LBL-ANX · v1.0 · Live

An anxiety test that goes beyond a number.

The validated 7-item GAD-7, plus a symptom profile that shows where your anxiety lives — in your thoughts, your body, or your behavior.

7 items
4 severity bands
~2 minutes
0 data stored

Developed by Abiot Y. Derbie, PhD — cognitive neuroscientist & founder. Reviewed by Eskezeia Y. Dessie, PhD — clinical reviewer. Browser-local. Nothing transmitted. No accounts. Source-cited methodology.

GAD-7 (Spitzer 2006)
40,000+ citations
Cronbach α = 0.92
NHS, VA, APA-endorsed
Screen, not diagnosis

Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by each of the following problems? Be honest about typical patterns rather than your worst day or your best day. The instrument is valid only when your answers reflect the rhythm of your life right now.

Item 01 / 07 · somatic

Feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge.

Item 02 / 07 · cognitive

Not being able to stop or control worrying.

Item 03 / 07 · cognitive

Worrying too much about different things.

Item 04 / 07 · somatic

Trouble relaxing.

Item 05 / 07 · somatic

Being so restless that it is hard to sit still.

Item 06 / 07 · behavioral

Becoming easily annoyed or irritable.

Item 07 / 07 · cognitive

Feeling afraid as if something awful might happen.

Answer all 7 items to enable
Your results

Severity, profile, and pathways.

Educational decision support. Results are estimates based on the GAD-7 and the documented methodology of this tool. This is a screen, not a diagnosis. Generalized Anxiety Disorder is diagnosed via DSM-5 or ICD-11 clinical interview by a qualified professional. For decisions about your mental health, consult a clinician.

Severity Score

Minimal
0–4
Mild
5–9
Moderate
10–14
Severe
15–21

Your score will be interpreted here.

Symptom profile

Where does your anxiety live?

The 7 GAD-7 items split across three interpretive sub-dimensions. This is a value-add specific to LifeByLogic; the original GAD-7 is unidimensional. Use this profile as a conversation starter, not a clinical typology.

Cognitive worry
— / 9
Somatic activation
— / 9
Behavioral interference
— / 3
Population context

Your score relative to published norms.

The general-population norm comes from Hinz et al. 2017 (n=5,036 German general population). The primary-care norm comes from Spitzer et al. 2006 (n=2,740 US primary care). Higher scores indicate more anxiety symptoms.

General population (Hinz 2017)M=3.0, SD=3.5, n=5,036
—
Primary care (Spitzer 2006)M=6.1, SD=4.7, n=2,740
—
Your archetype · 1 of 5 research-grounded patterns

—

—

Archetypes are LBL-derived interpretive frameworks, not a published clinical typology. They surface action-relevant patterns; they do not diagnose.

Evidence-based pathways · matched to your archetype

Where to go from here.

Each pathway draws from peer-reviewed meta-analyses or randomized trials. These are educational starting points, not prescriptions. The most useful next step at moderate-to-severe scores is conversation with a qualified clinician.

One more thing — transdiagnostic considerations

The GAD-7 was designed to screen generalized anxiety, but per Kroenke et al. 2007, scores ≥10 also screen reasonably well for panic disorder (sensitivity 74%), social anxiety disorder (sensitivity 72%), and PTSD (sensitivity 66%). A high score deserves multi-domain follow-up rather than a single label.

If your anxiety has a specific shape — panic attacks, fear of social situations, or trauma-related symptoms — these may warrant their own focused screen with a clinician.

If your score is moderate or severe

The pathways above are educational. The single most evidence-supported next step at this severity level is a conversation with a clinician — therapist, family doctor, or psychiatrist. Anxiety this severe is treatable. Reaching out is strength, not weakness.

US: Call or text 988 (24/7) UK: Samaritans 116 123 Canada: 1-833-456-4566 Global: findahelpline.com
Save or share your summary

Your summary, in text form.

What this actually measures

The GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale) is a validated self-report instrument developed by Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, and Löwe in 2006 and published in Archives of Internal Medicine. It asks about the frequency of seven anxiety symptoms over the past two weeks, each scored 0–3, with total scores ranging from 0 to 21.

The original validation study (n=2,740 primary care patients) established Cronbach's α = 0.92 — excellent internal consistency — and a cutoff of ≥10 with 89% sensitivity and 82% specificity for generalized anxiety disorder. The instrument is endorsed by NHS IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies), the VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines, and the American Psychiatric Association anxiety disorder treatment guidelines.

The GAD-7 is the most widely-used brief anxiety screener in the world, with over 40,000 citations across the clinical literature. It has been validated in primary care, general population (Löwe et al. 2008, Hinz et al. 2017), psychiatric outpatient samples (Beard & Björgvinsson 2014), and across dozens of cultural and linguistic contexts.

The framework behind the score

Generalized anxiety disorder is characterized by persistent, excessive worry that is difficult to control and interferes with daily functioning. Per DSM-5, the worry must be present for at least six months and accompanied by physical symptoms such as restlessness, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, irritability, muscle tension, or sleep disturbance.

The GAD-7 captures the cognitive core of this construct (worry, fear) plus the somatic and behavioral components most often co-occurring with it. The instrument is unidimensional in factor analysis — meaning all seven items load on a single underlying anxiety construct. The sub-dimension profile this tool surfaces (cognitive / somatic / behavioral) is an interpretive aid created by LifeByLogic; it is not a validated subscale.

Why a 7-item instrument and not something longer? Spitzer's team began with a pool of 13 items derived from DSM-IV criteria. They selected the 7 items that correlated most strongly with the total score, prioritizing brevity and clinical utility. A 7-item instrument can be completed in two minutes; a 30-item instrument cannot, which matters in primary care where the screen is most often deployed.

The four severity bands

The standard GAD-7 cutpoints from Spitzer et al. 2006:

The cutoff of 10 is not universally accepted. Plummer et al. 2016 meta-analysis suggested a cutoff of 8 may optimize sensitivity-specificity balance in some contexts. Beard & Björgvinsson 2014 found cutoff 10 had only 79.5% sensitivity in psychiatric outpatient samples, with high false-positive rates for non-GAD anxiety disorders. The tool uses 10 because it is the most-cited cutpoint in clinical practice.

The symptom profile — an author choice

This tool splits the seven GAD-7 items into three interpretive sub-dimensions:

This sub-dimension framework is a documented author choice. The original GAD-7 is unidimensional in factor analysis (Spitzer et al. 2006 confirmed single-factor structure). The 3-dimension profile is a value-add specific to this tool and is presented as an interpretive aid for matching pattern to evidence-based interventions. It is not a validated subscale and should not be reported as a clinical score.

The asymmetric item count (3 / 3 / 1) reflects the GAD-7's clinical focus on cognitive and somatic symptoms; behavioral items are under-represented in the original instrument. The behavioral×3 multiplier in the archetype-matching logic scales the behavioral dimension to bring it into proportion with the other two.

The five archetypes

Five archetypes match symptom profile to evidence-based intervention pathways. Order matters — first match wins, more specific archetypes tested first:

Archetypes are LBL-derived interpretive frameworks. They are not a published clinical typology. They exist to surface action-relevant patterns and match them to the most evidence-supported intervention class for that pattern. They do not diagnose.

What this does not tell you

  1. Snapshot, not trajectory. The GAD-7 measures last-2-weeks symptoms. Anxiety naturally fluctuates with life events. A high score during a stressful week doesn't mean GAD; a low score during a calm week doesn't mean you've never had an anxiety problem.
  2. Self-report dependent. Honest self-report is the foundation. Strong self-criticism, alexithymia, denial, or recall bias can all distort scores in either direction.
  3. Not diagnostic. GAD diagnosis requires DSM-5 or ICD-11 clinical interview. The screen is sensitive (89% per Spitzer 2006) but not diagnostic.
  4. Cultural variation. The GAD-7 was developed in US/European primary care. Validation in non-Western populations exists (Korean, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, others) but cultural expression of anxiety varies, and somatic-vs-cognitive emphasis differs across cultures.
  5. Comorbidity ignored. A high GAD-7 score may reflect panic disorder, social anxiety, PTSD, or depression rather than GAD specifically. The screen flags "anxiety symptoms present" not "the source of anxiety."
  6. Sub-dimension scoring is interpretive, not validated. The 3-dimension profile (cognitive / somatic / behavioral) is an author-derived interpretive aid. The original GAD-7 is unidimensional per Spitzer et al. 2006 factor analysis. Use the profile as a conversation starter, not a clinical typology.
  7. Archetypes are interpretive frameworks. The 5 archetypes are LBL author-derived to surface action-relevant patterns. They are not a published clinical typology and should not be reported as diagnostic categories.
  8. Documented author choices. Three components are not directly derivable from published literature: the sub-dimension item assignments (3/3/1 split), the behavioral×3 scaling factor in archetype thresholds, and the approximate confirmed-GAD rates per band (derived from Spitzer 2006 ROC data). These are explicitly named as author choices on the methodology page.

How to cite this tool

If you reference this tool in academic, clinical, or professional work, use one of the standard citation formats below.

LifeByLogic. (2026). Anxiety Test — A Validated GAD-7 Screen with Symptom Profile (Version 1.0) [Web application]. https://lifebylogic.com/behavior-lab/anxiety-test/

Sources & citations

Every claim on this page traces to peer-reviewed research or primary diagnostic data. Full references with DOIs:

  1. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
  2. Löwe, B., Decker, O., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Schellberg, D., Herzog, W., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2008). Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Medical Care, 46(3), 266–274. doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318160d093
  3. Hinz, A., Klein, A. M., Brähler, E., Glaesmer, H., Luck, T., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder screener GAD-7, based on a large German general population sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210, 338–344. doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.012
  4. Plummer, F., Manea, L., Trepel, D., & McMillan, D. (2016). Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD-7 and GAD-2: a systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. General Hospital Psychiatry, 39, 24–31. doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.11.005
  5. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Monahan, P. O., & Löwe, B. (2007). Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146(5), 317–325. doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004
  6. Beard, C., & Björgvinsson, T. (2014). Beyond generalized anxiety disorder: psychometric properties of the GAD-7 in a heterogeneous psychiatric sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(6), 547–552. doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.06.002
  7. Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427–440. doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1
  8. Goyal, M., Singh, S., Sibinga, E. M. S., Gould, N. F., Rowland-Seymour, A., Sharma, R., et al. (2014). Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 357–368. doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018
  9. Stonerock, G. L., Hoffman, B. M., Smith, P. J., & Blumenthal, J. A. (2015). Exercise as treatment for anxiety: systematic review and analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(4), 542–556. doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9685-9
  10. Andrews, G., Basu, A., Cuijpers, P., Craske, M. G., McEvoy, P., English, C. L., & Newby, J. M. (2018). Computer therapy for the anxiety and depression disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care: an updated meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 55, 70–78. doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.01.001
  11. Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593–602. doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593
  12. Barlow, D. H., Farchione, T. J., Sauer-Zavala, S., Latin, H. M., Ellard, K. K., Bullis, J. R., et al. (2017). Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders: Therapist Guide (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  13. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). DSM-5. APA Publishing.

Read the full methodology for documented author choices, scoring pseudocode, validation evidence, and limitations.