Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Research Statistics
- Sample Adequacy: Preliminary dataset. Interpret norms cautiously.
- Research Status: PRELIMINARY NORMATIVE DATASET
- Items: 10
- Dimensions: 10
- Dataset Maturity: The current dataset achieved a maturity score of 0/100 and is classified as EARLY DATASET.
| Participants | 4 |
| Countries Represented | 1 |
| Dataset Maturity | 0/100 — Early DatasetDataset |
| Research Status | PRELIMINARY NORMATIVE DATASET |
| Sample Adequacy | Preliminary dataset. Interpret norms cautiously. |
| Data Collection Period | May 24, 2026 – May 25, 2026 |
| Mean Score | 65.25% |
| Median Score | 64 |
| Standard Deviation | 8.62 |
| Variance | 74.25 |
| Standard Error (SEM) | 4.31 |
| Reliability (α) | 0 |
| Items | 10 |
| Dimensions | 10 |
| Observed Score Range | 17 |
| Maximum Observed Score | 75% |
| Minimum Observed Score | 58% |
| 95% Confidence Interval | 56.81– 73.69 |
| Skewness | 0.28 |
| Kurtosis | -4.39 |
The current dataset includes responses from 1countries . The largest contribution currently comes from IN which represents approximately 100% of all participants. International participation enhances sample diversity and improves the generalizability of normative findings across geographic regions.
Normative Percentile Distribution
The current normative dataset indicates that approximately 10% of participants scored below 58%, while 90% scored above this level. The median score was 58%, meaning that half of participants scored below this value and half scored above it. Scores of 70% 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
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
0.28
and a kurtosis of
-4.39.
The distribution demonstrates mild departures from normality, although the overall score pattern remains broadly interpretable for preliminary normative purposes.
Reliability Analysis
UNACCEPTABLE RELIABILITY
The current dataset produced an internal consistency estimate (Cronbach's α = 0) that falls below commonly accepted psychometric standards. Interpretations should therefore be considered preliminary until additional participant responses are collected and item functioning is further evaluated.
Item–Total Correlations
Item–total correlations are not currently reported because the assessment has fewer than 100 participant responses. Psychometric item analysis requires a larger sample to produce stable and interpretable estimates.
Current Participants: 4
Minimum Recommended: 100
Dimension Norms
The highest scoring dimension in the current sample was Lassitude (77.7%). The lowest scoring dimension was Concentration Difficulties (49.7%). 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.
The current normative dataset contains 4 participants . The cumulative growth curve illustrates how the participant sample has expanded over time. Increasing sample sizes generally improve the stability of percentile norms, reliability estimates, and other psychometric statistics.
A total of 4 participant responses were available for this assessment. Dimension-level norms were calculated using 3 valid response records. Approximately 1 response record(s) were excluded from dimension-level normative calculations due to incomplete response patterns, historical data inconsistencies, or automated data-quality screening procedures.
Research Interpretation
This psychometric dataset currently includes 4 anonymous participant responses collected through voluntary participation. The observed mean score was 65.25 with a standard deviation of 8.62, indicating moderate score variability within the sampled population. Internal consistency reliability analysis produced a Cronbach alpha of 0, which falls below commonly accepted psychometric standards and should be interpreted cautiously until additional data are collected. Observed skewness (0.28) and kurtosis (-4.39) were examined as indicators of distribution quality. The distribution demonstrated mild departures from normality, although the overall score pattern remained broadly interpretable for preliminary normative purposes.
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. Trait Profiler continuously monitors response quality, distribution stability, and internal consistency to support ethical psychometric reporting.
Dataset Export
Research Citation
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)