This tool reliably surfaces meaningful areas of life load that impact client decision-making.

Research-informed.

Tested in practice.

Always improving.

As of April 2026, The LTLI has undergone a multi-phase validation process with over 110 pilot respondents and 24 subject matter expert reviewers.

the process behind the tool

The Numbers:

92.8

Percent of questions met the threshold for relevant, as scored by independent subject matter experts from a variety of professional backgrounds.

69

Items validated on the instrument, 92.8% received a “relevant” score.

82

Percent of respondents (n=51) agreed or strongly agreed that the prompts were broad enough to apply to most people, yet specific enough to capture their situation (98% rated neutral or better).

4.2

Mean score on a likert scale of 1-5 of how thematically relevant items in the inventory felt. Rated by 93 people (domain coherence).

24

Subject matter expert reviewers from healthcare, law, financial planning, mental health, coaching, real estate, and assisted living.

107

Pilot participants across three phases of development.

0.86

ICC (Intraclass reliability score). 43 respondents (40% of the pilot group) completed the LTLI a second time within a 7–21 day window (average 10.4 days) and the difference in their score was calculated (those with a new life event were excluded from participation).

68

Percent of respondents (n=75) agreed or strongly agreed that their LTLI score reflected their actual experience of transition load at that point in their life. This is the most demanding validity question — and the one with the most honest variation in responses. 93% rated it neutral or better.

Development Process

The LTLI was developed through a rigorous, research-informed process that included:

Reviewing existing psychological scales — including the Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory — to understand how life events have historically been weighted and measured, and where those frameworks fell short in capturing modern transition complexity.
Incorporating updated transition science, including planned, unplanned, sleeper, and nonevent transition types, to reflect the full range of ways change enters a life.
Drawing from seven holistic life domains — Identity & Purpose, Career & Workplace, Caregiving, Health & Well-Being, Relationships, Home & Community, and Finance & Legal — informed by research on whole-person wellbeing.
Developing and iteratively revising 69 transition prompts across multiple pilot rounds, each weighted by transition type, expected load, and life impact.

Validation & Reliability Measurement Process

Research-informed. Tested in practice. The LTLI has undergone a multi-phase validation process with over 100 pilot respondents and 24 subject matter expert reviewers. Here's what was measured and what the data showed.

Validity Measures

1. Domain coherence (N = 93)

Respondents rated how thematically consistent the items felt within each life domain — whether the items in a category clearly belonged together. 90% rated the domains as consistent (4 or 5 out of 5). No respondent rated the domains inconsistent. Mean rating: 4.2 out of 5.0.

2. Face validity (N = 51)

Respondents rated whether items felt broad enough to apply to most people, yet specific enough to capture their own experience — the core test of whether an instrument appears to measure real life. 82% rated items applicable (4 or 5 out of 5). 98% rated neutral or better. Mean rating: 4.2 out of 5.0.

3. Score representativeness (N = 75)

Respondents rated how well their LTLI score reflected their actual experience of transition load at that point in their life. 68% agreed their score was representative (4 or 5 out of 5). 93% rated neutral or better. Mean rating: 3.8 out of 5.0.

This is the most demanding validity question — and the one with the most honest variation in responses. Score representativeness asks respondents to compare a composite number against their felt sense of their own life. A 68% agreement rate at this stage of development is consistent with instruments in active norming. The LTLI continues to be refined.

4. Content validity — expert review (N = 24 raters, 69 items)

A panel of 24 subject matter experts — spanning mental health, financial planning, medicine, human resources, coaching, insurance, and caregiving — rated all 69 items for relevance using a structured 4-point scale consistent with published Content Validity Index (CVI) methodology. The overall content validity score (S-CVI) was 0.94. 92.8% of items met or exceeded the established relevance threshold. All seven domains met the .90 benchmark considered acceptable in the measurement literature. Five items were flagged for revision and have been incorporated into the current version of the instrument.

Reliability

Test-retest reliability (N = 43 pairs)

43 respondents — 40% of the pilot group — completed the LTLI a second time within a 7–21 day window (average 10.4 days). Upon retaking, each participant confirmed whether significant new life events had occurred in the interval. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was 0.86, classified as good reliability per Koo & Mae (2016). Pearson's r was 0.87. 60% of respondents had stable scores within 50 points across administrations.

Scores were most stable in Health & Well-Being, Finance & Legal, and Relationships. Some variability was observed in Identity & Purpose and Caregiving, consistent with the dynamic nature of those domains.

Client experience

Perceived benefit (N = 47)

Separate from validity, 47 respondents rated how beneficial it was to complete the LTLI. 57% rated it beneficial or very beneficial (4 or 5 out of 5). 89% rated neutral or better. Mean rating: 3.6 out of 5.0. Perceived benefit is a utility measure, not a validity measure — it reflects respondents' subjective experience of completing the inventory, not the instrument's technical soundness.