Score Interpretation & Thresholds
The following thresholds are based on the item structure of the ABC Mental Wellbeing Profile™ (MWP™) and adapted for school-age populations.
They indicate potential concern and should be used alongside professional judgment and contextual understanding.
Emotional Wellbeing Domains
Mood & Self-Image (6 items)
0–4 = Low
5–9 = Moderate
10–13 = High
14–18 = Very High
Worries & Thoughts (6 items)
0–4 = Low
5–9 = Moderate
10–13 = High
14–18 = Very High
Confidence in Social Situations (6 items)
0–4 = Low
5–9 = Moderate
10–13 = High
14–18 = Very High
Feelings About Separation (5 items)
0–3 = Low
4–7 = Moderate
8–11 = High
12–15 = Very High
Nervous Feelings (6 items)
0–4 = Low
5–9 = Moderate
10–13 = High
14–18 = Very High
Additional Wellbeing Factors (MWP™)
The following domains capture needs often under-represented in traditional SEMH/RCADS tools.
These sections are not diagnostic but provide a structured profile of strengths and challenges to guide support planning.
Thresholds reflect relative levels of need and should be interpreted with professional judgment.
Sensory Experiences (5 items)
0–3 = Low
4–7 = Moderate
8–11 = High
12–15 = Very High
Focus & Organisation (5 items)
0–3 = Low
4–7 = Moderate
8–11 = High
12–15 = Very High
Keeping Feelings Inside (5 items)
0–3 = Low
4–7 = Moderate
8–11 = High
12–15 = Very High
Energy & Recovery (10 items)
0–6 = Low
7–13 = Moderate
14–21 = High
22–30 = Very High
Physical Comfort & Regulation (10 items)
0–9 = Low
10–18 = Mild
19–26 = Moderate
27–30 = High
This domain explores body-based and visual aspects of comfort, including proprioceptive awareness, postural stability, handwriting strain, pain, fatigue, and Irlen-type visual sensitivity.
Elevated scores suggest that physical or visual factors may increase cognitive load and emotional dysregulation, reducing stamina and engagement in learning.
A Moderate or High score may indicate physical discomfort, fatigue, or visual stress that significantly affects focus, handwriting, or classroom participation.
These experiences often overlap with hypermobility, sensory sensitivities, or visual processing differences.
Consider referral for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, or visual stress screening where relevant.
Neurodivergent Functioning Domains
Executive Functioning (5 items)
0–5 = Low difficulty
6–10 = Moderate difficulty
11–15 = High difficulty
Sensory Processing (5 items)
0–5 = Low need
6–10 = Moderate need
11–15 = High need
Masking & Camouflaging (5 items)
0–5 = Low impact
6–10 = Moderate impact
11–15 = High impact
Autistic Burnout / Emotional Exhaustion (5 items)
0–5 = Low risk
6–10 = Moderate risk
11–15 = High risk
A score in the High or Very High range may indicate significant challenges that impact wellbeing, learning, or daily functioning.
However, this tool is not a diagnostic assessment. Scores should be used to guide further clinical inquiry, support planning, referrals, or statutory assessments (e.g., EHCP evidence, CAMHS referrals).
References:
Chorpita et al. (2000) → establishes psychometric lineage with the RCADS, grounding your emotional wellbeing domains in validated anxiety/depression constructs.
Goodman (1997) → anchors your broader SEMH/behavioural structure in the SDQ, giving recognised credibility for child screening alignment.
Hull et al. (2017) and Kapp (2020) → provide the neurodiversity and masking theoretical framework, essential for your ND-affirming interpretation.
Raymaker et al. (2020) → provides the burnout concept and supports inclusion of “Energy & Recovery.”
NICE (2019) → establishes policy relevance and UK-specific guidance for wellbeing screening in educational settings.
Hypermobility & Physical Regulation
Eccles, J. A., Owens, A. P., Mathias, C. J., & Umeda, S. (2021). Neurophysiological and psychological features associated with joint hypermobility syndrome and Ehlers–Danlos syndrome. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 659824.
Bulbena, A., et al. (2017). Joint hypermobility, anxiety and psychosomatics: The link revisited. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(7), 44.
Visual Stress / Irlen-type Symptoms
Kriss, I., & Evans, B. J. W. (2005). The relationship between dyslexia and Meares–Irlen Syndrome. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(3), 350–364.
Evans, B. J. W. (2021). Visual stress and its management. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 41(2), 213–232.
Neurodivergent Burnout & Fatigue
Botha, M., & Frost, D. M. (2020). Autistic burnout and the neurodiversity movement: An identity-based perspective. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. (Complements Raymaker et al.)