Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ)

Abstract

The Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) is a premier, standardized psychometric instrument designed to assess multidimensional community integration, social participation, and functional independence in individuals recovering from traumatic brain injury (TBI), physical disabilities, and acquired neurological conditions. Developed in the early 1990s through funding from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) by Barry Willer and colleagues, the CIQ was created to bridge a critical methodological gap in post-acute neurorehabilitation research: the absence of a brief, reliable, and ecologically valid measure that quantifies real-world outcomes rather than clinical impairment alone. The measure comprises 15 items categorized into three distinct, empirically validated subscales: Home Integration (active involvement in domestic responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, and child rearing), Social Integration (interpersonal interactions, leisure pursuits, financial autonomy, and social networks outside the household), and Productivity (engagement in gainful employment, educational programs, and volunteer work).

Items employ varied categorical and ordinal response options based on task execution (e.g., independently, jointly, or through another person) and monthly engagement frequency. The total CIQ score ranges from 0 to 29 points, with higher values reflecting greater levels of independence and community integration. Extensive psychometric investigations have affirmed the CIQ's utility across diverse rehabilitation cohorts. The instrument exhibits strong test-retest reliability (ranging from r = .83 to .97 across patient and proxy informants), robust inter-rater agreement between individuals with brain injury and family proxies, and solid construct validity substantiated by convergent relationships with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and vocational re-entry benchmarks. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric review of the CIQ, analyzing its theoretical foundations, structural factor models, validation trajectories, administration and scoring mechanics, and clinical relevance across global rehabilitation settings.

Keywords

Community Integration Questionnaire, CIQ, Traumatic Brain Injury, Neurorehabilitation, Psychometrics, Social Integration, Home Integration, Functional Independence, Participation Measurement, Outcome Assessment, Disability Evaluation, Acquired Brain Injury

Authors and Institutional Background

The Community Integration Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically standardized by an interdisciplinary consortium of prominent clinical neuropsychologists, physiatrists, and rehabilitation researchers collaborating under the auspices of the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) program, supported by the United States Department of Education's National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR; now the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research [NIDILRR]).

• Barry Willer, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychiatry and the Division of Sports Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo (UB). Dr. Willer served as the primary investigator directing the scale's design, item generation, and initial psychometric validation.
• Mitchell Rosenthal, Ph.D., ABPP: Late Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Wayne State University School of Medicine and Vice President for Research at the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan. Dr. Rosenthal was an internationally recognized pioneer in TBI rehabilitation, outcome measurement, and family systems adaptation.
• Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, Ph.D., ABPP: Rosa Blader Hodges Endowed Professor in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center. Dr. Kreutzer is a global authority on neurobehavioral outcomes, vocational rehabilitation, and family caregiver functioning after severe brain injury.
• Wayne A. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP: Jack Nash Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Director of the Mount Sinai Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration of Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury.
• R. Rempel, M.A.: Research methodologist and biostatistician who collaborated on initial field trials, item reduction algorithms, and scoring standardization protocols.

Subsequent psychometric refinements, factorial replications, and cross-cultural adaptations were spearheaded by prominent rehabilitation scientists, including John D. Corrigan (Ohio State University), Angelle M. Sander (Baylor College of Medicine / TIRR Memorial Hermann), and Mary Ann McColl (Queen's University).

Purpose and Clinical Applications

Historically, medical and rehabilitation outcome evaluations focused predominantly on indices of physical impairment (such as motor strength, spasticity, and reflex restoration) and basic activities of daily living (such as self-care, grooming, and transfers), typified by metrics like the Barthel Index and early versions of the Functional Independence Measure. However, rehabilitation specialists recognized that the persistence of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral sequelae following neurotrauma often posed far greater barriers to community reintegration than isolated sensorimotor deficits. Individuals who attained full independence in physical self-care frequently remained isolated at home, unable to manage financial accounts, sustain intimate relationships, or re-enter the competitive workforce.

The Community Integration Questionnaire was developed to operationalize and quantify the multidimensional construct of “community integration” as an explicit, high-level rehabilitation endpoint. Specifically, the CIQ serves several essential clinical and scientific functions:

• Quantification of Participation Restrictions: Rooted in the disablement models of the World Health Organization, the CIQ evaluates the actual frequency and role-structure of an individual's participation within their home, social milieu, and productive life spheres, distinguishing between performing activities independently, collaboratively, or relying on external assistance.
• Rehabilitation Program Evaluation and Benchmarking: The scale enables post-acute rehabilitation centers, comprehensive day-treatment initiatives, and supported living programs to gauge therapeutic efficacy longitudinally, identifying whether specialized interventions translate into meaningful, real-world lifestyle enhancements.
• Individualized Treatment Planning: In clinical practice, subscale analysis highlights precise deficits. For instance, a patient exhibiting robust home management skills but near-zero social integration can be targeted with tailored interventions, such as peer mentoring, social communication therapy, or community-based recreational therapies.
• Proxy-Patient Discrepancy Monitoring: Due to potential unawareness of deficits (anosognosia) among individuals with severe prefrontal pathology, the CIQ is engineered for dual administration—completed by either the patient or a primary caregiver. Discrepancies between informant ratings yield diagnostic insight into patient self-awareness and family caregiver burden.
• Epidemiological and Longitudinal Trajectory Research: As a core instrument within the federally sponsored TBIMS National Database, the CIQ has been administered at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years post-injury, generating benchmark data on lifelong trajectories of recovery and aging with a disability.

Psychological Construct and Dimensions

The construct of community integration transcends mere physical presence within a neighborhood; it denotes active involvement in meaningful societal roles, reciprocity in interpersonal networks, self-direction, and functional autonomy within domestic and civic arenas. The CIQ decomposes this global construct into three primary operational dimensions:

1. Home Integration (Items 1–5)

The Home Integration subscale reflects an individual's contribution to domestic life and their role in maintaining the physical and social functioning of the household. It specifically appraises participation in tasks that are vital to autonomous living:

• Grocery shopping and securing household necessities (Item 1).
• Meal preparation and cooking (Item 2).
• Execution of regular housekeeping chores, such as cleaning, laundry, and maintenance (Item 3).
• Caring for dependent children within the domestic unit (Item 4).
• Initiating and planning family or social gatherings within the household (Item 5).

Scoring in this domain prioritizes independence and active participation over passive reliance on family members or paid personal assistants. Rather than examining purely whether tasks get accomplished, the scale assesses who carries the cognitive, organizational, and physical responsibility for household governance.

2. Social Integration (Items 6–11)

The Social Integration subscale measures interpersonal relationships, financial self-management, and participation in community-based leisure and civic activities outside the immediate home perimeter. The specific operational variables include:

• Autonomous management of personal finances, bill payment, and banking (Item 6).
• Frequency of venturing into community businesses for personal shopping (Item 7).
• Frequency of attending cultural, recreational, and dining venues, such as cinemas, sporting events, and restaurants (Item 8).
• Frequency of visiting friends and extended family members outside the household (Item 9).
• Social network composition during leisure activities, differentiating between solitary pursuits, activities restricted exclusively to other individuals with disabilities or immediate family, and activities shared with integrated peer networks (Item 10).
• The presence of a close, confiding friendship, denoting emotional reciprocity and social support (Item 11).

This dimension distinguishes between an individual who merely occupies a geographical space and one who actively interfaces with broader, heterogeneous social structures, preserving mutual friendships and exercising financial sovereignty.

3. Productivity (Items 12–15)

The Productivity subscale assesses the individual's structured, goal-directed engagement in vocational, educational, and civic enterprises, alongside mobility outside the home environment:

• Mobility and frequency of traveling beyond the domicile (Item 12).
• Vocational status during the past month, differentiating full-time employment, part-time work, job seeking, and medical/unemployment inactivity (Item 13).
• Participation in formal academic schooling, vocational training, or skill-acquisition programs (Item 14).
• Engagement in unpaid volunteer work within charitable, community, or religious organizations (Item 15).

Within the CIQ scoring architecture, productive endeavors are hierarchically integrated: formal competitive employment and educational matriculation receive the highest weighting, followed by part-time work, regular volunteer efforts, and job-seeking activities.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Community Integration Questionnaire is anchored in the conceptual evolution of disability models, transitioning from the historic medical paradigm toward the social and ecological frameworks formalized by the World Health Organization (WHO).

1. The ICIDH to ICF Evolution

During the design of the CIQ in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the predominant conceptual taxonomy was the WHO's International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH). Within the ICIDH schema, three planes of outcome were articulated:

1. Impairment: Loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function (e.g., focal cerebral contusion, executive dysfunction).
2. Disability: Any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal (e.g., inability to balance a checkbook or drive a motor vehicle).
3. Handicap: A disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or a disability, that limits or prevents the fulfillment of a normal societal role (e.g., unemployment, social isolation).

Willer and colleagues explicitly positioned the CIQ as a measure of handicap reduction, evaluating whether a person could resume valued societal roles regardless of residual physical or cognitive impairments. When the WHO revised this framework into the modern International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), the construct of handicap was re-articulated as Participation and Participation Restrictions. The CIQ aligns directly with the ICF Participation domain, measuring societal involvement across domestic, interpersonal, and economic areas.

2. Social Role Theory and Role Theory in Rehabilitation

The CIQ relies heavily on sociological role theory, which posits that self-worth, social identity, and psychological well-being are intrinsically bound to the occupancy and enactment of defined social roles (e.g., homemaker, parent, employee, student, friend, citizen). Acquired neurotrauma frequently results in an abrupt “role strip,” wherein an adult is stripped of occupational, marital, and parental authority, regressing into a passive recipient of care. The CIQ directly models the degree to which an individual regains active mastery over these functional social roles.

3. Ecological Systems Theory

Drawing on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model, community integration is conceptualized as an emergent property of the interaction between the individual and multiple nested environmental systems. The microsystem is captured in the Home Integration subscale (the domestic dwelling and family unit); the mesosystem and exosystem are reflected in the Social Integration subscale (neighborhood interactions, commercial venues, and friend networks); and the macrosystem is evaluated in the Productivity subscale (participation in the economic and workforce systems of society).

Validity

The Community Integration Questionnaire has undergone extensive psychometric validation across multiple decades, geographic jurisdictions, and patient demographics.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established in the original validation investigations by Willer et al. (1993, 1994) by demonstrating that the CIQ clearly discriminated between non-injured control participants and individuals recovering from moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Individuals without neurotrauma scored near the ceiling on the CIQ, reflecting typical levels of community participation, whereas post-TBI participants displayed pronounced decrements across all three subscales.

Further evidence of construct validity stems from the instrument's sensitivity to injury severity. Total CIQ scores correlate significantly with classical indices of acute neurotrauma severity, including the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA), and initial computed tomography (CT) findings. Patients with shorter PTA durations and higher initial GCS scores consistently achieve statistically superior CIQ total and subscale scores at 1-year and 2-year post-injury follow-ups.

2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is supported by strong, statistically significant correlations between the CIQ and established functional assessment instruments:

• Disability Rating Scale (DRS): The CIQ demonstrates robust negative correlations with the DRS (r values typically ranging from -.55 to -.71), confirming that lower levels of overall disability correspond to superior community integration.
• Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and FIM+FAM: Total CIQ scores correlate moderately to strongly with motor and cognitive FIM subscales (r = .40 to .62). Importantly, the CIQ exhibits higher correlations with the FIM Cognitive subscale than the FIM Motor subscale in long-term follow-up cohorts, confirming that cognitive and neurobehavioral intactness is the primary driver of sustained community participation.
• Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Moderate positive correlations (r = .35 to .50) between the CIQ and subjective well-being measures indicate that community participation contributes to, but remains distinct from, subjective life satisfaction.

Discriminant validity is supported by the CIQ's divergence from measures of basic sensory functioning and unrelated acute physiological variables, demonstrating that the questionnaire captures community-level participation rather than elemental physical reflexes.

3. Predictive and Ecological Validity

The CIQ exhibits notable predictive utility regarding long-term community placement and vocational endurance. Longitudinal investigations demonstrate that early post-acute CIQ scores (e.g., at 6 months post-discharge) reliably predict competitive employment status, independent residential living arrangements, and caregiver burden at 2, 5, and 10 years post-injury. Furthermore, because the CIQ directly queries concrete, real-world behaviors executed in naturalistic settings over the prior month, it provides high ecological validity compared to artificial, clinic-bound neuropsychological tests.

Reliability

The reliability profile of the Community Integration Questionnaire has been extensively documented across self-report, proxy-report, internal consistency, and temporal stability domains.

1. Internal Consistency

Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the overall CIQ total score typically range between .76 and .86 across both traumatic brain injury and non-brain-injured cohorts, demonstrating satisfactory internal reliability for a brief multidimensional measure. Across individual subscales, alpha coefficients reflect the specialized, categorical nature of the tasks:

• Home Integration: Cronbach's α ranges from .81 to .91 (reflecting high internal coherence across domestic activities).
• Social Integration: Cronbach's α ranges from .60 to .86. The wider range is attributable to the diverse behavioral nature of the items (e.g., having a best friend does not inherently correlate with the frequency of shopping trips).
• Productivity: Cronbach's α ranges from .65 to .83, naturally constrained by the mutually exclusive structural relationship between full-time work and certain alternative productive pursuits.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

In the seminal psychometric investigation by Willer et al. (1993), test-retest reliability was evaluated across a standardized interval. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or Pearson product-moment correlation for the total CIQ was r = .91 for patient self-ratings and r = .97 for family member proxy assessments. Subscale test-retest coefficients showed high temporal consistency:

• Home Integration: r = .93 (patient self-report), r = .96 (family proxy).
• Social Integration: r = .86 (patient self-report), r = .90 (family proxy).
• Productive Activities: r = .83 (patient self-report), r = .97 (family proxy).

3. Inter-Rater and Informant Agreement

Because cognitive impairments such as anosognosia can compromise self-report accuracy in neurotrauma cohorts, informant-patient agreement is a major psychometric consideration. Sander et al. (1997) investigated inter-rater concordances between individuals with TBI and their designated family informants, documenting overall inter-rater correlations ranging from r = .81 to .91 for total CIQ scores. Agreement is consistently highest on concrete, observable operational items (such as vocational status, meal preparation, and personal finances) and lowest on socially nuanced or subjective items, such as the depth of a confiding friendship or the self-initiated planning of social outings.

Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

The structural validity of the CIQ has been rigorously examined through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), leading to key insights regarding its dimensional architecture.

1. Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis (Willer et al., 1993, 1994)

During the initial scale construction, Willer and colleagues subjected the 15 items to principal components analysis with varimax rotation using an initial cohort of patients with TBI and matched uninjured controls. A distinct three-factor structure emerged, accounting for over 50% of the total variance:

• Factor 1 (Home Integration): High loadings (> .60) for meal preparation, everyday housework, grocery shopping, child care, and planning domestic social activities.
• Factor 2 (Social Integration): Substantial loadings for visiting friends, outside leisure activities, shopping outside the home, personal financial management, and maintaining a close friend.
• Factor 3 (Productivity): Distinct loadings for employment status, educational participation, volunteerism, and frequency of venturing outside the home.

2. Confirmatory Replications and Re-specification (Corrigan, 1995)

In an influential psychometric replication, John D. Corrigan (1995) investigated the factor structure across an independent sample of 308 individuals with acquired brain injury using confirmatory factor modeling. Corrigan confirmed the overarching viability of the tri-partite model but identified several nuanced item cross-loadings. Specifically, Item 6 (managing personal finances) demonstrated empirical affinity for both Home Integration (as a domestic administrative responsibility) and Social Integration (as an index of independent civic competency). Additionally, Item 10 (leisure companions) exhibited complex item mechanics due to its categorical scale composition, prompting researchers to handle its scoring algorithm with care.

3. Modern Structural Analyses: Bifactor and Rasch Models

Subsequent psychometric examinations using modern Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch analysis (e.g., Cusick et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2018) have evaluated the unidimensionality of the individual CIQ subscales. These studies show that while the three subscales possess distinct clinical and diagnostic utility, a general “Community Participation” bifactor accounts for substantial common variance, supporting the conventional practice of summing subscales into a single CIQ Total Score. Rasch calibration reveals that items assessing financial management and competitive employment define the upper (more demanding) continuum of community integration, whereas items assessing basic shopping and family visits define the lower threshold of functional social recovery.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Community Integration Questionnaire is an interviewer-administered or self-completed instrument designed for rapid clinical deployment. It can be completed in 10 to 15 minutes by the person with a disability, a primary family caregiver, or a trained rehabilitation professional.

General Instrument Specifications

• Test Type: Standardized functional status questionnaire / Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) / Proxy-Reported Outcome.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, face-to-face clinical interview, telephone survey, or computerized digital assessment platform.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults recovering from traumatic brain injury, stroke, spinal cord injury, or other physical/neurological conditions.
• Total Items: 15 items.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Home Integration: Items 1 to 5.
  • Social Integration: Items 6 to 11.
  • Productivity: Items 12 to 15.
• Total Score Range: 0 to 29 points (higher scores indicate greater community integration and independence).

Standardized Scoring Methodology

Scoring of the CIQ utilizes specific point allocation rules across items to produce standard subscale and total indices:

• Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 (Home Activities):
  • Yourself alone = 2 points.
  • Yourself and someone else = 1 point.
  • Someone else = 0 points.
• Item 4 (Child Care):
  • If children are present in the household: Yourself alone = 2 points; Yourself and someone else = 1 point; Someone else = 0 points.
  • If no children under 17 reside in the home (“Not applicable”): The score for Item 4 is imputed as the arithmetic mean of the individual's scores on Items 1, 2, 3, and 5, preserving the Home Integration subscale ceiling (maximum 10 or 12 depending on normative formulation; standard TBIMS assigns max 10 for Home Integration).
• Item 6 (Personal Finances):
  • Yourself alone = 2 points.
  • Yourself and someone else = 1 point.
  • Someone else = 0 points.
• Items 7, 8, and 9 (Shopping, Leisure, and Visiting Frequencies):
  • Never = 0 points.
  • 1–4 times/month = 1 point.
  • 5 times or more/month = 2 points.
• Item 10 (Leisure Companions):
  • Mostly alone = 0 points.
  • Mostly with friends with head injury or mostly with family = 1 point.
  • Mostly with friends without head injury or combination of family and friends = 2 points.
• Item 11 (Best Friend/Confidant):
  • Yes = 1 point (or 2 points depending on scoring variant; standard TBIMS assigns 1 point).
  • No = 0 points.
• Item 12 (Travel Outside the Home):
  • Almost every day = 2 points.
  • Almost every week = 1 point.
  • Seldom/never = 0 points.
• Items 13, 14, and 15 (Work, School, and Volunteer Composite): In standard TBIMS scoring protocols, work, school, and volunteer variables are integrated into a single composite productivity matrix ranging from 0 to 5 points:
  • Full-time work (>20 hrs/week) OR full-time school = 5 points.
  • Part-time work (≤20 hrs/week) OR part-time school = 4 points.
  • Combination of part-time work, part-time school, or active volunteerism = 3 points.
  • Volunteer activities only (1–4 or ≥5 times/month) OR actively looking for work = 2 points.
  • Non-working, not looking, not in school, not volunteering = 0 points.

Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Community Integration Questionnaire was formally published in 1993 following initial multi-center field testing across Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems facilities. As a product developed under United States federal research grant funding through the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), the CIQ resides in the public domain.

Consequently, the instrument may be utilized, reproduced, and administered by clinicians, hospitals, academic researchers, and rehabilitation programs free of charge without paying licensing fees or formal commercial royalties. However, researchers and clinical practitioners are expected to maintain the standardized wording, response formats, and scoring matrices to safeguard psychometric integrity, and to formally cite the primary validation publication (Willer et al., 1993) in clinical reports and academic manuscripts. The official instrument text, administration manuals, and standardized scoring algorithms are preserved and disseminated by the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Data Center (TBIMS) at https://www.tbims.org/ciq/.

References

• Agonis, J. (2012). Family resiliency, family needs and community re-integration in persons with brain injury (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University). Florida Atlantic University Libraries Digital Collections.
• Corrigan, J. D. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of the Community Integration Questionnaire: Replication and extension. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 10(4), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-199510040-00005
• Cusick, C. P., Gerhart, K. A., & Mellick, D. C. (2000). Participant-proxy reliability in traumatic brain injury outcome research. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15(3), 939–949. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200006000-00007
• McColl, M. A., Carlson, P., Johnston, J., Minnes, P., Shue, K., Davies, D., & Karlovits, T. (1998). The definition of community integration: Perspectives of people with brain injuries. Brain Injury, 12(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/026990598122827
• McColl, M. A., Davies, D., Carlson, P., Johnston, J., & Minnes, P. (2001). The Community Integration Measure: Development and preliminary validation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2001.22195
• Minnes, P., Carlson, P., McColl, M. A., Nolte, M. L., Johnston, J., & Buell, K. (2003). Community integration: A useful construct, but what does it really mean? Brain Injury, 17(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269905021000010140
• Sander, A. M., Seel, R. T., Kreutzer, J. S., Hall, K. M., High, W. M., & Rosenthal, M. (1997). Agreement between persons with traumatic brain injury and their relatives regarding psychosocial outcome using the Community Integration Questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(4), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90224-3
• Willer, B., Rosenthal, M., Kreutzer, J. S., Gordon, W. A., & Rempel, R. (1993). Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-199306000-00009
• Willer, B., Ottenbacher, K. J., & Coad, M. L. (1994). The Community Integration Questionnaire: A comparative examination. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 73(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-199404000-00006
• Zhang, L., Xie, H., & Dijkers, M. P. (2018). Rasch analysis of the Community Integration Questionnaire in individuals with spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 99(10), 2004–2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.04.028

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)