Test Critique of a Psychological Test Instrument - Essay Example

Test Critique of a Psychological test instrument: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator School: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality indicator that was first developed and used in 1943 with revisions conducted in subsequent years resulting in the most current M edition of the indicator. The first indicator was developed, based on Carl Gustav Jung’s theory of personality, by the mother and daughter team of Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers. It is a tool that enables individuals gain insight into their personality, identifies their personality preferences and determines how they react with other members of their society. It is intended to allow individuals improve how they go about their daily activities. MBTI undergoes regular revision that is backed by enormous database, research and development. All test data is collected over time to form an enormous database which guided the subtle improvements to indicate. The indicator’s publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP), has developed an online indicator administration system that not only administers an unsupervised version of the indicator online, but also professionally interprets the results (Bastiaansen et al., 2011; Consulting Psychologists Press, 2014). The Myers-Briggs Model of Personality is based on four preferences; extraversion (E) or introversion (I); sensing (S) or intuition (N); thinking (T) or feeling (F); and judgment (J) or perception (P). The four preferences are placed in different combinations to form a four letter personality type code that identifies an individual’s personality (DeFruyt et al., 2009). MBTI helps individuals identify their personalities by focusing on four areas; where an individual focuses their attention; how they take in information; how they make decisions based on the collected information; and how they deal with their community (Myers, 2014). In essence, based on the model, there are only 16 personality types as shown in Appendix I. The indicator only determines preferences that form personality, but does not measure character, trait or ability. E and I are the attitude preferences, S and N are the perceiving preferences, while T and F are the judging function. P and J refer to the T/F and S/N dichotomies of how the individual deals with the external environment. J-types individuals plan and organize their approach to their daily interaction with the environment and prefer order in their lives with everything well settled. P-type individuals are more spontaneous and are often flexible in their approach to everyday activities by keeping all their available options open until the last possible minute (DeFruyt et al., 2009; Development Edge Consulting, 2000). For J-type individuals, any preference for judging function would designate them as extraverts given that they show a preference for a well thought out approach to daily activities, relying on set guidelines and techniques to make influence their choices, and desiring speedy conclusions to the activities. Any preference for J-type perception designates them as introverts. In contrast, a preference for P-type perception designates them as extraverted, with the favored judging function being introverted. The result is an individual who is more spontaneous in their approach to daily activities, trusting in their subjective judgments and an aspiration to leave all their options open until the last possible minute (Carson et al., 2012; Development Edge Consulting, 2000). MBTI can only be administered by a qualified practitioner who then conducts a face-to-face follow up verification after the indicator has been completed. In addition, they must consent to observing an ethical code. The ethical code observes five main points, though it is not limited to these points. The first point is strict confidentiality of indicator results and direct delivery of the results to the test takers. The second point informing prospective test takers of the nature of the tests before they undertake. The tests must be completed voluntarily to ensure their validity and reliability. The third point is that the test takers must be allowed to clarify their results if they deem it necessary. They are the authority in their personalities and as such can provide better insight into the written description of their preferences. The ultimate result is a best fit MBTI personality type selection. The fourth point is that the test must be administered in accordance with the accompanying manual. The fifth point is that the test results must never be given to the test taker without an accompanying consultative interpretation by the test administrator (Development Edge Consulting, 2000; Quenk, 2009). Qualification is by either of two routes; MBTI certification program; and education eligibility. The certification program involves an individual attending a four day workshop allows them to practice presenting MBTI and interpreting the results in different scenarios. Individuals who complete the program successfully are considered MBTI certified practitioners. Individuals with psychology education backgrounds, having successfully passed class B and C psychological tests and assessments, and are licensed by the relevant bodies are considered education eligible to administer the indicator and interpret the results (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2014). MBTI is touted as the most trusted personality indicator based on its (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2014): Ease in grasping the concepts, being insightful and provoking thought process. Reliability and validity due to large database and constant research and development. Flexibility in administration and application of the indicator. Availability in a range of languages that cover all the continents. Support by other CPP’s resources. MBTI’s reliability and validity are guaranteed by the many different tests, database and revisions that have been carried out on the indicator since it was first introduced in 1943. It has been determined that the test measures what it is intended. Tests on the split-half reliability of MBTI show test-retest reliability sensitivity to the time difference between administrations of subsequent tests. The MBTI dichotomies, resultant of the 16 different possible combinations of personality type codes, have made type allocations unreliable. In fact, only approximately 85 percent of individuals maintain their personality results when retested within 9 months, and 75 percent maintain their personality results when retested after 9 months. Only 50 percent maintain their overall personality type if retested within 9 months while only 36 percent remain the same if retested after nine months. MBTI’s statistical validity as a psychometric instrument has been compromised by its dichotomous scoring of dimensions (Capraro & Capraro, 2002; Development Edge Consulting, 2000). All rights to MBTI related tools, tests and materials are held by either of three entities; CPP who publish all the MBTI publications; CAPT who holds the rights to all of Isabel Briggs Myer’s and Mary H. McCaulley’s original writings; and MBTI Trust. These three entities are responsible for all MBTI publications, training and developments. The result is that the MBTI is not subject to critical scrutiny by independent entities and as such validity and reliability is compromised (Furnham & Crump, 2014; Quenk, 2009). Given that Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers had no scientific background, MBTI scientific basis has often been questioned. Carl G. Jung’s theory of personality, that MBTI is largely based on, has its origins in anecdote and introspection and not scientific research. While the theory may be sound, its origins have compromised its scientific value. By extension, MBTI that is based on Jung’s theory of personality shares a similar criticism. It is important to note that while MBTI has been shown to be scientifically sound, after numerous reviews and use, its origins are questionable and were not based on scientific methods (Development Edge Consulting, 2000; Quenk, 2009). MBTI has been used for a variety of applications in groups’ settings that include (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2014): Development of teams by identifying team members’ personalities and applying them in easing group communication. Development of leaders understanding of their team members, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how to improve their performance. Manage conflicts by identifying sources of conflicts, and ensuring early intervention. Manage stress by building individual resilience, and managing stress triggers as identified. Plan and transition careers of team members by guiding members in choosing career paths, developing and managing their careers. There are two forms of MBTI brand portfolio that can be administered to address different needs; MBTI Step I; and MBTI Step II. Form M identifies an individual’s personality based on the four letter personality types. It has 93 items, can be completed in 20 minutes, covers a range of issues, uses the 4-letter Myers-Briggs personality type code to identify individuals, uses common language to describe interactions, and generates comprehensive reports to support the interventions. Form Q delves beyond the 4-letter code used in Step I by determining facets that make the individual unique and personalizing insights. It has 144 items of which the 93 items in Step I form a part., can be completed in 35 minutes, provides more details on personality by applying 20 facets in each of the 4-letter personality codes applied in Step I, and generates comprehensive reports to facilitate interventions (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2014). MBTI Step III is currently under development in a collaborative exercise between CPP, Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT), and the MBTI Trust. It is anticipated that MBTII Step III will increase the use of perception and judgment by test takers (Furnham & Crump, 2014). I believe that MBTI is a useful tool in assessing individuals in the workplace and providing an environment that ensures they are most productive, based on the indicator results. Personality is at the core of an individual’s interaction with the environment and as such it is important to recognize and understand the different personalities. The fact that it is interactive, does not assess psychological health, and involves no scales adds to its appeal. I am, however, against its use in assessing possible career choices for school children as its reliability and validity for such functions is questionable. References Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Schotte, C. & De Fruyt, F. (2011). The structure of the personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 378-396. Capraro, R. & Capraro, M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across Studies: A Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4). 590-602. doi: 10.1177/0013164402062004004 Carson, M., Shanock, L., Heggestad, E., Andrew, A., Pugh, S. & Walter, M. (2012). The relationship between dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies, derailment potential behaviour, and turnover. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 291-304. Consulting Psychologists Press (2014). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., Milley, J., Rolland, P., Jung, C., Taris, R., Furnham, A. & Hiel, A. (2009). Assessing personality at risk in personnel selection and development. European Journal of Personality, 23, 51-69. Development Edge Consulting (2009). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Retrieved from http://www.dec.co.th/mbti_explanation.htm Furnham, A. & Crump, J. (2014). The Dark Side of the MBTI: Psychological Type and Interpersonal Derailers. Psychology, 5, 166-171. doi: 10.4236/psych.2014.52026. Myers, S. (2014). Myers Briggs Personality Types. Retrieved from http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/t-articl/mb-simpl.htm Quenk, N. (2009). Essential of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment. Cichester: John Wiley & Sons Publishers. Appendix Appendix I: The 16 types of personality codes based on Myers-Briggs model Personality Type Codes ESFP (extraverted sensing with feeling) ISFP (introverted feeling with sensing) INFP (introverted feeling with intuition) ENFP (extraverted intuition with feeling) ESTP (extraverted sensing with thinking) ISTP (introverted thinking with sensing) INTP (introverted thinking with intuition) ENTP (extraverted intuition with thinking) ESTJ (extraverted thinking with sensing) ISTJ (introverted sensing with thinking) ISFJ (introverted sensing with feeling) ESFJ (extraverted feeling with sensing) ENTJ (extraverted thinking with intuition) INTJ (introverted intuition with thinking) INFJ (introverted intuition with feeling) ENFJ (extraverted feeling with intuition) Read More