Ψ Drdeenz_ The Psychometric Tool
☰
🏠 Main Page 📝 Questionnaire
Research Dataset

Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS)

Normative and Psychometric Statistics
STRONG N=170 α=0.906 21Countries
Abstract

Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS) normative dataset currently contains 170 participant records collected between Jun 11, 2026 and Jun 27, 2026 .

This psychometric dataset currently includes 170 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 59.69 with a standard deviation of 12.61, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.906). Observed skewness (0.73) and kurtosis (-0.23) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The score distribution appeared reasonably balanced and did not suggest substantial departures from normality.

170
Participants
21
Countries
48
Items
0.906
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS)
Research Status Established Dataset
Dataset Maturity 70 /100 — STRONG
Participants 170
Countries Represented 21
Items 48
Dimensions 6
Data Collection Period Jun 11, 2026 – Jun 27, 2026
Reliability α = 0.906
Note. The current Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS) dataset contains 170 participant records collected from 21 countries. Dataset maturity reflects sample size, geographic diversity, and internal consistency reliability.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Statistic Value
Mean Score 59.69%
Median Score 56
Standard Deviation 12.61
Variance 159.01
Standard Error 0.97
95% CI Lower 57.8
95% CI Upper 61.59
Minimum Score 36%
Maximum Score 96%
Observed Range 60
Note. M = 59.69, SD = 12.61, Median = 56. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 57.8 to 61.59.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable Summary
Participants N = 170
Countries 21
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 21 countries. The largest contribution originated from US (45.3% of available geographic records).
Table 4
Percentile Norms
Percentile Score Interpretation
10th 46% Very Low
25th 51% Below Average
50th 56% Average
75th 67% Above Average
90th 79% Elevated
Note. Percentile values provide preliminary normative benchmarks derived from the current Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS) sample.
Figure 2
Score Distribution
Note. Observed scores ranged from 36% to 96% (M = 59.69, SD = 12.61). Distribution characteristics included skewness (0.73) and kurtosis (-0.23). Distribution indices suggested no substantial departures from normality.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric Value
Cronbach Alpha 0.906
Reliability Classification Excellent
Participants 170
Items 48
Standard Error 0.97
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 Q26 0.67 Excellent Q45 0.67 Excellent Q23 0.66 Excellent Q5 0.65 Excellent Q10 0.65 Excellent Q40 0.62 Excellent Q42 0.62 Excellent Q16 0.6 Excellent Q47 0.59 Excellent Q30 0.59 Excellent Q35 0.57 Excellent Q21 0.55 Excellent Q22 0.53 Excellent Q37 0.52 Excellent Q31 0.5 Acceptable Q15 0.47 Acceptable Q7 0.45 Acceptable Q8 0.41 Acceptable Q12 0.4 Acceptable Q11 0.36 Acceptable Q25 0.34 Acceptable Q2 0.34 Acceptable Q9 0.33 Acceptable Q33 0.32 Acceptable Q29 0.32 Acceptable Q41 0.3 Acceptable Q27 0.3 Weak Q43 0.29 Weak Q28 0.28 Weak Q38 0.28 Weak Q14 0.28 Weak Q13 0.27 Weak Q6 0.26 Weak Q4 0.24 Weak Q36 0.24 Weak Q39 0.24 Weak Q3 0.24 Weak Q17 0.23 Weak Q20 0.22 Weak Q19 0.21 Weak Q1 0.21 Weak Q46 0.2 Weak Q34 0.2 Problematic Q24 0.19 Problematic Q44 0.19 Problematic Q32 0.16 Problematic Q18 0.1 Problematic Q48 0.07 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 identified22 itemsthat may benefit from future review.

Items Recommended for Future Review
  • Q1 (r = 0.21)
    I feel that I am not good enough.
  • Q3 (r = 0.24)
    I compare myself to others and feel inferior.
  • Q4 (r = 0.24)
    I often doubt my abilities.
  • Q6 (r = 0.26)
    I feel like my opinions do not matter.
  • Q13 (r = 0.27)
    I worry about disappointing people if I act independently.
  • Q14 (r = 0.28)
    I feel I cannot handle problems on my own.
  • Q17 (r = 0.23)
    I feel suspicious of people’s intentions.
  • Q18 (r = 0.1)
    I find it hard to trust people around me.
  • Q19 (r = 0.21)
    I feel people often hide their true thoughts from me.
  • Q20 (r = 0.22)
    I worry about being betrayed by someone I trust.
  • Q24 (r = 0.19)
    I feel that people may take advantage of me.
  • Q27 (r = 0.3)
    I cannot do things I want without fear of consequences.
  • Q28 (r = 0.28)
    I often avoid doing things I like because someone might disapprove.
  • Q32 (r = 0.16)
    I feel restricted in talking about my thoughts.
  • Q34 (r = 0.2)
    I do what others tell me even if I don’t want to.
  • Q36 (r = 0.24)
    I find it hard to say “no” to people.
  • Q38 (r = 0.28)
    I often do what others want to keep them happy.
  • Q39 (r = 0.24)
    I go along with things to avoid conflict.
  • Q43 (r = 0.29)
    I fear people might use my feelings against me.
  • Q44 (r = 0.19)
    I feel emotionally exposed around others.
  • Q46 (r = 0.2)
    I feel easily hurt by what others say.
  • Q48 (r = 0.07)
    I worry about being judged or rejected.
The lowest item–total correlation was observed for Q48 ("I worry about being judged or rejected."; r = 0.07), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension Mean SD N
Inadequacy 64.25% 15.24 144
Distrust 63.94% 16.19 144
Restraint 63.9% 15.36 144
Submissiveness 60.44% 16.21 144
Vulnerability 55.75% 15.86 144
Dependency 52.47% 19.27 144
Note. Dimension statistics summarize normative performance across the major constructs measured by Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS).
Figure 5
Dimension Profile
Note. The highest observed dimension was Inadequacy (64.3%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Dependency (52.5%). The observed difference between dimensions was 11.8 percentage points. Moderate variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric Value
Current Participants 170
Countries 21
Collection Start Jun 11, 2026
Collection End Jun 27, 2026
Months Recorded 1
Note. Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice

A total of 170 participant responses were available for this assessment. Dimension-level norms were calculated using 144 valid response records. Approximately 26 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

Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS). Research Dataset. Retrieved from https://drdeenz.com/emotional-abuse-test/statistics/

Dataset Export

Download CSV Dataset