part you can manage. That question illustrates one listed supporting action, not complete understanding of their needs. A counterexample is respecting their choice to handle it themselves: fewer acts of help need not mean less care. Someone who rarely reassures others may consistently deliver the materials they promised, which a lower NP frequency cannot invalidate. Suitable support depends on expressed needs, agreements and resources, not which person has the taller bar.
Optional experiment: clarify scope and preserve refusal
If useful, the next time you already intend to offer help, ask a clearly bounded question and state what you can manage. Let “not needed now” be a complete answer without demanding reasons or escalating the offer to prove care. You can also state that resources are insufficient. This experiment guarantees neither acceptance nor validated empathy and does not require a script for every interaction. It simply reduces guessing in one actual arrangement. You may skip it without recording another person’s difficulties or private replies, and the number of attempts is no extra assessment or evidence that you are becoming a better caregiver.
Distinguishing NP, kindness and accommodation
NP here lists four supporting and accepting actions, without certifying kindness or treating higher AC as evidence that you help to obtain approval. Motives are not the target of these twenty statements, and one action can have several reasons. Caregiving, communication and people-pleasing topics may overlap without interchangeable scores or predictions of relationship outcomes. The functional label comes from transactional-analysis background. Our independently written items do not administer standard TEG3, Heyer or Dusay banks, and no local norms or validity have been established. Compare the five groups’ questions while keeping interpretations within the responses actually supplied rather than expanding them into a hidden account of motivation.
Full free text and optional review
All five full guides appear together for free without another assessment, an email address or payment. When reviewing, compare settings, opportunities and particular items rather than treating a score difference as treatment benefit or personality change. Answers are processed on this device without real conversations, childhood stories or third-party details. An explicitly enabled tab draft lasts at most twenty-four hours and clears on completion, retake or exit-and-clear; answering requires no saved draft. Sharing contains only the test name, public guide names and link, without answers, five scores or chart data. Later recommendations are optional different frameworks, not completion of an insufficient score. You may simply finish here.