11
   

A Psychometric Instrument Better than Myers Briggs.

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:35 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad, I find the fact that your little Myers-Briggs square says you are "skeptical" to be quite amusing.

All I am asking for is a little scientific inquiry-- don't you agree that claims of the "validity" or "accuracy" of any instrument are valid areas for scientific questioning?

Can you, or anyone, could offer an objective (scientific) way to test the claims that the Myers-Briggs believers are making? You seem to have accepted this on blind faith (perhaps influenced by the Forer effect described at the top of this thread).

Forgive me, but I am a skeptic. I need scientific proof on these things (particularly when they are being used in ways, such as hiring decisions or career paths, that can effect real people's lives).

I find the idea that putting people into little boxes gives any insight into something as complex as human behavior to be quite dubious-- but I am quite open to a scientifically testable argument (if one were ever offered).

I am not open to vague untestable claims.


Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:41 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Can you, or anyone, could offer an objective (scientific) way to test the claims that the Myers-Briggs believers are making?

Perhaps people would be more receptive to your line of questioning if you told them in specific terms whom and what you are talking about. Who is "the" Meyers-Briggs believers? What particular claims of theirs do you have in mind? (A citation would be nice.) Without such specifics, your questions could easily be mistaken for pretentious contrarian posturing.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 11:04 pm
@Thomas,
Sure Thomas, From the original thread.

Quote:
Actually, the Myers-Briggs is a valid instrument, but it depends entirely on honest answers from the test taker.


(The term "valid" was left undefined by the poster although I asked him to define the terms several times since.)

Quote:
The Myer-Briggs is empirically validated.


(This claim was made with absolutely no support. No one has offered to say how it was "validated". The term suggests that there was some sort of objective test but my Googling came up empty, and the Myers-Briggs proponents here were unable to back this up with anything approaching objective scientific testing.)

Quote:
Myers-Briggs can tell you how people approach problem solving


(Same comment... is this supposed to be accepted on blind faith? If the MBTI is wrong, it seems this could cause some problems).

We have all kinds of claims on this so-called "psychometric assessment" that we are being asked to accept as axioms. There is no scientific evidence offered. These axioms are presented as unquestionable.

A non-scientific "psychometric assessment" (you can't claim it is scientific if you don't present objective scientific evidence to back your claims) could be seen as harmless entertainment (although quite profitable for a few companies that are selling it).

The fact that the results of such an arbitrary test is is being used to affect people's careers is unconscionable.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 11:45 pm
@ebrown p,
That doesn't change the fact that you should be embarrassed about how you started out this thread.

An experiment is not a psychometric instrument. By presenting it as one, you're either demonstrating your ignorance, or being deliberately misleading. Which is it?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:19 am
@ebrown p,
Reliability and Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument
Quote:
Reliability and Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument


Reliability

What is reliability? Reliability is how consistently a test measures what it attempts to measure. Why is consistency important? Because when you measure something with an instrument two times, you want it to come out with the same answer (or close to it) both times. (This is called test-retest reliability, and it is an important measure of any kind of scientific testing.)

Personality is qualitative and therefore difficult to measure, so psychological instruments cannot have the same consistency you would expect from, say, a ruler. But there are generally accepted standards for psychological instruments. The MBTI® instrument meets and exceeds the standards for psychological instruments in terms of its reliability.

Facts about the MBTI instrument 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 or S-N), and in a dichotomy where the preference clarity was low.
* The reliabilities are quite good across most age and ethnic groups. (The 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 the MBTI instrument is used with groups that are reported to have been demonstrably lower, the results can be used as a jumping-off point for discussion.

Validity

Validity is the degree to which an instrument measures what it intends to measure, and the degree to which the “thing” that the instrument measures has meaning.

Why is this important? If personality type is real (or rather, if it reflects the real world with accuracy), then we should be able to use MBTI type to understand and predict people’s behavior to some degree. Type should help us differentiate the values, attitudes, and behaviors of different people.

Many studies over the years have proven the validity of the MBTI instrument in three categories: (1) the validity of the four separate preference scales; (2) the validity of the four preference pairs as dichotomies; and (3) the validity of whole types or particular combinations of preferences. Many of these studies are discussed in the MBTI® Manual (Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1998).

Adapted from Building People, Building Programs (chapter 7) by Gordon Lawrence and Charles Martin (CAPT 2001).

For additional detailed research information for the MBTI instrument, including psychometrics, reliability, and validity, refer to the MBTI® Manual, third edition (Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 1998).

Item Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Quote:
Abstract
The present study presents a brief summary of four extensive psychometric analyses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) items. Positive empirical evidence supports the MBTI item validity. However, several measurement issues on item construction were raised to caution the future users.


EJ330974 - Second-Order Factor Structure of the MBTI: A Construct Validity Assessment.

Quote:
Factor adequacy and other results based on data from college students (N=359) provided positive evidence regarding the construct validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Second order factor analysis supported the appropriateness of the MBTI item weighting procedures. (Author/ABB)


Recent Assessments of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Quote:
Abstract
The present paper focuses on approximately two dozen recent published studies that examined reliability and validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in clinical, counselling, and research settings. Several assessments of split-half and test-retest reliability of the standard Form F and shorter Form G of the Inventory have yielded generally satisfactory correlations for all four scales. A larger number of studies of construct validity of the MBTI have yielded support for research hypothesis is situations ranging from correlations of the MBTI with a personality inventory, to couples problems in a counseling setting, to line judgments in groups, and others. Therefore, the applications of the MBTI have been broad, although somewhat unsystematic, and with generally favorable validity assessment. Continued attempts to validate the instrument in a variety of settings are needed.


You do know how to use Google... right?
oolongteasup
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:30 am
@failures art,
Quote:
personality test asking views on ...
etc


i always fail personality tests

i blame the et cetera questions
oolongteasup
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:38 am
@oolongteasup,
looking for scorpio with

gsoh and

social tope

must be able to roll with one hand
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:56 am
@oolongteasup,
How does one fail a personality test?

I have an awful feeling I'm going to wish I hadn't asked.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 06:34 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Reliability and Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument


OK DrewDad, this is a start.... but now lets apply some critical thinking skills. There are two problems with the Google dump you offer.

1) Independence. These articles are from the "Journal of Personality Assessment", a journal that is published by the people who profit from the Myers-Briggs (R) assessment. Any real scientific argument should rely on independent research from multiple, non-involved sources.

2) Relevance. These articles are not proving that the MBTI results mean anything. The claim they are making is that 75% of the people who take the test more then once get the same answers both times (horoscopes do better btw), and that the same distribution of MBTI assessments are found across racial/cultural groups (also true with horoscopes).

There is no evidence offered that the MBTI results does any better at predicting or understanding anything in real life (other then future answers on similar tests) then random assignment of results.

The Google dump is a cheap tactic, DrewDad. Googling without critical thought is a fools game.

How about using your Google skills to find a scientifically testable claim about MBTI's "validity" in any area other then filling in circles with a lead pencil.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 06:53 am
@ebrown p,
Let's try some other critical thinking skills.

1. This is the most commonly used personality assessment in the world. Thirty or forty years of research behind it. Do you really think the wool has been pulled over all of these people's eyes for all this time?
3. You're some random "skeptic" on the Internet, who I doubt would admit the sky was blue if he walked outside and saw it himself.

I don't care if you accept the Myers-Briggs as a valid instrument.

Also, you still have not addressed your glaring error at the beginning of this thread. Unless and until you do so, I have to assume you're being deliberately misleading and that you have no intention of having an honest discussion.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:30 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
1. This is the most commonly used personality assessment in the world.


This is relevant? (Horoscopes are also commonly used).

Quote:
Thirty or forty years of research behind it.


And yet, you are unable to show any objective scientific research that shows the test is useful in any real way.

Quote:
Also, you still have not addressed your glaring error at the beginning of this thread.


What do you consider a glaring error?

Quote:
I don't care if you accept the Myers-Briggs as a valid instrument.


Then, why have you engaged me on this topic on two separate threads.

------

The issue here is the lack scientifically testable claims about the Myers-Briggs assessment. You have made lots of claims about the assessment-- but you have not offered any way to test if they are true or not.

The only thing approaching a scientifically testable claim that you have made is that some 75% of the people who answer the questions on one day, will answer similar questions the same way in the future. If you want to put this as a measure of "reliability", fine.

I accept the fact that people will answer similar questions in similar ways repeatedly. I accept this because it is a well-stated question that can be proven by independent researchers. Of course, this says absolutely nothing about whether the assessment is useful in any way in real life. And, this is the problem.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:35 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
What do you consider a glaring error?

I've pointed it out in two other posts on this thread. The thread is less than two pages long. Try reading.

As for addressing it in two threads, you'll note that Farmerman still engages Gungasnake.

TTFN
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:41 am
@DrewDad,
Your text from the Myers-Briggs foundation seems a bit wobbly on validity. It states, correctly, how it's defined: "Validity is the degree to which an instrument measures what it intends to measure, and the degree to which the “thing” that the instrument measures has meaning." But then it doesn't say what precisely the Myers intends to measure, and doesn't demonstrate what meaning it has. It merely claims that Myers-Brigg's validity has been demonstrated many times---but, again, it doesn't show how.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:46 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
1. This is the most commonly used personality assessment in the world. Thirty or forty years of research behind it. Do you really think the wool has been pulled over all of these people's eyes for all this time?

By this measure, medical bleeding would have qualified as a valid way of healing sick people until ca. 1840. The medical profession isn't immune to fads and fallacies, and prejudice.

DrewDad wrote:
3. You're some random "skeptic" on the Internet, who I doubt would admit the sky was blue if he walked outside and saw it himself.

This remark gave me the idea of looking up the Myers Briggs test in a skeptical source of good standing and some authority: The Skeptic's Dictionary. Turns out, they're not too impressed, either.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:48 am
@Thomas,
Medical bleeding had research behind it?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:07 am
@DrewDad,
By the standards defining what qualified as medical research at the time, yes. Plus, it was one of the most commonly administered cures for many centuries.

You may argue that those standards were pretty low, and you would be right. But then again, the Myers Briggs Foundation's standards seem pretty low, too. Indeed, in the excerpt you cited, they don't provide any standard at all for deciding whether their test is valid or not, other that their had been tests proving its validity. That's basically a tautology: The Meyers Briggs test measures what the Meyers Briggs test measures.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:10 am
@Thomas,
Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 11:06 am
@DrewDad,
Good job sharing your feelings, DrewDad!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:18 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
That's basically a tautology: The Meyers Briggs test measures what the Meyers Briggs test measures.

That's not quite what they're saying.

Myers-Briggs says: The Meyers-Briggs is supposed to test x.
Validity test says: Does the Myers-Briggs actually test x? How good at measuring x is the Myers-Briggs?
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:22 pm
@DrewDad,
And what is "x", according to what "they" are saying?
 

Related Topics

I saw the girl who isn't there.... - Question by boomerang
Mentally ill. - Discussion by sometime sun
Adulthood Life Questions - Question by inkluv99
Trolls represent human's basic nature - Discussion by omaniac
weird dream - Discussion by void123
Is being too strong a weakness? - Question by ur2cdanger1
Zombies Existence - Discussion by RisingToShine
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 03:54:03