Weird, based on the wording of the questions and the categories they presented I kind of just assumed that each question only pertained to one of them. If they're doing something more complex I didn't notice it. But maybe they have some baked in assumptions that some of these modalities are like, mildly anticorrelated? That's the thing that kinda irked me about psychology when I was studying it more seriously. The epistemic integrity of psychological research reads to me as basically castles built on sand, where people get excited about results that seem
super weakly supported based on reading the paper, which is often itself laden with a ton of assumptions that don't seem justified, but people who cite them just take the conclusions the authors drew as established, build their own studies with those assumptions baked in, ad nauseum. I was not shocked at all when the replication crisis hit this field as hard as it did, and since the issue is often in the way the hypotheses are operationalized in the first place, there are inherently going to be tons of flawed studies that are hard to even detect through the heuristic of replicability.
As far as the Likert scale nonsense, I am right there with you, all these psychological instruments are pretty poorly framed from my perspective, and while there's some discourse deep in academia about the rigor of various experimental methodologies even in the most broken of social sciences, in practice they don't seem to care much because it's publish or perish baby!
It really doesn't seem like most sciences are quite this broken, though some are clearly trying. Obviously there are people in psychology trying to do good rigorous science, it seems like institutional pressures are not working to support them, and certainly won't amplify rigor over making bold claims that get a lot of press
Like, all this to say that it's definitely worth taking these things with a massive grain of salt, but if you do that, it can still be pretty interesting.