Running head: DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
Kristen Weidle
Virginia Commonwealth University
1
2
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
Data Analysis of LCI and MBTI Results
Virginia Commonwealth University’s (VCU) Doctorate of Educational Leadership
(EDLP) candidates take a variety of learning and personality inventories. The Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2014) and the Learning Connections
Inventory (LCI) (Johnston & Dainton, 2003) allows students to better understand themselves as
learners and as leaders. Data is compiled from the 2015 and 2017 EDLP cohorts and is now
used to analyze possible gender influences on LCI results, and leadership implications in the
MBTI data.
To What Extent is Gender a Factor in LCI Scores?
The LCI (Johnston & Dainton, 2003) breaks processing into four lenses: Sequence,
Precision, Technical and Confluence. An individual’s preference to use each lens to process
information falls into the categories of Use First, As Needed, or Avoid. The results of the LCI are
analyzed to identify possible gender influences on LCI results. Table 1 is a frequency chart
showing the number of males and females who have a Use First in each LCI lens. Table 2
displays the ranges and standard deviations for each gender. Both tables are instrumental in the
data analysis. See Appendix A for the raw data.
Table1
Use First Results by Gender and LCI Lens
f
SEQ
Male
14
PREC
TECH
CONF
15
7
9
Female
13
15
5
9
Note: f=frequency, SEQ=Sequence, PREC=Precision, TECH=technical
reasoning, CONF=confluence
Table 2
Standard Deviation and Range of LCI Scores by Gender
Range
Data Set
M
F
SEQ
15.00
13.00
Standard Deviation
M
F
4.67
3.92
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
3
PREC
17.00
13.00
3.91
3.49
TECH
17.00
15.00
5.41
4.92
CONF
15.00
14.00
3.90
3.31
AVERAGE
16.00
13.75
4.47
3.91
Note: M=Male, F=Female, SEQ=Sequence, PREC=Precision, TECH=technical reasoning,
CONF=confluence
Sequence
An individual with Sequence as a Use First preference desires having items in a logical
order and follows a plan of action to accomplish tasks (Johnston & Dainton, 2003). The standard
deviation (SD) indicates how spread out the data points are, and a high SD indicates a high level
of variation in the data. The mean is a useful measure of central tendency when the SD is close
to zero. The best measure of central tendency for the Sequencing data is the median because the
SD is 4.67 for males and 3.92 for females.
The gender difference for Sequence is small. As shown in Table 1, the number of males
and females with Sequence as a Use First is almost exact (14 and 13 respectively). The medians
are also extremely similar. Males have a median of 26.5 and females 26. One notable difference
between genders that is that there are no females who Avoid this processing lens.
Precision
A preference for Precision means that an individual seeks data, detailed information, and
conducts research to make decisions (Johnston & Dainton, 2003). The SD for males is 3.91 and
3.49 for females. This value is too high for the mean to give an accurate picture of the data. In
addition, the range of the male scores is high, 17.00, so the outliers affect the mean. The most
appropriate measurement of central tendency is median for this data set.
Male and female results for Precision are similar. Both genders have a median of 27, and
each gender has 15 respondents with a Use First result. There are small differences to note.
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
4
First, the only candidate with an Avoid result for this processing lens is male. Secondly, the
mode for males is higher than that of females (30 and 27 respectively).
Technical Reasoning
Technical Reasoning involves working problems through trial-and-error, a fascination
with the way things work, and a desire to make real world connections (Johnston & Dainton,
2003). The SD in this category is 5.41 for males and 4.92 females; the largest SD in the data set
for each gender. This supports the conclusion that both genders results in Technical Reasoning
are widely varied. Therefore, the median is the best measure of central tendency.
The biggest difference between male and female results is seen in the Technical
Reasoning category. Males are more likely to receive a Use First result compared to females by
a ratio of 7:5. The data also indicates that Technical Reasoning is the weakest processing lenses
of the doctoral candidates. The category has the lowest median score for both genders – 19 for
males and 20 for females. In addition, 32.5% of the candidates Avoid Technical Reasoning, and
it is the only category where any female scores an Avoid. The lowest number of individuals
scoring a Use First rating is also found in Technical Reasoning.
Confluence
Individuals with a preference for Confluence enjoy finding new ideas and making
connections to the bigger picture (Johnston & Dainton, 2003). The SD in this category is 3.90
for males and 3.31 for females - a high enough value to discount using mean to compare the data.
The median will be used for the measure of central tendency.
Males and females are more similar in this category than any other LCI processing lens.
Both genders have a median score of 24, and nine individuals from each gender have Confluence
5
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
as a Use First processing lens. Once again, the only scores in the Avoid range belong to males.
This category also has the smallest SDs - showing a lower variance among results.
Summary of LCI Gender Discussion
Although the medians for each gender are similar across all four lenses, there are some
interesting trends that are apparent. Table 3 shows the frequency of Use First, As Needed, and
Avoid results for males and females. The data shows that 70% of females do not have an Avoid
lens, whereas 55% of males do. Additionally, all males have at least one lens that they Use First,
whereas 10% of females do not have any Use First lenses. The data supports the postulation that
females are more able to switch between lenses than males because they are less attached to one
lens. The fact that females have more As Needed lenses and less Avoid lenses also supports that
hypothesis.
Table 3
Frequency of LCI Lens Results by Gender
Use First
f
M
F
1
3
2
2
11
10
3
4
4
4
2
2
Note: f=frequency, M=Male, F=Female
As Needed
Avoid
M
F
M
F
8
8
-
8
7
2
1
7
2
-
6
-
In addition, the data supports the statement that male results varied more than female
results. Table 2 shows that males have higher values than females in average standard deviation
(4.47 to 3.91 respectively), and average range (16.00 and 13.75 respectively). Conversely, it can
be argued that the female scores are more similar, when comparing within gender, than their
male counterparts.
Leadership Implications From MBTI Results
6
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2014) makes
sense of behavior patterns and personality types. In the inventory, there are four dichotomies in
which individuals have a preference for one type or the other: Favorite World, Information,
Decisions, and Structure. The preferences within these dichotomies are combined to create one
of 16 different personality types. The results of the 2015 and 2017 VCU cohorts are analyzed to
determine if there are trends in the distribution of dichotomy preferences, and to decide if any
relationships exist between leadership and MBTI score. Appendix B shows a frequency table for
the results, and Table 4 breaks the results into male and female distribution.
Table 4
MBTI Types and Frequencies by Gender and Cohort Total
Males
Females
f
%
f
%
World
Extravertion
13
65
10
50
Introvertion
7
35
10
50
f
Cohort Total
%
23
17
57.5
42.5
Info
Intuition
Sensing
11
9
55
45
8
12
40
60
19
21
47.5
52.5
Decisions
Thinking
Feeling
9
11
45
55
14
6
70
30
23
17
57.5
42.5
15
5
75
25
13
7
65
35
28
12
70
30
Structure
Judging
Perceiving
Note: f=frequency
Favorite World: Extroversion and Introversion
According to Michelle Beavers (personal communication, July 27, 2014), individuals
who prefer to interact with the outside world and gain energy from others prefer Extraversion.
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
7
Individuals who favor their own world and get energy from within themselves prefer
Introversion. The data shows that candidates are more likely to have a proclivity for
Extraversion with a ratio of 23:17, or 58% to 43%. While the females were evenly split in this
dichotomy, 65% of the males are partial to Extraversion.
Information: Sensing and Intuition
Describing information using the five senses and relying on concrete facts is preferred by
individuals with Sensing (Michelle Beavers, personal communication, July 27, 2014). On the
other hand, individuals with an inclination towards Intuition make connections to the big picture
and relate to theory and abstract thought. This dichotomy shows the least variance between the
respondents. Sensing is more abundant than Intuition by 5%. In a small sample set of 40 data
points, this is only a difference of two respondents and is not statistically significant.
Decisions: Thinking and Feeling
Michelle Beavers (personal communication, July 27, 2014) stated that people who make
decisions based on impersonal logic are partial to Thinking, and those who base their decisions
on the individual circumstances opt for Feeling. The data is slightly lopsided in this dichotomy.
The cohorts have a predilection for Thinking 58% of the time. The females are very partial to
Thinking (70%), but the male respondents are more evenly split (45% Thinking and 55%
Feeling).
Structure: Judging and Perceiving
Individuals who are extremely structured fall on the Judging side of this dichotomy
(Michelle Beavers, personal communication, July 27, 2014). People who are open to new ideas
are described as Perceiving. The respondents show a strong preference for Judging in this
8
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
dichotomy with a ratio of 28:10 (70% to 30%). Males show a strong inclination to Judging with
only 25% categorized as Perceiving.
Summary of MBTI Analysis
Table 5 shows the overall dispersion of the 16 MBTI personality types within the dataset. Overall, the candidates represent 14 of the 16 personality types. INTJ and ESFP are the only
combinations missing in the cohorts.
Table 5
MBTI Type Table
Sensing
Intuition
Thinking
ISTJ
N=5
12.5%
ISFJ
N=4
10.0%
INFJ
N=2
5.0%
INTJ
Judging
ISTP
N=2
5.0%
ISFP
N=1
2.50%
INFP
N=1
2.50%
INTP
N=2
5.0%
Perceiving
ESTP
N=1
2.50%
ESFP
ENFP
N=2
5.0%
ENTP
N=3
7.50%
Perceiving
ESTJ
N=4
10.0%
ESFJ
N=4
10.0%
ENFJ
N=3
7.50%
ENTJ
N=6
15.0%
The respondents show a predilection towards the Extraversion and Judging (EJ)
combination with 42.5%. The EJ combination is described as an energetic leader with a
Extraversion
Feeling
Introversion
Feeling
Judging
Thinking
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
9
preference for structure and order (Myers & Briggs Foundation 2014). The highest single
personality type is Extraversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Judging (ENTJ). Fifteen percent of the
doctoral candidates are categorized as ENTK.
Myers & Briggs Foundation (2014) describes
this personality type as having vision, being decisive, and seeking improvement and
achievement. It is not so surprising that educational leaders may desire to interact with others,
because they communicate with students, staff members and parents on a regular basis.
Educational leaders are also continuously searching for ways to enhance student achievement in
their organization.
The data identifies some areas for further research with larger sample sizes. Do all
leaders, not just educational leaders, tend to exhibit more Extraversion than Introversion? In
addition, candidates with a preference for Feeling are in the minority in these cohorts. Teachers
often get to form closer relationships to the students than the administrators who have to enforce
the rules. Research could be done to discover if classroom teachers have more of a predilection
towards Feeling than administrators do.
Conclusion
Analyzing the personal inventory results from the 2015 and 2017 VCU EDLP cohorts is
insightful and challenging. Generalizing the results is difficult because there is a low sample set.
Each individual respondent makes up 2.5% of the total sample population. Therefore, one or two
individuals make a real difference to the percentages results within the data. The LCI (Johnston
& Dainton, 2014) results included randomly distributed genders and the small variances in data
impeded the ability to identify trends. Specifically with the MBTI, this study did not take into
account how far to one side of the dichotomies the respondents were. Ignoring this number
misrepresents the overall tendency of the cohort members to have a certain personality type. The
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
10
data would have been more representative if positive and negative values were assigned to the
dichotomies like a number line. Overall, this assignment increased competence in manipulating
data to make generalizations and answer research questions.
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
References
Johnston, C. & Dainton, G. (2014). LCI: learning connections inventory. Turnersville, NJ:
Learning Connections Resources.
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2014). MBTI Basics. Retrieved from:
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
11
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
Appendix A
2015 and 2017 Educational Leadership Cohort LCI Scores
Stud#
2
4
6
7
11
13
15
16
17
20
21
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1
3
5
8
9
10
12
14
18
19
22
24
33
34
35
36
37
Gender
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
LCI_S LCI_P LCI_TR LCI_C
28
26
21
25
25
25
13
20
30
31
17
23
20
31
15
25
28
27
28
25
26
23
27
27
23
30
26
19
27
30
18
27
23
25
18
33
29
34
24
24
30
26
22
23
31
27
14
19
26
29
21
21
24
22
28
26
23
22
16
24
28
27
22
26
29
29
25
28
18
21
19
23
29
24
13
23
18
29
18
22
22
16
25
20
18
30
30
23
31
27
21
23
30
23
17
26
29
30
18
21
26
24
17
26
26
33
16
28
22
29
29
24
19
29
31
26
26
25
17
22
26
23
14
19
31
31
28
27
30
27
19
25
30
30
25
28
25
22
26
25
16
26
16
24
22
26
19
30
12
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
38
39
40
Mean
m
m
m
Male
Female
31
28
22
15
28
26
15
16
30
30
19
24
LCI_S LCI_P LCI_TR LCI_C
25.90 26.75
21.20 23.60
25.75 26.90
20.25 24.15
26
27
19
24
Median Male
Female
26.5
27
20
24
Note: f= female, m=male, LCI_S = Sequencing, LCI_P = Precision, LCI_TR = Technical
Reasoning, LCI_C = Confluence
13
14
DATA ANALYSIS OF LCI AND MBTI RESULTS
Appendix B
2015 and 2017 Educational Leadership Cohort MBTI Frequency
World
Info
Decisions
Structure
E
I
N
S
T
F
J
P
f
23
17
19
21
23
17
28
12
%
58%
43%
48%
53%
58%
43%
70%
30%
Note: f = frequency, MBTI = Meyer Briggs Type Indicator, E = Extrovert, I = Introvert, N =
Intuition, S = Sensing, T = Thinking, F = Feeling, J = Judging, P = Perceiving