Quick 18-item DARVO review for one confrontation using original paraphrased cues rather than the exact short-form instrument text.

  • Answer for one confrontation only.
  • Use the 1 to 7 scale for similarity to what was said or implied.
  • Your responses stay in this browser unless you choose to copy or download them.
{{ progressPercent }}%
{{ uxProgressLabel }}
  • {{ question.id }}. {{ question.text }}
{{ card.label }}
{{ card.value }}
{{ card.note }}
Share result

Share this result page with someone you trust to review your answers and result.

Triad map

{{ resultLead }}

{{ resultSupportLine }}

What stands out
  • {{ point }}
What to review next
  1. {{ step }}
How to use this result
  • {{ point }}
Tactic lanes
Tactic lane Mean Top cue Review note Copy
{{ row.label }} {{ row.laneLabel }}
{{ row.headline }}
{{ row.definition }}
 {{ row.meanLabel }}/7 {{ row.topItem.short }} ({{ row.topItem.score }}/7) {{ row.note }} {{ row.highSignalCount }} item{{ row.highSignalCount === 1 ? '' : 's' }} scored 5 or higher.
Highest-match cues

These are the clearest wording matches in this run and usually deserve the closest reread before you export or discuss the result.

{{ item.short }}
{{ item.tacticLabel }} · Item {{ item.id }}
{{ item.score }}/7

{{ item.text }}

Lowest-match cues

These lower-similarity items show which paraphrased cues fit the exchange less closely, so the pattern stays specific instead of turning into a blanket label.

{{ item.short }}
{{ item.tacticLabel }} · Item {{ item.id }}
{{ item.score }}/7

{{ item.text }}

Overall similarity context
Answer review
# Tactic Prompt Answer Score Copy
{{ row.id }} {{ row.tacticLabel }} {{ row.prompt }} {{ row.answer }} {{ row.scoreLabel }}
Tags: Psychology, Psychometrics
Psychological Flexibility Assessment (AAQ-2) Score the seven-item AAQ-II, read the 7 to 49 inflexibility direction, review item support cues, and export a private self-report summary.
Sick, Control, One Stone, Fat, Food (SCOFF) Screen SCOFF eating-disorder concerns with five yes/no cues, a 0-to-5 score, the 2+ cut-point, item pattern notes, and follow-up guidance.
DERS-18 Emotion Regulation Proxy Check Review last-two-week emotion-regulation strain with an 18-item DERS-style proxy, six domain scores, 4+ item cues, and browser-side scoring.
BFI-44 Style Big Five Proxy Assessment Build a 44-item Big Five proxy profile with trait means, cluster support gaps, answer review, and clear non-normed interpretation limits.
Customize
Advanced
:

Confronting someone about harm can become disorienting when the conversation stops being about the original behavior and starts judging the person who raised it. DARVO names a three-part response pattern: deny the concern, attack the confronter, and reverse victim and offender roles. The shift can leave the harmed person defending memory, tone, motives, or credibility instead of documenting what was said or done.

The concept is most useful when it stays tied to a specific exchange. A single argument, text thread, meeting, call, or family confrontation can contain several moves at once, and the order is not always neat. Someone may deny one detail, call the other person unstable or dishonest, then claim they are being punished or falsely accused. Separating those moves helps a reader notice how attention moved away from accountability without turning every disagreement into a DARVO label.

Deny
Rejecting responsibility, saying the event did not happen, minimizing harm, or treating the concern as a false accusation.
Attack
Pressuring the confronter's credibility, memory, honesty, stability, motives, or social believability.
Reverse
Claiming the accused person is the harmed party and recasting the confronter as unfair, abusive, manipulative, or at fault.

DARVO is discussed most often around interpersonal violence, sexual violence, institutional betrayal, workplace retaliation, and family conflict, but the concept should still be handled carefully. Denial alone is not proof of manipulation. A person can deny a false claim, remember a detail differently, or object to unfair wording without using the full pattern. The stronger concern appears when denial, personal attack, and role reversal work together and make the confronter doubt, defend, or silence the original concern.

DARVO sequence separating denial, attack, and role reversal after one confrontation
A focused review separates the three moves, then checks each one against exact words, timing, records, and the surrounding relationship.
Question Why it matters
Was the review limited to one confrontation? Mixing months of conflict into one score can blur who said what and when.
Are there records, witnesses, or exact phrases? Specific evidence keeps the review from becoming a memory-only judgment.
Did all three DARVO moves appear? One denied detail is different from a denial plus personal attack plus role reversal.
Could safety, power, or retaliation change the meaning? The same words can carry different weight when there is dependency, fear, discipline, or control.

A DARVO reflection can support notes for counseling, advocacy, human resources, legal preparation, or a trusted conversation. It cannot decide whether abuse occurred, whether someone lied, or what an institution should do. The safer use is to preserve exact details, compare separate incidents without merging them, and seek qualified support when the situation has real consequences.

How to Use This Tool:

Use one run for one confrontation with a clear setting, rough time, and set of words or messages you can review afterward.

  1. Press Start DARVO Review, then keep the answers tied to that one exchange rather than a whole relationship, job history, or long family conflict.
  2. Rate each prompt on the 1 to 7 similarity scale from Not at all to Almost exact. Use higher ratings only when a phrase, message, witness, timing detail, or follow-up action supports the match.
  3. Use the question navigator when an item reminds you of something you need to revisit. Completed items show a check icon, and the result section appears only after all 18 prompts have ratings.
  4. Start with Overall result, Top tactic, Lowest tactic, Profile balance, and the high-match cue count. These fields show the score level, the strongest tactic, and whether the pattern was broad or led by one tactic.
  5. Compare Triad map with Overall similarity context. The triad chart compares Deny, Attack, and Reverse means; the overall chart places the overall mean on the 1 to 7 band scale.
  6. Review Highest-match cues and Lowest-match cues before sharing anything. Pair the high matches with exact wording, and keep the low matches visible so the result stays narrow.
  7. Use Answer review if you need a row-by-row record. Copy, download, or export only details you are comfortable storing or sending to someone else.

If the summary does not appear, one item is still unanswered. Find the row without a check icon, add the missing rating, and the charts, cue cards, and answer review will appear.

Interpreting Results:

Read the overall mean beside the three tactic means. A Clear pattern result led by Attack means credibility pressure carried more of the rated exchange than denial or role reversal. A Balanced triad means the three tactic means are close together; it does not automatically mean the confrontation was more severe.

Result field Useful reading False-confidence risk
Overall result The average similarity across all 18 paraphrased cues. A high average is not a diagnosis, legal finding, or proof of intent.
Top tactic The Deny, Attack, or Reverse group with the highest mean. A lower tactic can still contain one important cue that needs review.
Profile balance Whether the three tactic means are close, tilted, or strongly led by one tactic. Balance describes shape, not seriousness, danger, or truth.
High-match cues Items scored 5 or higher that deserve the closest reread. Do not quote a cue without the original words or records behind it.
Lowest-match cues The cues that fit least closely and help keep the account fair. Do not hide low matches when you ask someone else to review the result.

The best verification step is to place the highest-match cues beside exact phrases, messages, dates, witnesses, and what happened after the confrontation. If a high score has no specific evidence attached, treat it as a prompt for review rather than a conclusion.

A lower score can still sit beside threats, retaliation, coercive control, stalking, harassment, or other harm outside these 18 cues. A higher score still needs context, safety judgment, and qualified help before it is used in a serious decision.

Technical Details:

DARVO analysis separates a confrontation into three response families. Denial concerns responsibility, facts, harm, memory, meaning, and accusation framing. Attack concerns credibility, honesty, emotional stability, motives, and social believability. Reversal concerns victim-status claims, apology demands, blame reversal, punishment claims, and comparisons that make the accused person appear more harmed.

This scoring aid is a DARVO-SF-informed proxy. It uses 18 original paraphrased cues and a 1 to 7 similarity scale, but it is not the official DARVO-SF questionnaire text or official scoring. The design keeps the three tactic families equal by assigning six cues to Deny, six to Attack, and six to Reverse.

Formula Core

The main score is a mean, not a count of accusations. Keeping the output on the same 1 to 7 scale as the answers makes a tactic mean directly comparable with any single cue rating.

Moverall = x1+x2+...+x1818 Mtactic = sum of the six ratings in that tactic family6

Each x value is one direct rating from 1 to 7. No cue is reverse scored. The total score ranges from 18 to 126, and the displayed overall mean equals total divided by 18. A total of 72, for example, gives 72 / 18 = 4.0, which lands in Clear pattern.

Tactic family Cue count What the cues sample Example cue labels
Deny 6 Responsibility refusal, event denial, memory challenge, minimization, meaning dispute, and false-accusation framing. Never happened, Bad memory, Minimized harm.
Attack 6 Credibility pressure, instability claims, dishonesty claims, motive attacks, disbelief warnings, and manipulation claims. I was irrational, Called liar, No one would believe me.
Reverse 6 Victim-status claims, apology demands, blame reversal, punishment claims, and worse-treatment comparisons. Real victim, I owed apology, I treated them worse.

Local bands are applied to the overall mean and each tactic mean. The lower band starts at 1.0 because every answered cue has a minimum score of 1. Values near a boundary should be reviewed cue by cue because one changed rating can move the label.

Displayed band Lower bound Upper bound Plain reading
Low resemblance 1.0 2.4 Few cues closely match the rated exchange.
Watch for pattern 2.401 3.8 Some cues appear strongly enough to review before dismissing them.
Clear pattern 3.801 5.2 Multiple cues resemble the DARVO pattern in the rated exchange.
High-intensity pattern 5.201 7.0 Many cues strongly match the exchange.

The balance label comes from the spread between the highest and lowest tactic means. A spread below 0.6 is shown as Balanced triad. A spread from 0.6 up to but not including 1.25 is shown as tilted toward the strongest tactic. A spread of 1.25 or higher is shown as led by the strongest tactic.

High-match cues are ratings of 5 or higher. They are useful because they point to the lines most worth checking against records, but they do not carry special scientific cutoffs. The proxy is deterministic: the same 18 ratings produce the same total, means, bands, tactic spread, high-match count, charts, and answer review.

Responsible Use Note:

This is a sensitive reflection and documentation aid, not a clinical diagnosis, legal finding, credibility test, or abuse determination.

  • If there is immediate danger, prioritize safety planning, emergency help, or direct support over scoring.
  • If legal, workplace, school, custody, disciplinary, or clinical consequences are possible, keep original records and seek qualified guidance.
  • Treat copied rows, CSV files, DOCX exports, chart downloads, and shared result links as sensitive because they can reveal confrontation details and labels.

Worked Examples:

A denial-heavy workplace meeting

After a meeting about credit for a project, the Deny cues are rated 6, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, Attack cues mostly sit at 2 or 3, and Reverse cues mostly sit at 1 to 3. Top tactic becomes Deny, while Overall result may stay closer to Watch for pattern. The useful follow-up is to gather meeting notes, emails, and witnesses for the denied facts instead of describing the whole exchange as high intensity.

A score near the clear-pattern boundary

A total of 68/126 gives an overall mean of about 3.8/7, which stays in Watch for pattern. A total of 69/126 gives about 3.8/7 after rounding but can cross into Clear pattern because the internal boundary is above 3.8. When the label changes by one point, review the cue that changed rather than treating the band name as the main evidence.

A role-reversal-heavy family exchange

A family confrontation produces Reverse at 6.0/7, Attack at 5.2/7, and Deny at 4.4/7. Top tactic is Reverse, and Triad map shows that role reversal carried the shape. Highest-match cues should then be paired with the exact phrases that demanded an apology, claimed greater injury, or shifted blame.

A result that will not appear

If progress reaches 94% and no summary appears, one of the 18 prompts is still missing a rating. Use the navigator to find the item without a check icon. Once that item is answered, Pattern reflection, Triad map, Overall similarity context, cue cards, and Answer review appear.

FAQ:

Does a high score prove DARVO happened?

No. A high score means your 18 ratings closely matched the paraphrased cues. It still needs original wording, timing, context, and qualified review before anyone treats it as evidence for a serious claim.

Is this the official DARVO-SF questionnaire?

No. It is informed by the public DARVO-SF structure, but it uses original paraphrased cues and equal six-item tactic groups. Read it as a proxy reflection, not the official measure.

Can I rate several incidents at once?

The prompts are written for one confrontation. For several incidents, run separate reviews and compare Overall result, Top tactic, Profile balance, and highest-match cue cards afterward.

Why did the result not appear after most items were answered?

The result appears only after all 18 prompts have a 1 to 7 rating. Use the navigator to find the row without a check icon, then answer it.

Are my answers sent to a server for scoring?

Routine scoring runs in the browser, and there is no separate server scoring step. Shared links, copied rows, downloads, and DOCX exports can still reveal answers, context, and summary labels.

What should I share with a support person?

Share the highest-match cues with the exact phrases or messages behind them, then include the lowest-match cues so the review stays narrow and fair.

Glossary:

DARVO
Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender, a response pattern after confrontation about harm or wrongdoing.
Deny
Rejecting responsibility, minimizing harm, disputing memory, or recasting the concern as false.
Attack
Targeting the confronter's credibility, honesty, stability, motives, or believability.
Reverse
Claiming the accused person is the injured party and shifting blame onto the confronter.
Similarity rating
The 1 to 7 answer showing how closely a cue matched one confrontation.
Proxy reflection
A local scoring aid informed by DARVO-SF concepts but not the exact official questionnaire.

References: