A Psychometric Instrument Better than Myers Briggs.

OK so measurement accuracy can be demanding and the nature of knowledge can be slippery. What else is new? How would such assessments support claims for so-called "Psychometric Instruments"?

It couldn't. It only can refute claims that if there's a property worth measuring, measurement "isn't too hard" (ebrown p).

Apparently it's new to ebrown.

I sure would not try and support that particular assertion by ebrown p, however I hope my point is clear (rhetorical though it may be) that the limitation of knowledge is not reason to lend credence to so-called "Psychometric Instruments".

In fact, it seems religionists often use this logical fallacy to lend credence to their beliefs by saying something to the effect that since everything is not fully known their beliefs are plausible.

Funny man!

I was a psych major for about three months. This mushiness is why I was uncomfortable and left (for bacteriology) - at the same time I'm interested in a lot of psych reports in the decades since.

The point is that measuring specific claims about "psychological assessments" can be done...

The Myers-Briggs assessment falls in the same category any number of pseudo-science fields like homeopathy or biorhythms. As I pointed out, it is not that hard to set up a valid scientific study.

Studies on Homeopathy have failed to show the effects they claim-- its proponents decided that science is somehow an inadequate measure (although they neglect to propose any alternative independent measure). Myers-Briggs proponents seem to be doing the same thing.

The point is this, if claims are being made that somehow Myers Briggs can "predict behavior"-- why shouldn't this rather fantastic claim be subject to scientific experimentation? And, why shouldn't these claims be treated with skepticism until they are tested?

I don't get how this strange tangent about the Higgs Boson is being seen as supporting DrewDad's rejection of scientific method through careful experiment. The Higg's Boson is all about the scientific method through careful scientific experiment-- real scientists are going through a great deal of trouble to do objective scientific tests to back up claims about the Higgs Boson.

DrewDad is making claims that the Myers-Briggs instrument is "valid" and able to "predict human behavior". He accepts this on nothing more then faith. He has no objective scientific test that questions either of these assertions, and doesn't even accept the idea that objective scientific tests are important.

To compare this with a serious scientific effort to rigorously test a theory is ridiculous. Real scientists understand that assertions need to be carefully questioned and tested before they are deemed valid.

That is the difference between science, and pseudo-science.

There have been over 11,000 studies done on the MBTI.

It also doesn't change the fact that you've been less than honest in your approach on this thread.

You've shot yourself in the foot, here.

There are many tests which can be used to assess personality. How useful these tests are depends on many factors.

The Myers-Briggs test appears to have significant problems with both validity and reliability. If a test yields inconsistent results, or does not clearly measure what it purports to measure, it should be regarded with skepticism.

A more widely used, and highly regarded, instrument is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

Other personality measurements are based on the Big Five factors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html

The test instruments designed to measure intelligence, particularly the various Wechsler scales of intelligence, are probably the most widely used psychometric tests. These tests have a high degree of validity and reliability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale

It is important to remember that there is a difference between measuring behavior and predicting behavior. While a particular test might accurately measure a certain type of behavior, predicting the expression of that behavior in a future environmental situation may well depend on a whole host of other factors that go beyond the test results.

LOL Drew. The number of unspecified "studies" is rather irrelevant. There are similar numbers of "studies" on things like homeopathy and probably even ESP.

The problem is there are no objective scientific studies" that specifically back up the claims that MBTI is "valid" (in any real world way) or can "predict behavior".

Doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented an experiment as a test, came to a conclusion before investigating anything, used your conclusion as your argument, completely misunderstood the nature of measurement, and, best of all, failed to address any of your mistakes.

Call me crazy, but your "skepticism" sounds a lot like a witch hunt.

Give it up DrewDad. The confusion is yours.

The point (from the beginning) is that a "psychometric instrument" such as the Myers-Briggs test should be backed up by objective scientific experiments when it makes pseudo-scientific claims.

The claims you have been making about the Myers-Briggs test, specifically that the test is "valid" and can "predict behavior" can and should be backed up by an independent scientific experiment. This experiment should be done by independent researchers and have a well-defined determination of the result.

Objective Scientific testing is not that hard to set up in this case (I suggest how this would be done several pages back). The problem you are having is that objective scientific test that has been done has failed to show that the Myers-Briggs test meets the claims its proponents are making (the most important being the tests showing that a random selection was equally effective at predicting career selection and success).

You keep talking in vague terms about how many years the MBTI has been around and how many thousands of unspecified "studies" have been done. Yet you are willing to make fantastic (and untested) claims about the ability to "predict human behavior".

This isn't science. It is marketing.

Sure. But that's different than saying "it's no better than a horoscope" with no data to back up the claim, which is what ebrownp is claiming.

As I've said before, I'm not the MBTI evangelist; use it or don't, but don't make stuff up just so you can claim to be a skeptic.


I'm aware of the MMPI. It's weakness, IMO, is that everyone is compared to a Minnesota farmboy.


I haven't encountered "big five" before.


I've encountered the Weschler.


Sure. Personality is damned hard to measure. I've certainly acknowledged this. (A certain someone on this thread apparently thinks that anything measurable is easily measurable, though.)

Your credibility as a scientist is nil at this point, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Science is a process, not a religion.

I didn't know having the temerity to disagree with you could do this (I sure hope my employer doesn't find out). Of course science can't absolutely disprove Myers-Briggs any more then it can absolutely disprove ESP or magnetic beds.

I can state that the marketing claims you are repeating from the Myer's Briggs folks are being asserted with no specific objective scientific research to back them up. This is irresponsible. People making pseudo-scientific claims, whether they deal with Myers-Briggs, or acupuncture or herbal medicine should back them up with relevant and subjective research (I include acupuncture as a field that, in contract to Myers-Briggs, actually can back up its claims with objective scientific research).



This is the first logical thing you have said in this thread (apparently Myers-Briggs is a religion).

Your own actions on this thread are what have degraded your credibility.

<shrug>

Like I said, I'm not the MBTI evangelist. I did get entertainment value out of pointing up your (frequent!) errors.

I ask for objective scientific research-- you respond with marketing literature and ad hominems.

That pretty much sums up this thread.

You did so eventually, but you began the thread by misrepresenting an experiment as a psychological test, then equated the MBTI with horoscopes without supporting your assertion, and followed up with an amusing logical fallacy.

And then after you asked for scientific research, you made the laughable claim that, "If there is something worthwhile to measure, then measuring it is not that difficult."

You're funny.

DrewDad, the MMPI was re-standardized on a sample group more representative of the general population of the U.S. So the MMPI-2 would not have the objections you mentioned.



The fact remains, that the MMPI-2 is much more widely used by clinical psychologists, the people who actually try to understand and measure personality factors, than is the Myers-Briggs test.



It's not just difficult to measure, it's difficult to define. In psychology, if one can't operationally define something, it becomes difficult to measure objectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

"Personality" is a hypothetical construct. Each of the various personality theories would be based on different hypothetical constructs.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qs7iPg4LNccJ:www.psychology.unp.ac.za/2009/302/Intro%2520to%2520Personality%2520OHT%25202009.doc+personality+as+a+hypothetical+construct&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

One can test or evaluate hypothetical constructs by drawing inferences--i.e personality is comprised of factors, traits, dimensions, etc. A scale or testing instrument can be devised to attempt to measure those factors or traits. These things are not easily measurable for many reasons. To begin with, it is necessary to identify and define the most salient personality factors and traits. This can be quite controversial. For another thing, these personality factors or traits may be dynamic rather than static--they may change over time. This affects the stability of what is being measured, and, without stability, basic test reliability becomes problematic. And, for still another thing, test construction itself is a complex process which must take into account many variables.

No matter how you look at it, the measurement of these personality traits or factors or dimensions, is not an easy process. It cannot be done by relatively simple "experiments". Experiments, in psychology, are done to evaluate the influence of one variable on another, as scientific research, and are essentially unrelated to psychometric testing which is simply a form of measurement.

There is a big difference in the way a clinical psychologist might use a personality test and the way a lay person might use such a test (if the test is even available to the general public). Psychologists are not generally concerned with predicting behavior, a notion which does have an aura of crystal ball gazing. The emphasis in psychology is on understanding and measuring behavior. How psychometric test results are actually applied can be very misused, which is one reason that most of the widely regarded psychometric tests are only available to qualified professionals, and should only be interpreted by qualified professionals. Test results can be misinterpreted and misused by those without proper training.

The misuse of tests by lay persons may occur when test instruments, such as the Myers-Briggs, with low reliability and validity, are used by human resources personnel as part of a hiring process. These tests, and the inferences drawn from the results, may be quite unfair to job applicants. But apparently, the test remains used in such contexts despite such drawbacks.