Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27)
normative dataset currently contains
1560
participant records collected between
Jun 9, 2026
and
Sep 4, 2026
.
This psychometric dataset currently includes 1560 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 58.82 with a standard deviation of 8.96, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis produced a Cronbach alpha of 0.651, which falls below commonly accepted psychometric standards and should be interpreted cautiously until additional data are collected. Observed skewness (-1.95) and kurtosis (8.46) 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.
1560
Participants
78
Countries
27
Scale Items
0.651
Reliability
Table 1
Dataset Overview
Assessment
Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27)
Research Status
Robust Dataset
Dataset Maturity
80
/100 —
STRONG
Participants
1560
Countries Represented
78
Items
27
Dimensions
9
Data Collection Period
Jun 9, 2026
–
Sep 4, 2026
Reliability
α =
0.651
Note.
The current Moral Alignment Questionnaire (MAQ-27) dataset contains 1560 participant records collected from 78 countries. Dataset maturity reflects sample size, geographic diversity, and internal consistency reliability.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Statistic
Value
Mean Score
58.82%
Median Score
60
Standard Deviation
8.96
Variance
80.35
Standard Error
0.23
95% CI Lower
58.37
95% CI Upper
59.26
Minimum Score
0%
Maximum Score
96%
Observed Range
96
Note.
M = 58.82, SD = 8.96, Median = 60. The 95% confidence interval ranged from 58.37 to 59.26.
Table 3
Sample Characteristics
Variable
Summary
Participants
N =
1560
Countries
78
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
341
under18
252
prefer_not
170
25-34
160
35-44
79
45-54
14
55plus
13
Gender Distribution
Gender
Participants
Female
448
Male
441
Prefer_not
140
Figure 1
Global Participation
Note.
Participants were represented across 78 countries. The largest contribution originated from US (39.4% of available geographic records).
Country
Participants
Percent
US
615
39.4%
CA
124
7.9%
IE
92
5.9%
IN
86
5.5%
PH
78
5%
AU
75
4.8%
ID
60
3.8%
DE
55
3.5%
GB
49
3.1%
PL
22
1.4%
MY
18
1.2%
FR
16
1%
BR
14
0.9%
CN
14
0.9%
NL
14
0.9%
VN
14
0.9%
IT
11
0.7%
ES
11
0.7%
MX
10
0.6%
SG
10
0.6%
AR
9
0.6%
CL
8
0.5%
CZ
7
0.4%
SE
7
0.4%
RO
7
0.4%
UA
7
0.4%
AT
6
0.4%
NO
6
0.4%
FI
6
0.4%
TH
5
0.3%
ZA
5
0.3%
BE
5
0.3%
RS
5
0.3%
T1
4
0.3%
RU
4
0.3%
IL
4
0.3%
JP
4
0.3%
TR
4
0.3%
PT
3
0.2%
HR
3
0.2%
SA
3
0.2%
HK
3
0.2%
BG
3
0.2%
AE
3
0.2%
BD
3
0.2%
VE
3
0.2%
HU
3
0.2%
PK
2
0.1%
IQ
2
0.1%
BA
2
0.1%
NZ
2
0.1%
MN
2
0.1%
MO
2
0.1%
QA
2
0.1%
SK
2
0.1%
EE
2
0.1%
NG
2
0.1%
GR
2
0.1%
KE
1
0.1%
MD
1
0.1%
EC
1
0.1%
SV
1
0.1%
PE
1
0.1%
SI
1
0.1%
SR
1
0.1%
KZ
1
0.1%
BY
1
0.1%
CR
1
0.1%
DZ
1
0.1%
DK
1
0.1%
SY
1
0.1%
MA
1
0.1%
RE
1
0.1%
LU
1
0.1%
LV
1
0.1%
DO
1
0.1%
YE
1
0.1%
AZ
1
0.1%
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 = 58.82, SD = 8.96). Distribution characteristics included skewness (-1.95) and kurtosis (8.46).
Distribution indices suggested notable departures from normality and should be interpreted cautiously.
Table 5
Reliability Analysis
Metric
Value
Cronbach Alpha
0.651
Reliability Classification
Questionable
Participants
1560
Items
27
Standard Error
0.23
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 identified17
itemsthat may benefit from future review.
Items Recommended for Future Review
Q1
(r = 0.21)
I believe laws should generally be followed.
Q2
(r = 0.17)
I try to help others even when it is inconvenient.
Q3
(r = 0.14)
Doing the right thing matters more than personal gain.
Q4
(r = 0.21)
Helping people is more important than rules.
Q5
(r = 0.19)
I value kindness over power.
Q6
(r = 0.25)
I prefer peaceful solutions whenever possible.
Q12
(r = 0.08)
Duty is more important than personal feelings.
Q13
(r = 0.01)
I avoid taking extreme positions.
Q15
(r = 0.21)
Maintaining balance is important to me.
Q17
(r = 0.11)
I act spontaneously rather than planning carefully.
Q19
(r = -0.05)
Strict authority is necessary even if people suffer.
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 = -0.01)
Morality is less important than personal advantage.
Q26
(r = 0.27)
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 = -0.05), indicating comparatively weaker alignment with the overall construct.
Table 7
Dimension Norms
Dimension
Mean
SD
N
Chaotic Good
75.82%
23.31
1560
Chaotic Neutral
71%
21.23
1560
Lawful Good
65.15%
20.76
1560
Lawful Neutral
62.62%
22.09
1560
Neutral Good
61.71%
23.21
1560
True Neutral
59.29%
24.5
1560
Neutral Evil
51.48%
25.53
1560
Lawful Evil
46.94%
23.13
1560
Chaotic Evil
40.34%
17.58
1560
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 (75.8%), whereas the lowest observed dimension was Chaotic Evil (40.3%). The observed difference between dimensions was 35.5 percentage points. Substantial variation was observed between dimensions.
Table 8
Dataset Growth Summary
Metric
Value
Current Participants
1560
Countries
78
Collection Start
Jun 9, 2026
Collection End
Sep 4, 2026
Months Recorded
4
Note.
Growth statistics summarize cumulative participation throughout the observed data collection period.
Normative Data Notice
A total of
1560
participant responses were available for this assessment.
Dimension-level norms were calculated using
1560
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/