Omniprism is an educational self-reflection tool. It is not a diagnostic instrument, a clinical assessment, or a substitute for professional evaluation. Its purpose is to help adults organise their self-observations across multiple areas of neurodivergence into a structured document they can bring to a qualified professional — a starting point for a more informed conversation, not a conclusion.
This distinction matters. A formal neuropsychological assessment involves a trained clinician, validated and normed instruments, a developmental history, and clinical judgement applied to a whole person. Omniprism does none of those things. What it does is provide structure to a process that many neurodivergent adults undertake informally anyway — recognising patterns in their own experience, gathering language for what they observe, and trying to make sense of it before or during the process of seeking professional support.
Omniprism covers fourteen domains organised around established neurodevelopmental and neurocognitive constructs. Each domain draws on the conceptual logic of validated screening instruments, adapted for self-report in a non-clinical, educational context.
The three-domain structure follows the DSM-5 presentation model for ADHD in adults. Item logic is informed by the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1), developed by Kessler et al. under WHO auspices, with particular attention to how inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive presentations manifest differently in adulthood compared to childhood. Internal hyperactivity — the experience of a restless mind rather than restless body — is weighted accordingly, reflecting current clinical consensus on adult presentations.
The three-factor structure reflects the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, which groups symptoms into social communication and restricted/repetitive behaviours. Item logic draws on the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ-10 and AQ-50, Baron-Cohen et al.) and on published literature on camouflaging and late-identified autism in adults, particularly in populations that were not identified in childhood.
Masking — the active concealment of autistic or neurodivergent traits to conform to neurotypical expectations — is not a standalone diagnostic category but is increasingly recognised as a clinically significant phenomenon with substantial impact on wellbeing and on the accuracy of standard assessments. Items draw on the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q, Hull et al., 2019) and related research. Masking is treated as an independent domain because it can substantially affect scores across other domains, and because it carries its own functional burden regardless of underlying diagnosis.
Items reflect the core phonological processing, reading fluency, and orthographic difficulties described in the British Dyslexia Association guidelines and the DSM-5 criteria for Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in reading. The domain is designed to be sensitive to compensated presentations — adults who have developed functional workarounds but continue to experience underlying processing difficulty.
Items reflect the motor coordination, spatial awareness, and motor planning difficulties defined by the DSM-5 criteria for Developmental Coordination Disorder and the European Academy of Childhood Disability (EACD) guidelines. The adult presentation of DCD is substantially underdiagnosed and underrepresented in screening tools; this domain attempts to address that gap.
Items reflect difficulties in number sense, arithmetic fluency, and temporal processing as described in published consensus definitions (Butterworth, Varma & Skagerlund, 2011; Rubinsten & Henik, 2009). Dyscalculia remains the least studied of the specific learning differences covered here; items are accordingly more conservative in scope.
Items address hyper- and hyposensitivity across modalities (auditory, tactile, visual, olfactory) and interoceptive processing. The domain draws on the Sensory Profile (Dunn, 1999) and the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, as well as published research on sensory processing in autism and in the general population.
This domain implements a three-factor model based on Elaine Aron's Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) Scale and the subsequent psychometric work by Lionetti et al. (2018) identifying three validated subscales: Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES), Ease of Excitation (EOE), and Low Sensory Threshold (LST). AES — depth of processing, emotional attunement, and aesthetic responsiveness — has positive valence and correlates with creativity and openness. EOE and LST have negative valence and correlate with overstimulation and stress susceptibility. Omniprism computes all three subscales and determines a dominant profile (receptive, friction, or mixed), displayed as a prose narrative in results. The aggregate score is retained for comparability across the fourteen-domain overview.
A methodological note: EOE is computed from two items in the current instrument (hsp_c2 and the reverse-scored hsp_c3), which limits its reliability as a standalone score. It is presented as indicative rather than precise. LST is approximated from items in the Sensory Processing domain, which are conceptually aligned but were not originally designed for this purpose.
Items reflect the presence of intrusive thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive behaviours or mental acts performed to reduce distress (compulsions), as defined by DSM-5 criteria for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. The domain is framed as a trait screen rather than a diagnostic checklist, and is included because OCD frequently co-occurs with ADHD and autism and because its presentations — particularly purely mental compulsions and obsessions without visible rituals — are often invisible and underidentified.
Synesthesia is a neurological trait rather than a disorder, characterised by automatic, consistent cross-sensory associations (numbers evoking colours, sounds evoking shapes, etc.). It is included not as a clinical domain but as a contextual trait that appears at elevated rates in neurodivergent populations and that users often find valuable to identify. It contributes to the strengths profile rather than to clinical flags or aggregate scores.
All items are original. They were written from first principles, informed by the conceptual logic of the source instruments above but not reproduced from any of them. This distinction is intentional: existing validated instruments often contain items that perform well under psychometric conditions but translate poorly to self-administered digital contexts, or that carry deficit-framing inappropriate for an educational tool.
Items were designed with several constraints in mind:
The assessment uses an adaptive two-phase structure. In the first phase, all users complete a three-item core screener for each of the fourteen domains. Domains that score at or above fifty percent in the core screener automatically unlock a deeper item set for that domain (between three and five additional items). Domains below threshold are not explored further.
This design serves two purposes: it reduces overall completion time for users whose profile is concentrated in a subset of domains, and it improves score precision for domains where signal is present by gathering more data on those specifically.
Following the domain screening, all users complete five fixed modules: childhood and developmental history, real-life functional impact, onset and trajectory, confound screening, and a strengths inventory. These modules apply universally because they are not domain-specific — they contextualise the domain scores rather than extending them.
Scores are expressed as raw percentages relative to the maximum possible score for each domain, calculated from the items actually completed. Scores are shown relative to each other, not relative to any external norm. Omniprism does not provide normed scores, percentile rankings, or clinical cut-offs. The descriptive bands (Not prominent / Present, sub-threshold / Notable / Strong) are labels for communication, not diagnostic thresholds.
The instrument includes two embedded validity items.
The first is an attention check item that instructs the respondent to select a specific answer. Failure to comply indicates inattentive responding.
The second is an infrequency item — a statement so extreme that genuine endorsement is implausible ("I have never once in my life forgotten or misplaced anything"). High endorsement of this item suggests random or careless responding.
Completion speed is also tracked. A session completed implausibly rapidly relative to item count is flagged accordingly.
These three signals are combined into a response reliability rating (High / Moderate / Low), displayed in the results and included in the exported profile. A low reliability rating does not invalidate the results but contextualises them.
Omniprism includes an explicit confound screening module covering sleep disruption, anxiety, low mood, acute stress, physical factors (including thyroid-type symptoms), and substance use. These factors can produce or substantially worsen symptoms — particularly in the attention, memory, and mood domains — that closely resemble neurodivergent presentations.
The confound module is included not to suggest that these factors explain away neurodivergent experiences, but because a clinician evaluating the results should have this information, and because users benefit from understanding that some of their highest-scoring patterns may have contributors that are distinct from, or in addition to, lifelong neurodevelopmental difference.
Trauma and post-traumatic stress are not screened in this instrument. This is an intentional scope decision. Trauma responses can closely resemble, and frequently co-occur with, ADHD, autism, and sensory processing differences. Including a trauma screen in a self-administered educational tool risks producing results that are misleading in either direction. Users with a history of trauma are encouraged to raise this explicitly with any professional they consult.
Omniprism cannot diagnose any condition. It cannot rule out any condition. It cannot tell a user whether they are neurodivergent. It cannot replace a clinical assessment, a professional consultation, or a developmental history taken by a qualified practitioner.
It can help a user articulate patterns they have observed in themselves, across a broader range of domains than is typically covered in any single clinical pathway. It can provide structured language for experiences that are often difficult to describe. And it can produce a document that helps a clinical conversation start from a more informed place.
That is what it is designed to do.
No data is transmitted, stored, or processed outside the user's device. The session state is encrypted with AES-GCM using a key that is generated locally and stored in the browser. It is destroyed automatically when the session ends. Omniprism has no analytics, no telemetry, no cookies, and no server-side component. Nothing leaves the device except the file the user chooses to download.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Skagerlund, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science, 332(6033), 1049–1053.
Dunn, W. (1999). Sensory Profile. The Psychological Corporation.
Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., & Petrides, K. V. (2019). Development and validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(3), 819–833.
Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Ames, M., Demler, O., Faraone, S., Hiripi, E., … Ustun, T. B. (2005). The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS). Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 245–256.
Lionetti, F., Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Burns, G. L., Jagiellowicz, J., & Pluess, M. (2018). Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1), 24.
Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2009). Developmental dyscalculia: Heterogeneity might not mean different mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 92–99.