Drdeenz_ The Psychometric Tool

Androphobia Test - Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS)

Research Dataset

Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS)

Normative and Psychometric Statistics
STRONG N=147 α=0.86 35Countries
Abstract

Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS) normative dataset currently contains 147 participant records collected between Jun 24, 2026 and Aug 27, 2026 .

This psychometric dataset currently includes 147 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 61.73 with a standard deviation of 11.19, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.86). Observed skewness (-0.7) and kurtosis (1.59) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The score distribution appeared reasonably balanced and did not suggest substantial departures from normality.

147
Participants
35
Countries
36
Scale Items
0.86
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS)
Research Status Established Dataset
Dataset Maturity 65 /100 — STRONG
Participants 147
Countries Represented 35
Items 36
Dimensions 6
Data Collection Period Jun 24, 2026 – Aug 27, 2026
Reliability α = 0.86
Note. The current Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS) dataset contains 147 participant records collected from 35 countries. Dataset maturity reflects sample size, geographic diversity, and internal consistency reliability.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Statistic Value
Mean Score 61.73%
Median Score 63
Standard Deviation 11.19
Variance 125.31
Standard Error 0.92
95% CI Lower 59.92
95% CI Upper 63.54
Minimum Score 22%
Maximum Score 93%
Observed Range 71
Note. M = 61.73, SD = 11.19, Median = 63. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 59.92 to 63.54.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable Summary
Participants N = 147
Countries 35
Age Information Available
Gender Information Available
Note. Demographic information was collected voluntarily. Participant counts may vary across demographic categories when information was not reported.
Figure 1
Global Participation
Note. Participants were represented across 35 countries. The largest contribution originated from US (36.7% of available geographic records).
Table 4
Percentile Norms
Percentile Score Interpretation
10th 50% Very Low
25th 56% Below Average
50th 63% Average
75th 69% Above Average
90th 75% Elevated
Note. Percentile values provide preliminary normative benchmarks derived from the current Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS) sample.
Figure 2
Score Distribution
Note. Observed scores ranged from 22% to 93% (M = 61.73, SD = 11.19). Distribution characteristics included skewness (-0.7) and kurtosis (1.59). Distribution indices suggested no substantial departures from normality.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric Value
Cronbach Alpha 0.86
Reliability Classification Good
Participants 147
Items 36
Standard Error 0.92
Note. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach alpha. Reliability estimates are based on the current normative dataset and may change as additional responses are collected.
Item–Total Correlations
Item Item Quality r Rating Q27 0.83 Excellent Q34 0.83 Excellent Q28 0.82 Excellent Q25 0.8 Excellent Q29 0.8 Excellent Q33 0.79 Excellent Q26 0.78 Excellent Q36 0.78 Excellent Q30 0.77 Excellent Q32 0.7 Excellent Q31 0.7 Excellent Q35 0.68 Excellent Q9 0.37 Acceptable Q21 0.3 Weak Q22 0.28 Weak Q8 0.27 Weak Q10 0.26 Weak Q13 0.26 Weak Q5 0.18 Problematic Q2 0.16 Problematic Q16 0.16 Problematic Q19 0.12 Problematic Q23 0.11 Problematic Q15 0.09 Problematic Q6 0.09 Problematic Q7 0.08 Problematic Q18 0.08 Problematic Q17 0.08 Problematic Q14 0.06 Problematic Q3 0.04 Problematic Q12 0.03 Problematic Q20 0.03 Problematic Q24 -0.02 Problematic Q11 -0.03 Problematic Q1 -0.08 Problematic Q4 -0.1 Problematic
Item Analysis Interpretation

Item–total correlations were generally strong across the assessment, indicating that most items contribute effectively to the measurement of the underlying construct. The analysis identified23 itemsthat may benefit from future review.

Items Recommended for Future Review
  • Q1 (r = -0.08)
    I have had negative experiences with men.
  • Q2 (r = 0.16)
    A man has made me feel unsafe.
  • Q3 (r = 0.04)
    I have felt intimidated by men.
  • Q4 (r = -0.1)
    I have been treated unfairly by a man.
  • Q5 (r = 0.18)
    My past experiences with men rarely affect me now.
  • Q6 (r = 0.09)
    I have moved beyond negative experiences involving men.
  • Q7 (r = 0.08)
    I often expect men to be threatening.
  • Q8 (r = 0.27)
    I feel cautious around unfamiliar men.
  • Q10 (r = 0.26)
    I assume men may have harmful intentions.
  • Q11 (r = -0.03)
    Most men seem trustworthy to me.
  • Q12 (r = 0.03)
    I generally feel safe around men.
  • Q13 (r = 0.26)
    I feel nervous around unfamiliar men.
  • Q14 (r = 0.06)
    I become tense when speaking with a man.
  • Q15 (r = 0.09)
    I feel anxious when a man approaches me.
  • Q16 (r = 0.16)
    I feel uncomfortable being alone with a man.
  • Q17 (r = 0.08)
    I remain calm around most men.
  • Q18 (r = 0.08)
    I rarely feel afraid around men.
  • Q19 (r = 0.12)
    I closely monitor men's behavior around me.
  • Q20 (r = 0.03)
    I worry about how men may react to me.
  • Q21 (r = 0.3)
    I feel self-conscious around men.
  • Q22 (r = 0.28)
    I feel uneasy in groups containing men.
  • Q23 (r = 0.11)
    I feel comfortable talking with men.
  • Q24 (r = -0.02)
    I can relax in the presence of men.
The lowest item–total correlation was observed for Q4 ("I have been treated unfairly by a man."; r = -0.10), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension Mean SD N
Perceived Threat 77.8% 17.17 147
Fear Response 73.46% 18 147
Social Anxiety Around Men 72.52% 17.22 146
Past Negative Experiences 66.73% 18.71 147
Avoidance Behavior 40.68% 15.06 146
Interpersonal Functioning 40.27% 15.68 146
Note. Dimension statistics summarize normative performance across the major constructs measured by Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS).
Figure 5
Dimension Profile
Note. The highest observed dimension was Perceived Threat (77.8%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Interpersonal Functioning (40.3%). The observed difference between dimensions was 37.5 percentage points. Substantial variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric Value
Current Participants 147
Countries 35
Collection Start Jun 24, 2026
Collection End Aug 27, 2026
Months Recorded 3
Note. Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice

A total of 147 participant responses were available for this assessment. Dimension-level norms were calculated using 147 valid response records. Approximately 0 response record(s) were excluded from dimension-level normative calculations due to incomplete response patterns.

Limitations

Normative statistics are derived from voluntary participation and may not represent all populations. Reliability estimates, percentile norms, and dimension statistics should be interpreted in the context of the current sample and may change as additional responses are collected.

Ethical Statement

All records included in this dataset were collected anonymously. No personally identifying information is stored. Data are intended for educational, psychometric, and research purposes.

Recommended Citation

Androphobia Severity Scale (ASS). Research Dataset. Retrieved from https://drdeenz.com/androphobia-test/statistics/

Dataset Export

Download CSV Dataset