Know Thyself: DISC or Myers Briggs
“Personality is Qualitative and
Difficult to Measure”
Reliability and Validity Under the Microscope
MBTI
DiSC
• Myers
• Briggs
• Type
• Indicator
• Dominance
• Influence
• Steadiness
• Conscientiousness
Measures
personality types
Measures behaviors
in various situations
MBTI
•Interpretive report
•Career report
•Organizational Report
Your personality type is ISFJ.
Introverted (I) 75% Extraverted (E) 25%
Sensing (S) 77% Intuitive (N) 23%
Feeling (F) 75% Thinking (T) 25%
Judging (J) 64% Perceiving (P) 36%
DiSC
No Such Thing as the Best Instrument
Dr. Mike Beitler stated “there is
no such thing as “the best”
psychological instrument. As
consultants who use
psychological instruments our
challenge is to choose the
“appropriate” psychological
instrument”.
As long as a psychological
instrument has been subjected
to rigorous validity and reliability
testing (the only type I will use in
practice) it probably has an
appropriate use.
Psychological instruments have
been designed to measure
almost any psychological or
behavioral dimension
Administration
• Online Test
• Paper Test
Myers Briggs
Implementation
• Personality type
• Career choice
Verification
• Printed reports
Representation
• Name tents
• Email ID
Measures personality types
Myers Briggs History
Dr. Carl Jung, a psychiatrist, attempted to identify the basic personality
traits. He described three bi-popular dimensions of personality and
discussed extraversion versus introversion.
He believed individuals prefer one of two “functions” for gathering data sensing or intuiting.
•Sensors prefer to use the five senses to gather “real” data and tend to be
present-oriented
•Intuitors look beyond the five senses for patterns and meaning and tend
to be future-oriented.
He also believed individuals prefer one of two “functions” for processing
data and coming to conclusions - thinking or feeling.
•Thinkers prefer logic and objectivity,
•Feelers prefer personal values and subjectivity.
•Thinkers and feelers arrive at very different conclusions because of the
criteria they use to evaluate information.
Myers Briggs History (cont.)
• Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, a mother-daughter team, worked to
operationalize Jung’s theory of three personality dimensions.
• Briggs and Myers also added a fourth dimension based on Jung’s
ideas.
• This fourth dimension considers an individual’s preference for
managing the “outer world.”
• An MBTI practicing (after training and passing a certification
exam) can help an individuals and team become aware of their
own preferences and the preferences of others.
• With additional training, an MBTI consultant can help an
individual understand and manage his or her “dark side.”
• The dark side of the personality, the least preferred of Jung’s
functions, comes out when the individual is tried, stressed, or
under pressure. These are valuable insights for anybody who
desires to be effective.
• A fifth dimension has now been added
What Myers Briggs Measures
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) measures aspects of personality:
•Both thinking and behaving patterns for example, by describing how
people orient toward the world and how they get information.
•The current test asks 93 forced-choice questions, which means there
are only two options.
• Participants may skip questions if they are unable to choose.
• Using psychometric techniques (i.e., item response theory), the
test will attempt to identify which dichotomy the participant prefers.
• After taking the test, participants are given a readout of their score,
which will include a bar graph and number of how many points
they received on a certain scale.
Myers Briggs: Dimension I
Dimension I: Extraversion
This dimension addresses a person's preference for sociability and interactivity (high
Extraversion, or E+) versus solitude and privacy (low Extraversion, or E-). E+ types tend to
be quick to self-disclose, to process information out loud, to seek high levels of activity (to be
outwardly busy), and to seek generalist work roles. E- types tend to be slow to selfdisclosure (or selective about self-disclosure), to process information inwardly, to seek low
levels of activity (to be inwardly busy), and to seek specialist work roles.
Dimension I: Extraversion
• Warmth
• Gregariousness
• Assertiveness
• Activity
• Excitement-Seeking
• Positive Emotions
Myers Briggs: Dimension II
Dimension II: Openness
This dimension addresses a person's preference for abstract ideas and possibilities (high
Openness, or O+) versus concrete realities and facts (low Openness, or O-). O+ types focus
on thinking about the world as it might be, are more theory-driven, and tend to focus on the
possibility or opportunity side of change (which, depending on their core values, may make
them more "liberal"). O- types focus on acting in the world as it is now, are more applicationor practice-driven, and tend to focus on the threat or risk side of change (which, depending
on their core values, may make them more "conservative"). Under stress, O+ types tend to
obsess, O- types to catastrophize. When solving problems, O+ types habitually try to widen
or broaden the question (ask the biggest possible question first), while O- types habitually try
to narrow the question (ask the smallest possible question first). To some extent, O+ types
are more nonlinear, O- types more linear, in thought processes and learning styles.
Dimension II: Openness
• Fantasy
• Aesthetics
• Feelings
• Actions
• Ideas
• Values
Myers Briggs: Dimension III
Dimension III: Agreeableness
This dimension measures cooperative (high Agreeableness or A+) versus competitive (low
Agreeableness or A-) approaches to interactions with others. A+ types usually describe
themselves as empathic, sensitive, harmony-seeking; they like tasks and situations in which
"everyone wins". A- types usually describe themselves as impersonal, analytical, outcomedriven; they like tasks and situations in which there are clear winners and losers. Correlated
to the above, A+ types tend to decide subjectively ("with the heart") on the basis of personal
values (but may find it hard to see the dark side of something they value, or may
overidealize valued persons and situations), while A- types tend to decide objectively ("with
the head") on the basis of impersonal logic (but may fail to factor in subjective or emotional
considerations, or may strike others as too cold-bloodedly analytical).
Dimension III: Agreeableness
• Trust
• Straightforwardness
• Altruism
• Compliance
• Modesty
• Tender-mindedness
Myers Briggs: Dimension IV
Dimension IV: Conscientiousness
This dimension measures convergent, task oriented (high Conscientiousness or C+) versus
divergent, process oriented (low Conscientiousness or C-) work styles. C+ types usually
describe themselves as organized, structured, systematic, early starters with steady work
habits; they lose efficiency in low structure situations (needing stability), and usually adopt a
"work first, play later," serious minded stance to life. C- types usually describe themselves
as spontaneous, flexible, adaptable, "feast or famine" workers who rely on bursts of
enthusiasm or energy; they lose efficiency in high structure situations (needing autonomy),
and usually adopt a "mix work and play", fun loving stance to life. (Note: all of us can be
both serious minded and fun loving; but C+ types tend to keep the humor inside, C- types to
keep the seriousness inside. This dimension measures what shows on the outside, which is
not always the most important aspect of the person.) C+ types tend to focus heavily on
image management (how they look to others), while C- types tend to neglect or ignore such
considerations. C+ types can easily be too rigid or inflexible, while C- types can struggle
with disorganization or procrastination.
Dimension IV: Conscientiousness
• Competence
• Order
• Dutifulness
• Achievement
• Striving
• Self-Discipline
• Deliberation
Myers Briggs: Dimension V
Dimension V: Negative Emotionality (also called emotional stability)
This dimension measures characteristic responses to stress. (It does not measure anxiety
proneness in a clinical sense; both poles are normal personality variants.) High Negative
Emotionality or N+ types are more emotionally labile (have a wider emotional range or more
mood swings), experience and express anxiety directly (verbally), and tend to be more prone
to such mood states as worry, self-doubt, and guilt. Low Negative Emotionality or N- types
are more emotionally stable (have a narrower emotional range or fewer mood swings),
experience and express anxiety indirectly (they engage in "anxiety binding" or the
"somatization" of anxiety), and tend to be less prone to negative mood states. While our
culture probably values N- over N+, it should be stated clearly that N+ is not only a normal
variant but can be an adaptive one (it is, among other things, arguably more authentic, can
lead to greater levels of compassion for fellow strugglers, and so forth).
Dimension V: Negative Emotionality (also called emotional stability)
• Anxiety
• Angry Hostility
• Depression
• Self-Consciousness
• Impulsiveness
• Vulnerability
Myers Briggs Reliability
•Reliability (when scores are treated as continuous scores, as in
most other psychological instruments) is as good as or better
than other personality instruments.
•On retest, people come out with three to four type preferences
the same 75% to 90% of the time.
•When a person changes type on retest, it is usually on one of
the dichotomous pairs (e.g., E-I), and in a dichotomy where the
preference clarity was low.
•Reliabilities are quite good across most age and ethnic groups.
(T-F pair tends to have the lowest reliability of the four scales.)
•For some groups reliability can be low, and caution needs to be
exercised in using the MBTI instrument with these groups, e.g.,
children, underachieving students. When MBTI instrument is
used with groups that are reported to have been demonstrably
lower, results can be used as a jumping-off point for discussion.
Myers Briggs Validity
Validity essentially asks the question, "Is this type stuff real?" These three
categories of data all speak to question of validity.
Three broad categories of data are summarized:
(1)evidence for the validity of the four separate scales;
(2)evidence for the validity of the four preference pairs as dichotomies;
(3)evidence for the validity of whole types or particular combinations of
preferences.
Myers Briggs Validity/Reliability: Compliments
It has been my personal experience that integrating the MBTI into the
communication strategy of an organization has proven to be highly
successful. I know of NO psychometric instrument which is NOT subject
to criticism. Many over-the-counter instruments have never been tested for
validity and reliability and are sold to the unsuspecting public as accurate
mesurements of XYZ. I have also observed that when the MBTI has been
useful to individuals and organizations, a great deal of the success came
from the fact that there was a tremendous amount of pre- and postassessment training to assist the individual and organization in learning
what the scores mean and how they can utilize the preferences most
effectively.
In my review of the literature, the MBTI was undoubtedly the most
statistically valid paper-and-pencil instrument available for measuring type
preference. I would caution against anyone wanting to use any instrument
as a measure of "success." I do know of individuals who use the MBTI as a
career assesment and organizations that use it as a screening for job
placement. Again, it was never designed to be used for these purposes. It
all goes back to - buyer beware
Myers Briggs Validity/Reliability: Criticisms
• In general, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review committee
found that the test re-test reliability of the MBTI appears to be weak in most
previous research (e.g., only 47% of respondents retained their initial type
designations over a period of 5 weeks in one major review study). These
findings suggest that caution should be used when MBTI classifications
(i.e., "types") are used to facilitate career decision making or planning.
They reviewed data from over 20 MBTI research studies and concluded that only
the I-E scale has adequate construct validity (i.e., it has high correlations with
comparable scales of other instruments and low correlations with instruments
designed to assess different concepts).
• MBTI is an "indicator" of personality type preference and is only as valid
and reliable as the individual taking the test. It is perception-based and is
therefore subject to threats to validity. I have no doubts that the MBTI is
being used in areas and for purposes for which it was never designed.
• MBTI has never been internationally recognized as being particularly accurate. It is
based on Dr. Carl Jung's measuring "deviant behavior", and places responses into
16 categories that are valid for only 54% of the population--the other 46% of all
responses are assigned to the "nearest category". Overall, there appears
to be a lack of systematic research on the effectiveness of the MBTI and
much of what is published is based on weak methodological designs.
DISc Disc Disc DisC dISC diSC dIsC diSc diSc disC
DISC (high)
vs.
Disc (low)
Administration
• Online Test
• Paper Test
• QuickDisk Cards
Implementation
• Communications
• Team building
• Coaching
Representation
• Name tents
• Email ID
Verification
• Printed reports
• Overlay matrix
Measures behaviors in various situations
DISC History
Dr. William Marston, a physiological psychologist, studied how an
individual perceived him or herself in a situation, the resulting emotions of
the perception, and the likely subsequent behavior. Marston’s model has
two critical dimensions:
(1) the situation is perceived as either favorable or unfavorable
(2) the individual perceives him or herself as more or less powerful than
the situation
Marston tried to explain how people adapted to varying situations by
understanding their emotional responses and subsequent behavior.
Thus, the DiSC instrument helps people understand behavior (their own
and others) in various situations. The instrument was developed during
the 1920s – 1930s by him, then publicized by his good friend, but not
actively used until about 1970.
What DISC Measures
DiSC profiles - focuses primarily on behavior.
• Dominance: (These people are strong-willed, strong-minded people
who like accepting challenges, taking action, and getting immediate
results)
• Influence: (These people are "people people" who like participating on
teams, sharing ideas, and energizing and entertaining others.)
• Steadiness (originally called submission): (These people S's are
helpful people who like working behind the scenes, performing in
consistent and predictable ways, and being good listeners.)
• Conscientiousness also referred to as Compliance: (These people are
sticklers for quality and like planning ahead, employing systematic
approaches, and checking and re-checking for accuracy.)
DISC Validity
A large body of research has supported the validity of the Style
Analysis and the DISC dimensions. This research has provided
evidence of strong Construct Validity (the relationship of the Style Analysis
to other tests measuring similar constructs); robust content validity (how
well the DISC dimensions measure what they are supposed to measure);
significant criterion or predictive validity (the ability of the DISC
dimensions to predict performance on another activity); and powerful
construct validity (the extent to which the DISC dimensions measure a
specific trait).
Construct and concurrent validity studies have compared the Style
Analysis with other Four Factor instruments such as the Activity Vector
Analysis, Personal Profile Analysis and Clever Self. Significant
correlations have been found across all four DISC dimensions. This
indicates that the Style Analysis validly assesses constructs measured by
other Four Factor assessment instruments.
DISC Validity (cont.)
Research on content validity has shown that the DISC dimensions
can differentiate good performances from poor performances. This
ability to differentiate has been shown in studies of sales performance and
managerial ability in a number of industries. The Style Analysis can
successfully distinguish varying levels of performance.
Criterion or predictive validity studies have looked at the ability of
various DISC dimensions to predict outcomes. Outcome measures as
diverse as sales performance, turnover rates and job injuries have been
predicted with a high degree of accuracy on the basis of DISC scores.
This ability to predict makes the Style Analysis a very valuable tool in
selection and management. Strong Construct Validity is shown when the
instrument consistently exhibits content validity, concurrent validity and
predictive validity. The research shows the Style Analysis to be a construct
valid instrument.
DISC Reliability
A large body of research has supported the reliability of the Style Analysis and the DISC
dimensions. The research findings on test-retest reliability show that the scores on the Style
Analysis exhibit very little change over time. Six-month test-retest correlations average in the .90 range
where a correlation of 1.0 is a perfect relationship (absolutely no change) and .0 is no relationship (random
change). The Style Analysis is a reliable instrument that consistently measures the same thing.
Using the Spearman-Brown “split-halves reliability coefficient,” reliability estimates were obtained.
This coefficient indicates the degree of internal consistency of response to the instrument as a whole. The
coefficients for each dimension are as follows:
Dominance r =. 92
Influence r =. 89
Steadiness r =. 91
Compliance r =. 90
It is evident from these reliability coefficients that there is an unusually high degree of internal consistency
in response to the Style Analysis Instrument as a whole and to each of the related dimensions. Strength of
the correlation is indicated by the size of the coefficient. The coefficient can vary from +1.00 through 0 to –
1.00. A coefficient near 0 tells us that there is no relationship between the variables. The closer a
coefficient is to + or – 1.00, the stronger the relationship.
Correlation Examples
+/-1.0= Perfect correlation (extremely rare)+/-.80 - .99= Unusually high correlation+/-.70 - .79= Very high
correlation+/-.60 - .69= High correlation+/-.30 - .59= Moderately high correlation+/-.20 - .29= Very low
correlation+/-.00 - .19= No correlation
DISC Reliability & Validity – Case Study
Abstract
The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether the Discus measuring instrument
could be considered a reliable and valid instrument. The test-retest method was used in the
reliability study and was administered to 90 employees from a variety of companies in Kwa
Zulu-Natal and Gauteng. The Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient was used and
correlation scores of 0.728 (Dominance), 0.645 (Influence), 0.730 (Steadiness) and 0.550
(Compliance) were established. The p-value in all the cases was as low as 0.0001. This
indicates significance at alpha = 0.001. It can therefore be concluded with 99.9% level of
confidence that the Discus instrument is reliable. In the validity exercise criterion-related
validity was used. An exploratory study was undertaken in order to determine which of the 15
Factors (Factor B excluded) of the 16-PF correlated with the four dimensions of the Discus.
One hundred and twenty respondents in South Africa were involved for this purpose. The
Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient was applied. It was found that Factors Q1,
X=G, L, Q1 and X=Q2, E; E, Q2 and -I show significant correlations with Dominance at the
1% and 5% level of significance. Factors A, -Q2, H, F and -Q3 show significant correlations
with Influence at the 1% and 5% level of significance. Factors -E and -Q1 show a correlation
with Steadiness at the 5% level of significance. Factors -E, Q2, -H, -G and O show significant
correlations with Compliance at the 1% and 5% level of significance. It can therefore be
concluded that the correlations were significant.
A Reliability and Validity Study on the DISCUS Personality Profiling System. K. Roodt (Ms), M Ed (Counselling and
Guidance) (UNISA), Psychologist (SAMDC). Senior Lecturer: Department Human Resources Management, Technikon Natal
DISC Validity/Reliability: Compliments
DISCus is based on a Style Analysis instrument developed in the late 1960's that
has never been challenged in court - and is, in fact, used by the EEOC. It has a
validity rate of between 88% and 91% --based on a study conducted by Dr.
Russell J. Watson of Wheaton College that concluded in March of 1989; and an
earlier study of the Personal Profile System conducted in 1983 by Dr. Sylvan J.
Kaplan. These studies conclude that "there is no statistically significant difference
between the scores of the Style Analysis and the Personal Profile System" used
by Performax).
DISC Validity/Reliability: Criticisms
Performance reviews, one of the most disliked managerial responsibilities, are
difficult enough to do without personal bias getting in the way. What follows are
highlights about how your personal style might get in the way of effectively
managing your employees.
"D"s prefer to evaluate others by how well they meet the standards and challenges
set forth by the "D."
"I"s tend to evaluate other by how well they verabilze feeling. They see
performance reviews more as a time to look talk about doing better than a time to
confront underperformance.
High "S"s will likely be the most lenient managers. They prefer stability to change.
For the high "C", performance evaluations are rather "matter of fact." Their reviews
are well-documented, detailed, and critical but objective.
Summary
Instruments which are designed to measure personality (MBTI) or behaviors
(DISC) are only as valid and reliable as the test taker at that point in time.
There are a number of factors that can improve the reliability and validity of these
instruments. These primarily relate to how the tests are presented, administered,
scored, evaluated and then debriefed with the participant.
More professionalism and expertise is needed in this domain!
References
http://www.articlehost.com/article.detail.php/65/10/Management/Business/1/Know_Thyself:_MBTI_or_DiSC
Forum posting – no posted reliability measures on MBTI
http://99thpercentile.tribe.net/thread/120139b2-180d-4fb3-afbb-e4336984fed3
http://www.profileu.com/disc_validity.htm
http://www.intesiresources.com/ca_70.aspx
http://www.opd.net/abstracts5.html
http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/big_five.htm
http://world.std.com/~lo/95.07/0081.html