How Wellington writes and checks these articles

Who writes these articles?

These articles are published by Wellington at Therabot Labs LLC, the company that makes the assessment. They are not attributed to an individual founder as their writer or reviewer. Each page shows its last-updated date, and its structured data attributes the article to the organization rather than to a named person.

Articles are stored as structured content rather than separate versions for each format, so every page has the same shape and one file serves both readers and machines. The article body, questions, references and related links come from that file. This keeps the visible page and its machine-readable version consistent when the content changes.

What does it mean that an article is reviewed?

Something specific and quite narrow. Review means the claims in the article are read back against the sources listed at the foot of it, one at a time. A sentence about evidence has to be traceable to a listed source that actually reports it. Where it is not, it is rewritten or it comes out.

It does not mean a certification, an endorsement by a professional body, or advice about your own situation. An article's presence here does not establish that an individual founder has written or reviewed it. Automated checks are useful for catching formatting and citation problems, but they cannot establish that a source supports every interpretation of its findings.

Where do the sources come from?

Every article draws on one shared reference library, which currently holds 111 sources: peer-reviewed journal articles, the standard handbooks of the field and a small number of test manuals, each written out in APA style. Writers cite from it by key rather than typing a citation, so a paper is written the same way on every page it appears and nobody can invent a reference. An article that lists anything else fails the check described below.

The rule when a claim needs a source the library does not hold is the awkward one, and it is the rule that keeps the pages honest: the claim is made without the specific study, or it is dropped.

How is each source checked?

Alongside the library sits a fact sheet with one entry per source, written from that source's own abstract or summary. Each entry records what kind of study it was, what it reported, the claims it may be cited for, and the claims it may not. Abstracts came from Crossref, OpenAlex and Europe PMC, and from publisher pages where those had none, with the year and first author matched first. A writer who wants a source for a claim that is not on its list is told no.

Some sources have no abstract to check. Textbooks and test manuals are the usual case, and their entries say plainly that nothing could be verified from a published abstract, which limits them to background citations for concepts rather than findings.

• A textbook is cited for a concept, not a number. The standard text on psychometric theory is cited for reliability rising as items measuring the same trait are added, never for a particular threshold, because its thresholds come with qualifications a one-line citation would strip away (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
• A study is cited for what it measured. The evaluation of short Big Five measures is cited for abbreviated scales understating how much traits matter, never for a minimum number of items, because the paper proposes no such threshold (Credé et al., 2012).

What checks does an article pass before it is published?

A script runs over every article and reports errors. An article with errors is not published until they are fixed. The checks are deliberately mechanical, because they test what a writer stops noticing after the third read.

• The answer comes first. The lede has to answer the title in at most three sentences and 75 words, so a reader who reads nothing else still gets the answer.
• Headings are questions. The check flags an article whose headings are not mostly the questions people type, and each section has to stand on its own when read out of order.
• Three to six questions at the end, each a real question, answered in a paragraph.
• Sources are real. At least three, and every source listed at the foot of an article must come from the shared library or the check fails. The rule writers work to is that every citation in the text appears in that list.
• Numbers are not typed. Question counts, trait counts, response labels and prices are read from the product itself, and a money figure that is not a current price fails.
• Language is plain. The script rejects words that belong in a medical setting, promises of certainty, promotional filler and anything disparaging about another test.
• The wellness statement appears verbatim in the section that describes the product, on every page without exception.
• Length. An article under 1,100 words fails, on the grounds that it has not covered its topic.

Two further passes run before anything ships: the site is type-checked, so an article naming a trait or number that does not exist will not build, and the plain-text version of the site is regenerated from the same file.

How are the product claims kept consistent?

Articles receive the product facts as data rather than looking them up. The questions in the free Snapshot, the traits in each tier, the response labels, the band cut points and the prices come from one source of truth, so when one changes every page changes with it. Beyond that there is a short list of house rules.

• The free Snapshot needs an email address after question ten, so answers can be saved and results shown. Every page says so plainly.
• There is no card at any point in the free assessment, and paid tiers are named at their real prices.
• Scores are reported as percentiles in three bands, and the norms behind them are called provisional while the norming sample is completed. The bands and the Portrait names exist to make the result easier to talk about; the percentile is the measurement, and it is always shown alongside.
• Wellington is not designed for hiring or selection, and no article suggests using it that way.
• We do not publish reliability figures for our own scales until the norming sample supports them (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
• The questionnaire statements are public-domain items from the International Personality Item Pool and public-domain items written in the same style, curated for a wellness setting, and each trait's methods note names the published scale it draws on (Goldberg et al., 2006).

How do you write about other tests?

By their evidence, and fairly. A page about another instrument says what it claims to measure, what the strongest studies found, and where the evidence is limited or mixed. Where a tradition has a real finding behind it the page says so, and where it does not, the page says what was tested and what came out, without mocking the readers who like it.

The check enforces tone as well as substance: dismissive language about another test fails the article. Readers arrive at a comparison page deciding between two things, and a page that flatters one of them is no use to them. A comparison page says what the other test does well.

What should you do if you find an error?

Tell us, and be blunt about it. Write to [email protected] or use the contact page, naming the article and the sentence. A person reads every message. If a claim is wrong it is corrected rather than quietly softened, and the date at the top of the page changes when it is.

Every article carries the date it was published and the date it was last updated, and those dates are real.

How does Wellington describe itself?

Wellington is a science-based personality assessment from Therabot Labs LLC. It measures personality as continuous traits, built on the Big Five and HEXACO models, and writes the results back as a personal report rather than a type.

The free Snapshot asks 60 short statements, 10 for each of the 6 dimensions it reports (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience, Honesty-Humility), and takes about 7 minutes. The first ten questions are answered before anything is asked of you; after question ten you sign in with an email address so your answers are saved and your results can be shown to you. There is no card. The Wellington Membership, $4.99 a month, adds 336 further statements to reach 90 traits, working toward all 255 traits across eight domains. How the Snapshot was built and scored is the methods page behind these articles.

Wellington is a wellness tool for reflection, not a medical or psychological diagnosis, and it does not replace care from a qualified professional. It is not designed for hiring, and you can export or delete your data at any time from your dashboard.

Questions people ask

Who publishes the articles?

Wellington at Therabot Labs LLC publishes the Learn library as an organizational resource. Articles are not published under an individual founder's byline. The last-updated date appears at the top of each page, with sources listed at the end.

Does an article imply an individual psychologist's review?

No. Organizational publication and automated content checks do not establish that a particular psychologist has written, reviewed or endorsed an article. Sources are provided so readers can examine the research behind the claims. These pages are not professional advice or certification.

How do you choose sources?

Every article cites from one shared library of 111 peer-reviewed papers, standard handbooks and test manuals. Each source has a fact-sheet entry written from its own abstract, listing the claims it may and may not be cited for, and writers cite it only for what is on that list. If a claim needs a source the library does not hold, it is made without the specific study or dropped.

Do you update articles?

Yes. Every page shows the date it was published and the date it last changed, and those dates move when the text does. Articles are revisited when a source is superseded, when a product fact changes, or when a reader points out a sentence claiming more than its source supports.