Drdeenz_ The Psychometric Tool

Moral Alignment Test

Research Dataset

Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27)

Normative and Psychometric Statistics
STRONG N=1178 α=0.68 58Countries
Abstract

Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27) normative dataset currently contains 1178 participant records collected between Jun 9, 2026 and Jul 26, 2026 .

This psychometric dataset currently includes 1178 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 58.89 with a standard deviation of 9.36, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis produced a Cronbach alpha of 0.68, which falls below commonly accepted psychometric standards and should be interpreted cautiously until additional data are collected. Observed skewness (-2.07) and kurtosis (7.74) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The current score distribution exhibited notable departures from normality and should be interpreted cautiously until additional normative data are collected.

1178
Participants
58
Countries
27
Scale Items
0.68
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27)
Research Status Robust Dataset
Dataset Maturity 80 /100 — STRONG
Participants 1178
Countries Represented 58
Items 27
Dimensions 9
Data Collection Period Jun 9, 2026 – Jul 26, 2026
Reliability α = 0.68
Note. The current Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27) dataset contains 1178 participant records collected from 58 countries. Dataset maturity reflects sample size, geographic diversity, and internal consistency reliability.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Statistic Value
Mean Score 58.89%
Median Score 60
Standard Deviation 9.36
Variance 87.7
Standard Error 0.27
95% CI Lower 58.35
95% CI Upper 59.42
Minimum Score 0%
Maximum Score 80%
Observed Range 80
Note. M = 58.89, SD = 9.36, Median = 60. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 58.35 to 59.42.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable Summary
Participants N = 1178
Countries 58
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 58 countries. The largest contribution originated from US (39.5% of available geographic records).
Table 4
Percentile Norms
Percentile Score Interpretation
10th 50% Very Low
25th 56% Below Average
50th 60% Average
75th 65% Above Average
90th 68% Elevated
Note. Percentile values provide preliminary normative benchmarks derived from the current Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27) sample.
Figure 2
Score Distribution
Note. Observed scores ranged from 0% to 80% (M = 58.89, SD = 9.36). Distribution characteristics included skewness (-2.07) and kurtosis (7.74). Distribution indices suggested notable departures from normality and should be interpreted cautiously.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric Value
Cronbach Alpha 0.68
Reliability Classification Questionable
Participants 1178
Items 27
Standard Error 0.27
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 Q14 0.51 Excellent Q7 0.46 Acceptable Q9 0.44 Acceptable Q8 0.43 Acceptable Q18 0.42 Acceptable Q16 0.41 Acceptable Q11 0.37 Acceptable Q10 0.36 Acceptable Q25 0.34 Acceptable Q20 0.33 Acceptable Q26 0.29 Weak Q6 0.29 Weak Q4 0.24 Weak Q5 0.23 Weak Q1 0.22 Weak Q15 0.21 Weak Q2 0.18 Problematic Q3 0.15 Problematic Q17 0.14 Problematic Q23 0.13 Problematic Q22 0.13 Problematic Q12 0.07 Problematic Q27 0.07 Problematic Q13 0.02 Problematic Q21 -0.01 Problematic Q24 -0.02 Problematic Q19 -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 identified17 itemsthat may benefit from future review.

Items Recommended for Future Review
  • Q1 (r = 0.22)
    I believe laws should generally be followed.
  • Q2 (r = 0.18)
    I try to help others even when it is inconvenient.
  • Q3 (r = 0.15)
    Doing the right thing matters more than personal gain.
  • Q4 (r = 0.24)
    Helping people is more important than rules.
  • Q5 (r = 0.23)
    I value kindness over power.
  • Q6 (r = 0.29)
    I prefer peaceful solutions whenever possible.
  • Q12 (r = 0.07)
    Duty is more important than personal feelings.
  • Q13 (r = 0.02)
    I avoid taking extreme positions.
  • Q15 (r = 0.21)
    Maintaining balance is important to me.
  • Q17 (r = 0.14)
    I act spontaneously rather than planning carefully.
  • Q19 (r = -0.1)
    Strict authority is necessary even if people suffer.
  • Q21 (r = -0.01)
    I value efficiency more than compassion.
  • Q22 (r = 0.13)
    I mainly focus on protecting my own interests.
  • Q23 (r = 0.13)
    I would manipulate someone if it helped me succeed.
  • Q24 (r = -0.02)
    Morality is less important than personal advantage.
  • Q26 (r = 0.29)
    Causing disruption can sometimes be entertaining.
  • Q27 (r = 0.07)
    I act on impulse without considering consequences.
The lowest item–total correlation was observed for Q19 ("Strict authority is necessary even if people suffer."; r = -0.10), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension Mean SD N
Chaotic Good 76.34% 23.94 1178
Chaotic Neutral 70.88% 21.99 1178
Lawful Good 65.47% 20.51 1178
Lawful Neutral 63.77% 22.82 1178
Neutral Good 62.57% 23.22 1178
True Neutral 57.83% 26.04 1178
Neutral Evil 51.84% 25.72 1178
Lawful Evil 47.68% 23.06 1178
Chaotic Evil 40.26% 17.38 1178
Note. Dimension statistics summarize normative performance across the major constructs measured by Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27).
Figure 5
Dimension Profile
Note. The highest observed dimension was Chaotic Good (76.3%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Chaotic Evil (40.3%). The observed difference between dimensions was 36.1 percentage points. Substantial variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric Value
Current Participants 1178
Countries 58
Collection Start Jun 9, 2026
Collection End Jul 26, 2026
Months Recorded 2
Note. Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice

A total of 1178 participant responses were available for this assessment. Dimension-level norms were calculated using 1178 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

Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27). Research Dataset. Retrieved from https://drdeenz.com/moral-alignment-test/statistics/

Dataset Export

Download CSV Dataset

PDF