Manipulative Personality Self-Assessment (MPSA)
normative dataset currently contains
210
participant records collected between
Jun 11, 2026
and
Jul 13, 2026
.
This psychometric dataset currently includes 210 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 59.77 with a standard deviation of 19.19, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.916). Observed skewness (-0.23) and kurtosis (-0.44) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The score distribution appeared reasonably balanced and did not suggest substantial departures from normality.
210
Participants
42
Countries
20
Scale Items
0.916
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment
Manipulative Personality Self-Assessment (MPSA)
Research Status
Established Dataset
Dataset Maturity
70
/100 —
STRONG
Participants
210
Countries Represented
42
Items
20
Dimensions
5
Data Collection Period
Jun 11, 2026
–
Jul 13, 2026
Reliability
α =
0.916
Note.
The current Manipulative Personality Self-Assessment (MPSA) dataset contains 210 participant records collected from 42 countries. Dataset maturity reflects sample size, geographic diversity, and internal consistency reliability.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Statistic
Value
Mean Score
59.77%
Median Score
61
Standard Deviation
19.19
Variance
368.21
Standard Error
1.32
95% CI Lower
57.17
95% CI Upper
62.36
Minimum Score
0%
Maximum Score
95%
Observed Range
95
Note.
M = 59.77, SD = 19.19, Median = 61. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 57.17 to 62.36.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable
Summary
Participants
N =
210
Countries
42
Age Information
Available
Gender Information
Available
Note.
Demographic information was collected voluntarily. Participant counts may vary across demographic categories when information was not reported.
Age Distribution
Age Group
Participants
18-24
38
under18
22
25-34
18
prefer_not
18
35-44
11
45-54
6
55plus
4
Gender Distribution
Gender
Participants
Female
57
Male
52
Prefer_not
8
Figure 1
Global Participation
Note.
Participants were represented across 42 countries. The largest contribution originated from US (27.1% of available geographic records).
Country
Participants
Percent
US
57
27.1%
DE
36
17.1%
FR
19
9%
CA
8
3.8%
SE
6
2.9%
AT
6
2.9%
BE
5
2.4%
NL
5
2.4%
BR
5
2.4%
AR
4
1.9%
GB
4
1.9%
IE
4
1.9%
MX
4
1.9%
AE
4
1.9%
NO
3
1.4%
HU
2
1%
PE
2
1%
LT
2
1%
IL
2
1%
RU
2
1%
AL
2
1%
PH
2
1%
VE
2
1%
RO
2
1%
IN
2
1%
KZ
2
1%
AU
2
1%
CO
2
1%
CL
1
0.5%
UA
1
0.5%
CH
1
0.5%
BG
1
0.5%
PT
1
0.5%
MM
1
0.5%
SA
1
0.5%
DO
1
0.5%
NG
1
0.5%
PA
1
0.5%
ZA
1
0.5%
TH
1
0.5%
ID
1
0.5%
ES
1
0.5%
Table 4
Percentile Norms
Percentile
Score
Interpretation
10th
33%
Very Low
25th
44%
Below Average
50th
61%
Average
75th
73%
Above Average
90th
85%
Elevated
Note.
Percentile values provide preliminary normative benchmarks derived from the current Manipulative Personality Self-Assessment (MPSA) sample.
Figure 2
Score Distribution
Note.
Observed scores ranged from 0% to 95% (M = 59.77, SD = 19.19). Distribution characteristics included skewness (-0.23) and kurtosis (-0.44).
Distribution indices suggested no substantial departures from normality.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric
Value
Cronbach Alpha
0.916
Reliability Classification
Excellent
Participants
210
Items
20
Standard Error
1.32
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 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 identified1
itemthat may benefit from future review.
Items Recommended for Future Review
Q20
(r = -0.05)
When something goes wrong, I can usually explain why my actions made sense at the time.
The lowest item–total correlation was observed for Q20 ("When something goes wrong, I can usually explain why my actions made sense at the time."; r = -0.05), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension
Mean
SD
N
Calculative
70.01%
23.89
210
Deceptive
68.26%
23.32
210
Amoral
60.42%
24.99
210
Exploitative
56.2%
27.15
210
Self-Justifying
44.65%
17.99
210
Note.
Dimension statistics summarize normative performance across the major constructs measured by Manipulative Personality Self-Assessment (MPSA).
Figure 5
Dimension Profile
Note.
The highest observed dimension was Calculative (70%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Self-Justifying (44.7%). The observed difference between dimensions was 25.4 percentage points. Substantial variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric
Value
Current Participants
210
Countries
42
Collection Start
Jun 11, 2026
Collection End
Jul 13, 2026
Months Recorded
2
Note.
Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice
A total of
210
participant responses were available for this assessment.
Dimension-level norms were calculated using
210
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
Manipulative Personality Self-Assessment (MPSA). Research Dataset. Retrieved from https://drdeenz.com/manipulative-quiz/statistics/