Drdeenz_ The Psychometric Tool

Moral Alignment Test

Research Dataset

Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27)

Normative and Psychometric Statistics
STRONG N=1718 α=0.636 82Countries
Abstract

Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27) normative dataset currently contains 1718 participant records collected between Jun 9, 2026 and Sep 29, 2026 .

This psychometric dataset currently includes 1718 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 58.96 with a standard deviation of 8.75, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis produced a Cronbach alpha of 0.636, which falls below commonly accepted psychometric standards and should be interpreted cautiously until additional data are collected. Observed skewness (-1.92) and kurtosis (8.66) 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.

1718
Participants
82
Countries
27
Scale Items
0.636
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27)
Research Status Robust Dataset
Dataset Maturity 80 /100 — STRONG
Participants 1718
Countries Represented 82
Items 27
Dimensions 9
Data Collection Period Jun 9, 2026 – Sep 29, 2026
Reliability α = 0.636
Note. The current Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27) dataset contains 1718 participant records collected from 82 countries. Dataset maturity reflects sample size, geographic diversity, and internal consistency reliability.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Statistic Value
Mean Score 58.96%
Median Score 60
Standard Deviation 8.75
Variance 76.54
Standard Error 0.21
95% CI Lower 58.55
95% CI Upper 59.38
Minimum Score 0%
Maximum Score 96%
Observed Range 96
Note. M = 58.96, SD = 8.75, Median = 60. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 58.55 to 59.38.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable Summary
Participants N = 1718
Countries 82
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 82 countries. The largest contribution originated from US (39.2% 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 96% (M = 58.96, SD = 8.75). Distribution characteristics included skewness (-1.92) and kurtosis (8.66). Distribution indices suggested notable departures from normality and should be interpreted cautiously.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric Value
Cronbach Alpha 0.636
Reliability Classification Questionable
Participants 1718
Items 27
Standard Error 0.21
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 0.44 Acceptable Q7 0.42 Acceptable Q9 0.38 Acceptable Q8 0.37 Acceptable Q18 0.37 Acceptable Q16 0.36 Acceptable Q25 0.32 Acceptable Q10 0.31 Acceptable Q20 0.29 Weak Q11 0.28 Weak Q26 0.27 Weak Q6 0.24 Weak Q15 0.2 Weak Q1 0.19 Problematic Q4 0.19 Problematic Q5 0.17 Problematic Q2 0.15 Problematic Q23 0.14 Problematic Q22 0.13 Problematic Q3 0.11 Problematic Q17 0.11 Problematic Q12 0.08 Problematic Q27 0.06 Problematic Q13 0.01 Problematic Q24 -0 Problematic Q21 -0 Problematic Q19 -0.04 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 identified19 itemsthat may benefit from future review.

Items Recommended for Future Review
  • Q1 (r = 0.19)
    I believe laws should generally be followed.
  • Q2 (r = 0.15)
    I try to help others even when it is inconvenient.
  • Q3 (r = 0.11)
    Doing the right thing matters more than personal gain.
  • Q4 (r = 0.19)
    Helping people is more important than rules.
  • Q5 (r = 0.17)
    I value kindness over power.
  • Q6 (r = 0.24)
    I prefer peaceful solutions whenever possible.
  • Q11 (r = 0.28)
    Rules should apply equally to everyone.
  • Q12 (r = 0.08)
    Duty is more important than personal feelings.
  • Q13 (r = 0.01)
    I avoid taking extreme positions.
  • Q15 (r = 0.2)
    Maintaining balance is important to me.
  • Q17 (r = 0.11)
    I act spontaneously rather than planning carefully.
  • Q19 (r = -0.04)
    Strict authority is necessary even if people suffer.
  • Q20 (r = 0.29)
    Rules can be used to keep people under control.
  • Q21 (r = -0)
    I value efficiency more than compassion.
  • Q22 (r = 0.13)
    I mainly focus on protecting my own interests.
  • Q23 (r = 0.14)
    I would manipulate someone if it helped me succeed.
  • Q24 (r = -0)
    Morality is less important than personal advantage.
  • Q26 (r = 0.27)
    Causing disruption can sometimes be entertaining.
  • Q27 (r = 0.06)
    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 = -0.04), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension Mean SD N
Chaotic Good 75.87% 22.96 1718
Chaotic Neutral 71.06% 20.93 1718
Lawful Good 65.41% 20.61 1718
Lawful Neutral 62.37% 21.63 1718
Neutral Good 61.72% 22.98 1718
True Neutral 60.02% 24.07 1718
Neutral Evil 51.4% 25.53 1718
Lawful Evil 46.89% 22.92 1718
Chaotic Evil 40.58% 17.46 1718
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 (75.9%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Chaotic Evil (40.6%). The observed difference between dimensions was 35.3 percentage points. Substantial variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric Value
Current Participants 1718
Countries 82
Collection Start Jun 9, 2026
Collection End Sep 29, 2026
Months Recorded 4
Note. Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice

A total of 1718 participant responses were available for this assessment. Dimension-level norms were calculated using 1718 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