Being an advocate for knowing your MBTI type, it frustrates me to hear the way some people scoff at MBTI in a similar way that they might with astrology, since Myers-Briggs is determined solely by your self-reported psychological preferences, thereby serving as a descriptive tool and not a predictive one.
If you are interested in learning your MBTI type, there are a number of questionnaires online, which ask about attitudes and behaviors you have in different situations, that help to determine your type. In the end, the result will be one of 16 four-letter acronyms that stem from four letter pairings: Extraversion or Introversion; Sensing or Intuition; Feeling or Thinking; and Judging or Perceiving.
In my life, I have taken this test several times, and each time I have been categorized as an ESTJ — a type known for its dedication, honesty and organization, but also its stubbornness, difficulty relaxing and difficulty expressing emotion.
By recognizing these differences, the group can better assign tasks and work together on achieving their goals. First, the MBTI is not really a "test. The purpose of the indicator is not to evaluate mental health or offer any type of diagnosis. Also, unlike many other types of psychological evaluations, your results are not compared against any norms.
Instead of looking at your score in comparison to the results of other people, the goal of the instrument is to simply offer further information about your own unique personality. However, other studies have found that the reliability and validity of the instrument have not been adequately demonstrated. A book by The Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance and the National Research Council suggests that "there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of MBTI in career counseling programs.
Much of the current evidence is based on inadequate methodologies. Because the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator is relatively easy to use, it has become one of the most popular psychological instruments currently in use today.
Approximately two million U. While there are many versions of the MBTI available online, it should be noted that any of the informal questionnaires that you may find on the Internet are only approximations of the real thing. The real MBTI must be administered by a trained and qualified practitioner that includes a follow-up of the results. Today, the questionnaire can be administered online via the instrument publisher, CPP, Inc. The current version of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator includes 93 forced-choice questions in the North American version and 88 forced-choice questions in the European version.
For each question, there are two different options from which the respondent must choose. Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Bjork RA, Druckman D. Jung CG. Psychological Types. In Collected Works of C. Jung, Volume 6. Princeton University Press: Building People, Building Programs. Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Pittenger DJ.
Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short. Journal of Career Planning and Employment. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for VerywellMind. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page.
These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes.
Personality Psychology. Overview Intuitive-Thinking. The MBTI assessment can help people see what their stress triggers are and show them how to avoid or ameliorate the effects of these triggers. It also describes one's likely reaction to everyday stress and to more extreme situations in which individuals may behave in atypical ways. Knowing this information allows them to recognize this reaction and take action to prevent things escalating further.
Established researchers in the field of predicting job performance would not use the MBTI assessment for this purpose. On the other hand, numerous meaningful studies have examined the value of the MBTI assessment in the context of individual development. It focuses on four preference pairs:. Personality is more complex than that!
However, sorting people into the 16 types based on certain aspects of personality can illustrate how people are alike and how they are different. Looking at personality in this way is useful for certain purposes. No personality assessment measures all aspects of personality or completely describes an individual.
All personality assessments are using a model some based on theory, some lacking a theory to summarize large groups of individuals in a relatively small number of useful descriptors. We all have preferences for all sorts of things; most of use prefer to use one hand rather than the other when we write something, for example. In the same way, we all have preferences when it comes to our personality. The Jung-Myers approach focuses on four pairs of preferences:.
The fourth preference pair was implied but not fully developed in his work. Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs included this fourth preference pair Judging—Perceiving in their model of personality, leading to the 16 types measured by the MBTI assessment. What these quotes show is that most models or theories in psychology are useful for helping to understand human behavior but are not intended to describe every minutia of personality or behavior. A model or theory has value to the extent that it provides insights, people find it useful, and it leads to improvements in daily life.
Jung, C. Psychological types. Read, M. Fordham, G. McGuire Eds. Jung R. Hull, Trans. Original work published Jung speaking: Interviews and encounters W.
McGuire, Ed. Myers, I. The MBTI assessment is backed up by 75 years of research and continues to be refined and updated. The assessment also has considerable evidence for its reliability and validity , much of which is reported in its manual.
You may find free questionnaires that are based on Jung and Myers and Briggs' theory and that talk about the four preference pairs.
But free personality assessments typically lack evidence showing they are reliable and valid measures. If the initial MBTI assessment experience followed the recommended process, included a structured best-fit feedback process, and if you are certain of your type, then it is not necessary to take the indicator again. But if you are uncertain of your type and it is possible that life events at the time of the first administration may have affected the outcome of the assessment, then it might be worthwhile to retake the MBTI assessment and have a quality interpretation with a certified practitioner.
The Myers-Briggs Company provides a comprehensive body of information via a manual, guides, other written materials, and workshops and seminars designed to aid in effective administration of the instrument. You will have the opportunity to reflect on what you think your MBTI type is, read a description of the MBTI type that resulted from scoring your answers, and decide on your best-fit type. Your practitioner can give you a detailed description of your best-fit type and explain how to use your type knowledge in work and life.
Personalized reports with your MBTI results are available that cover many topics, such as career choice, communication, decision making, conflict, etc. Qualitatively different means that one category differs from the other in a manner that is more than the amount of an attribute. For example, we either have a preference for Thinking or for Feeling, which are two qualitatively different ways of making decisions.
In MBTI theory we can and do use both preferences , but one is more natural. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and both can be useful in different contexts.
For example, we might describe how many feet or meters tall we are and we might talk about whether we are taller or shorter than others. This trait approach is used by many personality questionnaires. People can score from low to high on each trait. For example, empathy is something we all have, just in varying amounts. This is very different from the type approach.
The MBTI assessment is based on type theory and the underlying assumption that people belong to distinct, qualitatively different preference categories. For example, we either have a preference for Thinking or for Feeling, one or the other. Our preference is the side that is more natural and tends to be more automatic and easier. Although we have a preference for one side, we can and do use both our preferred and nonpreferred sides when needed.
Some supporters of trait questionnaires see type questionnaires as simplistic and unscientific, as they are not intended to make comparisons between individuals. In fact, many people use both type and trait assessments, separately and together. The different approaches can give subtly different information about an individual, which can be extremely useful in gaining a more sophisticated understanding of the person.
People are complex. It often takes time to really get to know someone and understand how that person does things and why. However, there are patterns in how people behave and their motivations.
With time, as we get to know our friends and colleagues, we often build up an idea of how we are similar and how we differ. The MBTI assessment is simply another way of building up that picture and understanding others better. Every person is a unique individual, but we share certain characteristics. They also highlight how you might be different from others with a different type than yours. What the MBTI assessment does not do is describe your whole personality or identity. It certainly does not define you!
Instead, it focuses on four core aspects of personality. It is also worth remembering that personality is not the only thing that influences how we behave. For example, we all have different motivations, experiences, values, hobbies, skills, and cultures that shape us. People with an unsatisfactory MBTI experience are often those who did not participate in a skilled interpretation session with an MBTI certified practitioner, and they may not have had the chance to discover their best-fit type.
Therefore, a feedback session with an MBTI certified practitioner or completing MBTIonline , which includes an interactive feedback session, is recommended. Four editions , , , of its manual have been published, providing a wealth of research-based evidence on its reliability and validity. The manual also explains the theory behind the assessment, its construction, and the data collection and analysis of the scales.
For more information, take a look at this webinar and whitepaper that deconstruct common criticisms of the MBTI assessment. Also see taking on the MBTI skeptics to view another presentation scroll down the page that opens to access the video. This manual is provided to all certified practitioners as part of their certification materials. Major findings are also published in data supplements that can be downloaded from The Myers-Briggs Company website for the current commercial version and prior commercial versions.
In addition, there are many articles by independent researchers in established journals. Finally, the MBTI assessment meets the stringent requirements for psychological assessments in psychology societies around the world e.
Instead, the APA provides ethical guidelines that put the onus on the users of assessments to evaluate their reliability, validity, and appropriateness. Stoltz, K. A Comprehensive Guide to Career Assessment. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Mental Measurements Yearbook. Reliability looks at whether the questions that comprise each measure are consistent with each other internal consistency reliability and whether the results of a test are consistent over time test-retest reliability.
The general standard for a scale on any psychometric assessment is to have an internal consistency reliability of. In brief, the MBTI assessment is reliable. It is common to find quotes indicating that 50 percent of participants received a different classification on one or more of the MBTI scales when they take the MBTI assessment again This is because it is not simply a matter of having one preference pair result matching. All four preference pairs need to match.
By convention, an internal consistency estimate of. This is true for people of different ages, ethnicities, and employment statuses. Reliability is not a property that is inherent to an assessment or a test. Instead, reliability must be considered for a specific sample and for a particular purpose. Generally, studies report on the internal consistency reliability of the sample used in a specific study.
As such, the question "is the MBTI assessment reliable" is not an accurate question and communicates a misunderstanding of psychological assessment. Instead, the correct question to ask is if the MBTI assessment demonstrates internal consistency reliability for a sample comprised of some identifiable group.
Details on internal consistency reliability are provided in the manual and in other portions of this document. Note, in many cases reliability estimates from prior commercial forms are reported. Because the current and prior forms of the assessment are highly correlated, the results can be generalized to the current forms.
As further data accumulate, they will be reported by The Myers-Briggs Company in downloadable supplements. In a sample of over 5 million people who completed the MBTI assessment, the internal consistency reliability measures of the four preference scales exceeded the value of acceptable reliability of.
The following figure summarizes the level of internal consistency reliability for the four preference scales by age groups for this sample. Some of the key samples are reported in the following table. In summary, the MBTI assessment exceeds the guidelines for internal consistency reliability in samples of people who are likely to make use of the MBTI assessment in a variety of countries and across a wide range of age groups. Information on other samples and populations can be found by searching for published studies focused on the sample or population of interest.
Test-retest reliability is typically reported for a sample by correlating the results for a specific measure on two separate occasions. Test-retest correlations have no firm standards but in general stronger correlations or higher levels of test-retest reliability are more likely over shorter time intervals. Schaubhut, N. The MBTI assessment is unique in that rather than focusing on the test-retest reliability of a single scale, critics argue that it is the whole type or four-letter type that should be considered when looking at test-retest reliability.
About 50 percent of people get the same four-letter or whole type on retest. Note, other personality assessments do not report test-retest reliability for a configuration of results.
For example, no one reports the consistency of the configuration of the Big Five categories provided as part of the reporting of results across administrations. Nonetheless, whole type or four-letter type consistency has traditionally been reported for the MBTI assessment. However, the typical rules for test-retest correlations cannot be used in this case. Instead, it is necessary to consider if the MBTI assessment does better than chance in placing a respondent into the same whole type, which is accomplished by having the same four preferences on two administrations of the assessment.
One way to consider this is to examine what would be expected on retest if the MBTI assessment yielded random or nearly random placement into the 16 types as suggested by some critics. To that end, consider that if the MBTI assessment yielded random placement into the four preference pairs on retest, then because there are 16 types, the probability of getting any 1 of the 16 whole types is 6. Further, because whole types are made up of four sets of two preferences, the probability matching on one, two, three, or four letters differs based on the 6.
Similarly, if unreliable and invalid, the likelihood of getting ISTJ on both administrations would also be 6. As can be seen, the consistency of all four preferences being the same on retest are closer to 50 percent, meaning just over half of all cases have the same whole or four-letter type results on retest.
This is eight 8 times what is expected by chance. What we observe in actual data is that the most common outcome is for people to match on all four letters. The second most common outcome is matching on three out of four letters. The least common outcome are four different letters. In summary, the MBTI preference scales demonstrate more than adequate test-retest reliability in the global sample for the global forms of the assessment.
Moreover, the MBTI assessment, when considered as a configuration of all four preference scales, exceeds what would be expected by chance by eight times, with 90 percent of people getting the same results for three or four of the preference scales. Note too that for most people who have a change of a single preference, the preference that changed was the one that was least clear. It is very rare without intentionally responding in an inaccurate way for preferences that are clear to change on retest Myers et al.
Validity looks at whether an assessment measures what it is supposed to measure. Much evidence has accumulated supporting the validity of the MBTI assessment, and this evidence has been published in four manuals , , , and a variety of technical supplements. The MBTI assessment has been found to be valid in a number of ways, with studies that evaluate the following:.
A wealth of research-based evidence on MBTI validity can be found in the manuals, technical briefs, and supplements, and more is also available in this document. There are several ways to demonstrate validity of a personality assessment.
This approach to validity examines whether the assessment is related to other measures in a manner that is consistent with what would be expected based on the theory or approach underlying both assessments. For example, if two scales on two assessments measure a similar characteristic, then a person who scores high on the scale on the one assessment should also score high on the scale on the other assessment convergent validity.
If the scales are measuring very different, even contradictory, characteristics, then one would expect a high score on one scale and a low score on the other scale divergent validity. Supplements to the original manuals 2 have also been published showing additional validity evidence. In addition to the manuals, supplements have been published for these assessments as well, and are freely available online; for both proponents and critics to evaluate: Form M and Form Q , European Step I.
Summaries of such studies can be found in the manual. Note that the MBTI assessment is not intended to predict job performance and should not be used in selection. Therefore, validity data related to the application of the MBTI assessment in recruitment are not available. Moyle and Hackston summarize some of the differences between what is important for the validity of questionnaires used in selection and questionnaires, like the MBTI assessment, used in development.
Gough, H. The Adjective Check List manual. Moyle, P. Personality assessment for employee development: Ivory tower or real world? Journal of Personality Assessment, , Second, a sample of 4, managers for whom MBTI type was known and who had Benchmarks ratings provided by others not self-ratings was examined.
The average hypothetical and actual manager ratings were then correlated for each of the whole type combinations. It was expected that as the actual and hypothetical ratings shared more MBTI preferences, the correlations would increase, and as they shared fewer preferences, the correlations would decrease.
The results of this analysis are presented in the figure below. For the expected and actual MBTI types, the behavior of managers converged, meaning that managers behaved as expected.
Thus the study shows there are observable differences between personality types. McPeek et al. When the results of the two assessments agreed i. The mismatched type description was randomly selected to be either a description of the opposite type i. Participants were asked to rate the accuracy of each of the type descriptions they received. The mismatched descriptions were rated much less descriptive than the matched ones, even when the mismatch involved only a single preference, although the difference was much greater when all four preferences differed from the reported type.
0コメント