Drdeenz_ The Psychometric Tool

Emotional Abuse Test - Have You Been Emotionally Abused Quiz?

Research Dataset

Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS)

Normative and Psychometric Statistics
STRONG N=308 α=0.899 35Countries
Abstract

Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS) normative dataset currently contains 308 participant records collected between Jun 11, 2026 and Jul 18, 2026 .

This psychometric dataset currently includes 308 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 61.14 with a standard deviation of 14.02, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.899). Observed skewness (-0.11) and kurtosis (0.53) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The score distribution appeared reasonably balanced and did not suggest substantial departures from normality.

308
Participants
35
Countries
48
Scale Items
0.899
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS)
Research Status Established Dataset
Dataset Maturity 75 /100 — STRONG
Participants 308
Countries Represented 35
Items 48
Dimensions 6
Data Collection Period Jun 11, 2026 – Jul 18, 2026
Reliability α = 0.899
Note. The current Deenz Emotional Abuse Scale (DEAS) dataset contains 308 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 61.14%
Median Score 59
Standard Deviation 14.02
Variance 196.58
Standard Error 0.8
95% CI Lower 59.57
95% CI Upper 62.7
Minimum Score 14%
Maximum Score 98%
Observed Range 84
Note. M = 61.14, SD = 14.02, Median = 59. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 59.57 to 62.7.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable Summary
Participants N = 308
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 (42.5% of available geographic records).
Table 4
Percentile Norms
Percentile Score Interpretation
10th 46% Very Low
25th 52% Below Average
50th 59% Average
75th 71% Above Average
90th 80% 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 14% to 98% (M = 61.14, SD = 14.02). Distribution characteristics included skewness (-0.11) and kurtosis (0.53). Distribution indices suggested no substantial departures from normality.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric Value
Cronbach Alpha 0.899
Reliability Classification Good
Participants 308
Items 48
Standard Error 0.8
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 0.58 Excellent Q45 0.55 Excellent Q23 0.53 Excellent Q42 0.52 Excellent Q5 0.49 Acceptable Q30 0.47 Acceptable Q21 0.47 Acceptable Q10 0.45 Acceptable Q16 0.45 Acceptable Q35 0.45 Acceptable Q22 0.43 Acceptable Q40 0.42 Acceptable Q38 0.41 Acceptable Q25 0.41 Acceptable Q11 0.4 Acceptable Q47 0.4 Acceptable Q2 0.39 Acceptable Q12 0.39 Acceptable Q29 0.39 Acceptable Q41 0.38 Acceptable Q28 0.37 Acceptable Q39 0.36 Acceptable Q43 0.36 Acceptable Q4 0.36 Acceptable Q1 0.36 Acceptable Q31 0.35 Acceptable Q27 0.35 Acceptable Q13 0.35 Acceptable Q9 0.35 Acceptable Q37 0.35 Acceptable Q7 0.34 Acceptable Q3 0.34 Acceptable Q15 0.34 Acceptable Q19 0.33 Acceptable Q34 0.33 Acceptable Q6 0.33 Acceptable Q33 0.31 Acceptable Q36 0.31 Acceptable Q46 0.31 Acceptable Q24 0.29 Weak Q14 0.29 Weak Q32 0.29 Weak Q17 0.28 Weak Q8 0.28 Weak Q20 0.28 Weak Q44 0.28 Weak Q18 0.22 Weak Q48 0.14 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 identified9 itemsthat may benefit from future review.

Items Recommended for Future Review
  • Q8 (r = 0.28)
    I feel proud of the things I do well.
  • Q14 (r = 0.29)
    I feel I cannot handle problems on my own.
  • Q17 (r = 0.28)
    I feel suspicious of people’s intentions.
  • Q18 (r = 0.22)
    I find it hard to trust people around me.
  • Q20 (r = 0.28)
    I worry about being betrayed by someone I trust.
  • Q24 (r = 0.29)
    I feel that people may take advantage of me.
  • Q32 (r = 0.29)
    I feel restricted in talking about my thoughts.
  • Q44 (r = 0.28)
    I feel emotionally exposed around others.
  • Q48 (r = 0.14)
    I worry about being judged or rejected.
The lowest item–total correlation was observed for Q48 ("I worry about being judged or rejected."; r = 0.14), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension Mean SD N
Distrust 65.81% 17.8 308
Restraint 64.74% 17.12 308
Inadequacy 63.05% 16.48 308
Submissiveness 60.94% 18.69 308
Vulnerability 58.49% 16.58 308
Dependency 54.2% 20.7 308
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 Distrust (65.8%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Dependency (54.2%). The observed difference between dimensions was 11.6 percentage points. Moderate variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric Value
Current Participants 308
Countries 35
Collection Start Jun 11, 2026
Collection End Jul 18, 2026
Months Recorded 2
Note. Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice

A total of 308 participant responses were available for this assessment. Dimension-level norms were calculated using 308 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

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

Dataset Export

Download CSV Dataset

PDF