Ψ Drdeenz_ The Psychometric Tool
☰
🏠 Main Page 📝 Questionnaire

Deenz Sadism Tendency Assessment Scale (DTAS-24) Research Statistics

Assessment Information
  • Sample Adequacy: Established dataset with reasonably stable norms.
  • Research Status: ESTABLISHED DATASET
  • Items: 24
  • Dimensions: 4
  • Dataset Maturity: The current dataset achieved a maturity score of 65/100 and is classified as STRONG.

Table 1
Normative Dataset Overview
Descriptive characteristics of the current normative sample.
Participants 180
Countries Represented 28
Dataset Maturity 65/100 — StrongDataset
Research Status ESTABLISHED NORMATIVE DATASET
Sample Adequacy Established dataset with reasonably stable norms.
Data Collection Period Jun 5, 2026 – Jun 8, 2026
The current normative dataset consists of 180 participants collected from 28 countries.
Table 2
Score Statistics
Measures of central tendency and variability.
Mean Score 55.37%
Median Score 50
Standard Deviation 12.67
Variance 160.47
Standard Error (SEM) 0.94
Reliability (α) 0.858
Items 24
Dimensions 4
The sample demonstrated a mean score of 55.37% (Mdn = 50, SD = 12.67).
Table 3
Distribution Characteristics
Distribution shape and score dispersion indicators.
Observed Score Range 78
Maximum Observed Score 96%
Minimum Observed Score 18%
95% Confidence Interval 53.52– 57.22
Skewness 0.78
Kurtosis 1.35
Observed skewness (0.78) and kurtosis (1.35) provide indicators of distribution quality and normality.
Global Participation Chart Participants IN 89 #1 US 14 #2 DE 12 #3 CL 10 #4 PE 9 #5 GB 4 #6 EE 4 #7 PL 4 #8 RO 3 #9 CA 3 #10 AR 3 #11 NZ 3 #12 LU 2 #13 SE 2 #14 HU 2 #15 IT 2 #16 TR 2 #17 NL 2 #18 VE 1 #19 MX 1 #20 PY 1 #21 CO 1 #22 LT 1 #23 BR 1 #24 RS 1 #25 MM 1 #26 AZ 1 #27 GR 1 #28
Global Participation Interpretation

The current dataset includes responses from 28countries . The largest contribution currently comes from IN which represents approximately 49.4% of all participants. International participation enhances sample diversity and improves the generalizability of normative findings across geographic regions.

Normative Percentile Distribution

Population Median 10th Percentile 46 Population Median 25th Percentile 46 Population Median 50th Percentile 50 Population Median 75th Percentile 64 Population Median 90th Percentile 70
Normative Interpretation

The current normative dataset indicates that approximately 10% of participants scored below 46%, while 90% scored above this level. The median score was 50%, meaning that half of participants scored below this value and half scored above it. Scores of 64% or greater were achieved by approximately the highest 25% of participants, whereas scores of 70% or greater were achieved by approximately the highest 10% of participants. These percentile values provide preliminary normative benchmarks that can be used to contextualize individual assessment results relative to the current community sample.

Distribution Histogram

10-19 2 30-39 6 40-49 52 50-59 62 60-69 37 70-79 12 80-89 4 90-99 5
Distribution Interpretation

This histogram displays the distribution of participant scores across the assessment. A balanced bell-shaped pattern generally indicates good score dispersion and stronger normative utility, whereas highly skewed distributions may indicate floor effects, ceiling effects, or sample bias.

Distribution Quality

The score distribution demonstrated a skewness of 0.78 and a kurtosis of 1.35.

The score distribution appears reasonably balanced and does not currently suggest substantial departures from normality.

Reliability Analysis

0.858 Poor Acceptable Good Excellent

GOOD RELIABILITY

The assessment demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.858), suggesting that the assessment items measure a relatively coherent psychological construct.

Item–Total Correlations

Item Item Quality r Rating Q17 0.66 Excellent Q13 0.64 Excellent Q18 0.62 Excellent Q22 0.61 Excellent Q23 0.61 Excellent Q9 0.6 Excellent Q3 0.59 Excellent Q1 0.59 Excellent Q2 0.57 Excellent Q16 0.56 Excellent Q7 0.55 Excellent Q14 0.53 Excellent Q8 0.5 Excellent Q20 0.49 Acceptable Q24 0.44 Acceptable Q19 0.44 Acceptable Q21 0.38 Acceptable Q12 0.36 Acceptable Q4 0.16 Problematic Q5 0.15 Problematic Q10 0.11 Problematic Q11 0.02 Problematic Q6 -0.06 Problematic Q15 -0.27 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 identified 6 itemsthat may benefit from future review.

Items Recommended for Future Review
  • Q4 (r = 0.16)
    I try to make people feel valued.
  • Q5 (r = 0.15)
    I prefer treating people as equals.
  • Q6 (r = -0.06)
    I usually avoid dominating others.
  • Q10 (r = 0.11)
    I try to be genuine with others.
  • Q11 (r = 0.02)
    I usually say what I truly mean.
  • Q15 (r = -0.27)
    I may feel little guilt after hurting someone.

Lower item–total correlations may indicate weaker alignment with the overall construct, greater response variability, or the need for further refinement. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and considered alongside additional psychometric evidence as the normative sample grows.

Dimension Norms

Dimension Profile Mean SD 50% Sadism 58.8% 16.9 Aggression 56.2% 13.6 Manipulation 53.7% 14.2 Cruelty 52.6% 15.9
Dimension Interpretation

The highest scoring dimension in the current sample was Sadism (58.8%). The lowest scoring dimension was Cruelty (52.6%). Dimensions located above the 50% reference line represent characteristics that were more strongly endorsed within the current participant sample. Standard deviations indicate the degree of variability observed across participant responses.

Research Interpretation

This psychometric dataset currently includes 180 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 55.37 with a standard deviation of 12.67, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.858). Observed skewness (0.78) and kurtosis (1.35) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The score distribution appeared reasonably balanced and did not suggest substantial departures from normality.

Ethical & Research Notice

All responses included in this dataset are collected anonymously through voluntary participation. No personally identifying information is stored. Results are intended exclusively for educational, psychometric, research, and self-reflective purposes and should not be used as clinical diagnoses. Drdeenz continuously monitors response quality, distribution stability, and internal consistency to support ethical psychometric reporting.

Dataset Export

Download CSV Dataset

Research Citation

Deenz Sadism Tendency Assessment Scale (DTAS-24). Drdeenz Research Dataset. Retrieved from https://drdeenz.com/sadism-test/statistics/

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

← Questionnaire Page 🏠 Main Test Page

Public opinions about Sadism Test

The following opinions were shared voluntarily by users after completing this self-assessment. Individual experiences may vary and this content should not be interpreted as clinical advice or diagnosis.

Community experience

5

4 opinions

5
4
3
2
1

I wouldn't consider myself cruel or agressive,i merely enjoy a jest ,but honestly this was fun to do!!:3

Stu · 2026-04-08 · from Australia

67777777777777777777777

Boshkalabonbon · 2026-05-03 · from United States

Yeah nah checks out ngl

Jake · 2026-05-26 · from Pakistan

well it was no surprise that i was sadistic bruh, does enjoying watching people get brutally hurt also count as sadism?

nina · 2026-06-06 · from Germany