Validity and Reliability of the Myers Briggs Test - Term Paper Example

Validity and Reliability of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator Introduction to the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) One of the widely used personality tests in educational and organizational settings is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or the MBTI. A quick search on the internet displays hundreds of websites where one may take the test online, most of them abridged versions and offered for free. Most, if not all, individuals who have undergone a screening process either for school or work has at one point or anther taken the MBTI. It has achieved a wide scope of acceptance and utility in various disciplines and industries, which is in fact one of the goals that the creators, Myers and Briggs, identified in developing the instrument. It is for these reasons that there is a need to evaluate this personality test in terms of its validity and reliability. An instrument that has been extensively applied and exploited deserves to be constantly reviewed especially since the zeitgeist when it was created is different from the present time. The MBTI serves as a basis for most institutions in accepting or rejecting applications; in the placement of students and employees; and in conflict resolution in group settings. These are crucial decision-making processes where the MBTI has acquired a reserved seat in assessment. Whether or not it remains a valid and reliable measure of personality types have serious implications in organizations that employ the MBTI. This research paper attempts to survey various literatures that discuss the reliability and validity of the MBTI. The first section will give an overview of the history and development of the MBTI, as presented in the succeeding paragraphs. The next section aims to bring out issues objectively and empirically about the MBTI and in the process present arguments for or against its validity and reliability. The last section contains the conclusions based on the arguments presented in the second section. The author hopes that this paper will help enlighten individuals from different sectors in society about the strengths and limitations of the MBTI. The history of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator holds accountable Carl Jung and his personality theory as the primary basis and the chief influence of Katharine C. Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers in the development of the MBTI, a project that lasted for two decades and a half (Bayne, 1997; Morgan & Morgan, 2007; Quenk, 2009). Jung published his book “Psychological Types” in the early 1920’s which was later on translated in English and published in America. Briggs at that time was also developing her own theory of personality types which she later on abandoned upon discovery of Jung’s theory which resembled her ideas but had better structure and form. It then started the long journey of Briggs and Myers that concluded with the creation of the MBTI. Guided by Jung’s theory, their observations of individuals led them to the conclusion that “typology could provide a useful way of describing healthy personality differences and importantly, that such assessment could be put to practical use in people’s lives” (Morgan & Morgan, 2007, p. 336). Such non-judgmental and realistic underpinnings of the instrument are perhaps the reasons for its massive influence and application. It is interesting to note that none of them have studied and trained under Jungian psychoanalysis yet they accepted his ideas and studied it enthusiastically for 25 years. To begin with, both were not psychologists and do not have strong foundation in statistics. In the 1940’s, psychological testing was a very young field and inventory type questionnaires were not popular. While psychology often measure characteristic, Myers and Briggs were more drawn towards preferences which identify the dominant functions of individuals. At that time, they did not have the convenience of computers making item analysis, so they relied heavily on friends who they classified as “thinking” and “feeling” individuals. If the item was favored at least 60% of the time by the “thinking” group, then it is clustered under “thinking”, and the same goes for the “feeling” items. Despite the limitations in technology, Myers and Briggs by remaining genuine to the scientific discipline were able to find a way of measuring typologies. The important questions though still remain: How valid is the MBTI? Moreover, how useful is it? The MBTI is a personality inventory that is securely rooted in Carl Jung’s psychological types. It classifies people into 16 different types of personalities based on the scores of four scales. These scales are considered as measures of four predispositions of an individual which are intrinsic and independent of each other. These scales are reflective of Jung’s “eight primary personality traits that divide into two dichotomous pairs of mental functions and two dichotomous pairs of attitudes” (Wheeler, 2001, p. 3). The pairs for mental functions are: (1) Sensing (S) and Intuition (N) denoting the perceiving mental function; and (2) Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) denoting the Judging mental function. The pairs for attitudes are: (1) Extraversion (E) and Introversion (I) which are traits connoting attitude toward the world; and (1) Judging (J) and Perceiving (P) describing the attitude toward the mental functions. All individuals are predisposed with these traits yet there are those which are most preferred between the dichotomies and come out dominating the individual’s lifestyle. Currently, there are three versions of the MBTI instrument: MBTI® Step I, ™ MBTI® Step II, ™ and MBTI® Step III. “The MBTI is a questionnaire-style instrument consisting of items arranged in a forced-choice format” (Wheeler, 2001, p. 6). In every item presented, individuals are asked to choose between two options. Technological advances have allowed for the use of computers in testing, and a typical test may last for 25 minutes which can easily be scored an analyzed. Since the logic and descriptions behind it are not only engaging and positive, but simple and straightforward as well, any person can easily explain the results. Though there have been no known risks associated with a layman’s interpretation, it is still advisable to discuss the results with a trained professional. The formulation of the MBTI has at its core objectives the propensity to help the individual become a better person and maximize his or her potentials. To be able to fully appreciate the results and its significant implications for the one’s future, it is necessary to consult a clinician or a psychologist. In essence, MBTI’s description is very Jungian in its approach: positivist, optimistic and providing insights and directions about the future. The National Research Council (NRC) “included the MBTI in a 1991 examination of several trainings techniques alleged to have exceptional impact on human performance” (Zemke, 1992, p.3). Data shows that the MBTI leave lasting and memorable “typologies” compared with other instruments used. Trainees also perceive the instrument as valuable and genuine. Furthermore, not only is the MBTI considered the highlight of the training programs, it also has a relatively higher score in terms of perceived impact on the participants’ behavior. From its rudimentary historical development, the popularity of MBTI is remarkable. It is also an instrument that did not and has not escaped the scourge of criticisms and continuous research with regard to its validity and reliability. Reliability and Validity of the MBTI An instrument is considered reliable if and when the same scores are arrived at over a period of time. “Internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities have been reported for each scale of the MBTI instrument and vary somewhat depending on the nature of the sample studied” (Quenk,2009, p.25). Younger respondents show lower reliabilities compared to older respondents. Perhaps this can be explained by the theory that personality types develop in the span of a lifetime and are more stable with age. The MBTI has been subjected to various reliability tests as cited by Wheeler (2001) and these demonstrate the high reliability of the instrument. Internal consistency reliability tests were conducted by Myers et al. (1998); Myers & McCaulley (1985); Hoy & Hellriegel (1982); Harvey (1996); Ruble & Cossier (1990); Tzeng et al. (1989); and Schweiger (1985). The correlations and alpha scores fall between the .80’s and .90’s with some low scores falling between .50’s and .60’s. The results show that the respondents answer related questions in the MBTI with consistency. Another measure of reliability is temporal stability, which is reflected in the studies conducted by Myers et al. (1998); Johnson (1992); and Myers and McCaulley (1985). Results show that correlations range from 0.59 to .93. “These results suggest that subjects select the same answers over time” (Wheeler, 2001, p. 6). The scores mentioned are within the acceptable range and as stated by Harvey (1996) “compare favorably to other psychometric instruments” (as cited in Wheeler, 2001, p. 6). Results from the research conducted by the NRC however, do not correspond with the figures above and are relatively lower. The test-retest outcome indicates type stability between 24 to 64 percent. This means that “as few as 24 percent of respondents and no more than 61 percent – were assigned the same type when they took the test a second time” (Zemke, 1992, p. 4). From these results, critics of the MBTI argue that the instrument can be easily manipulated and an individual, for instance, who wishes to create a good impression, can answer the test in a specific manner so as to yield the desired results. Psychometricians are aware of these issues and in fact warn employers and human resource practitioners against relying heavily on the MBTI for hiring purposes. The MBTI is best used for placement and counseling purposes. Validity is also another area that researchers are constantly concerned about in psychometric tests. Validity refers to the extent that an item measures a specific variable, in this case, the elements of personality traits. Results from various research studies have been inconclusive and give only partial support to the instrument, as compared to the studies conducted to measure reliability. According to Zemke (1992), there are at least three cornerstones that the MBTI validity needs to address: “(a) Does the instrument give the same readings that skilled Jungian psychologists/ therapists give?; (b) Does the instrument agree with other instruments that measure similar attributes?; and (c) Do the instrument’s results agree with the self-typing of people knowledgeable about MBTI or Jungian personality theory?” (p. 4). Validity results have shown that MBTI is not able to capture personality comprehensively and in its entirety. However, results have demonstrated that the MBTI is able to capture and measure personality types consistent with Jungian personality theory. Convergent validation studies measuring MBTI personality traits and non-MBTI traits show positive correlations indicating that “participants describe themselves and experts describe participants using non-MBTI descriptors in a way consistent with the preference-profiles indicated by the MBTI scores” (Wheeler, 2001, p. 8). To evaluate the interactions that occur between dichotomies, construct validation studies were conducted. The studies prove that individuals identify more with their own personality types than alternative types that were presented. Interactions of dichotomies were also compared with other non-MBTI scales. The results show that MBTI preferences are highly correlated with other non-MBTI scales, as well as in interaction levels. Taken as a whole, the studies show that participants and experts (e.g. Jungian psychologists, clinical practitioners) are able to determine how the MBTI personality traits correspond with other non-MBTI instruments. This also further implies that respondents and experts are able to distinguish among MBTI personality traits thus, illustrating construct validity. In the NRC research study, validity for certain types of dichotomies were established, but not for all. The Introversion/ Extroversion scale scored highly on validity while the Sensing/ Intuition and Thinking/ Feeling scales exhibited weak validity. Bayne (1997) provides an in-depth discussion with regard to the validity of each scale or preferences in the MBTI. Bayne mentions the study conducted by Thorne and Gough (1991) from data gathered for a period of 30 years. One limitation though of the results is the culture bias that implies possible gender differences in the definition of the personality types. With the Extroversion/ Introversion scale, Bayne (1997) also mentions the relatively high construct validity with a note on possible cultural differences, especially in terms of expressions of sociability. Another confounding variable are individuals who manifest traits labeled as “shy extraverts” or “socially skilled introverts.” Not much study has been conducted on these dimensions, especially the latter. There is a gap in the research for the Sensing/Intuition scale though a study by Kaplan and Singer (1963) investigated the correlations of the scale with the five senses and was able to find strong correlations between openness to senses and openness to ideas. Studies about the Thinking/Feeling scale involve gender in the equation. Constructs of individuals are affected by gender stereotypes as reflected in qualitative data. Quantitative data however, reveal that a single scoring style is both applicable for male and female in the Thinking/ Feeling scale. As for the Judging/ Perceiving scale, research studies have supported its validity. Among all the constructs, Bayne (1997) considers this as the most direct and straightforward. It can be noted that research on the four scales is more prevalent than research in the 16 personality types which are more open to question. There is a need to confirm the existence of these combinations as types as well as evaluate their validity. Conclusions The first section of the paper gives the historical background of the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator. It outlines how the arrival of Carl Jung’s book in the United States influenced Katharine Briggs and together with her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, started the 25-year study and construction of the MBTI instrument. This section also puts into context the development of the instrument and the limitations of technology and equipment at that time to further improve data gathering and analysis. A substantial part of the first section discusses the components of the MBTI and provides an orientation of the instrument. It gives an explanation of the influence of Carl Jung in the instrument and how it directly reflects his psychological typologies. The second section of the paper provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the instrument. Whereas strong support has been found for the test’s reliability, there are conflicting results and issues raised about its validity. Reliability scores fall within the acceptable range. Validity scores however, varied with scale. In organizational settings, especially in training, the MBTI has achieved very satisfactory ratings. It does not become a question anymore of whether or not it is valid and reliable. The focus is on utility for team building and communication. While the scores for reliability are high, MBTI advocates do claim that the types are meant to guide the individual and the people he closely works with. It was not created to label individuals and segregate them into classified boxes. “They even suggest that changes in MBTI results can depend upon current assignments and pressures, and that work and non-work situations may evoke different responses to the same questions” (Zemke, 1992, p. 4). This implies that while the MBTI may be reliable at a certain point in time in defining the personality traits of an individual, it does not necessarily translate to longevity or permanence of results. In fact, this coincides with the Jungian personality theory where the elements are seen as a continuum rather than dichotomous constructs. Individuals have the natural propensity to move towards improvement. There is no best personality trait and different situations and emotions call for the combinations of different scales to better address the issues. Human beings, by virtue of evolution, change dynamically, including personalities, which in return assures survival and the improvement in lifestyles. The Jungian personality theory is only one of the many personality theories that developed over time. On the basis of the Jungian psychology, the MBTI has indeed achieved high validity. The major criticism of those in opposition is still its inability to define personality in its entirety. One cannot neglect however, that the MBTI has reached a significant amount of fame. Some academicians are becoming more skeptical but research has shown that among various instruments, the MBTI is one that appeals to the general public and appears to leave lasting impressions among those who believe in it. Perhaps better research designs, qualitative and quantitative, can shed more insight into the increasing MBTI phenomenon which has grown in popularity and number of advocates. Works Cited Bayne, R. (1997). The Myers-Briggs type indicator: A critical review and practical guide. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Nelson Thomas Ltd. Morgan, K. and Morgan, M. (2007). Challenges of gender, age and personality in e-learning. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research. City Road, London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Quenk, N.L. (2009). Essentials of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment, 2nd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wheeler, P. (2001). The Myers-Briggs type indicator and applications to accounting education and research. Issues in Accounting Education, 16 (1), 125 – 151. Zemke, R. (1992). Second thoughts about the MBTI. Training, 29 (4), 43 – 48. Read More