1. Know Thyself: DISC or Myers Briggs “Personality is Qualitative and Difficult to Measure” Reliability and Validity Under the Microscope

2. DiSC D ominance I nfluence S teadiness C onscientiousness Measures behaviors in various situations MBTI M yers B riggs T ype I ndicator Measures personality types

3. DiSCMBTI 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% Interpretive report Career report Organizational Report

4. No Such Thing as the Best Instrument Psychological instruments have been designed to measure almost any psychological or behavioral dimension 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.

5. Myers Briggs Measures personality types Administration Online Test Paper Test Implementation Personality type Career choice Representation Name tents Email ID Verification Printed reports

6. 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

7. 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 Myers Briggs History (cont.)

8. 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.psychometricitem response theory 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. What Myers Briggs Measures

9. 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 self- disclosure (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 I

10. 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 application- or 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 II

11. 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, outcome- driven; 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 III

12. 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. Myers Briggs: Dimension IV Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement Striving Self-Discipline Deliberation Dimension IV: Conscientiousness

13. 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: Dimension V

14. 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 Reliability

15. 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

16. 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 post- assessment 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: Compliments

17. 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. Myers Briggs Validity/Reliability: Criticisms

18. DISC (high) vs. Disc (low) Measures behaviors in various situations Administration Online Test Paper Test QuickDisk Cards Implementation Communications Team building Coaching Representation Name tents Email ID Verification Printed reports Overlay matrix DISc Disc Disc DisC dISC diSC dIsC diSc diSc disC

19. 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. DISC History

20. 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.) What DISC Measures

21. 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

22. 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 Validity (cont.)

23. 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

24. 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. DISC Reliability & Validity – Case Study 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

25. 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: Compliments

26. 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. DISC Validity/Reliability: Criticisms

27. 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! Summary

28. References http://www.article- host.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://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