Partners
Partnerships for responsible strengths-first work
Foundation Nova Diem welcomes research, programme and philanthropic partnerships with organisations, researchers and funders who share a strengths-first and evidence-led approach.
For organisations
Start with purpose and people
Lux is designed for reflection, programme insight and better support conversations. It is not diagnostic, predictive or a personnel-selection instrument. Any proposed use needs a clear purpose, an appropriate consent pathway, support arrangements and a considered reporting model.
Participants receive a carefully curated subset of their profile, written to support reflection and growth. Authorised clinicians receive deeper technical decision support to use alongside participant history, context and independent professional judgement.
We do not make public claims about a particular pilot, deployment or organisational reporting arrangement before those details have been verified and agreed.
Start a partnership conversationFor researchers and funders
Help answer the questions that matter
The full ten-item Big Five item banks have documented internal consistency of α .800–.898 in a 603,322-response source/reference dataset.
This is source/reference internal-consistency evidence, not a count of Lux participants and not proof that every Lux output is valid.
The active programme combines ongoing testing of versioned scoring and committed fixtures with staged Lux-specific empirical evaluation. Technical checks make the scoring pathway more inspectable; they do not by themselves establish psychological reliability or validity.
Test–retest reliability is part of the active evidence programme and will assess score stability as repeat-response data becomes available. Staged studies will examine convergent and discriminant validity for proprietary Lux fields, representative norms, intended-population fairness and clinical utility as suitable data and study designs become available.
Eligible participant data enables pre-defined studies; participant volume alone does not establish validity, reliability, norms, fairness or clinical utility. Stronger public claims will follow only when study results support them.
See the public evidence standard