Home / MBTI Facts

• • 

  • MBTI® facts

Answering your questions about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®

1. Who created the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment?
2. What is the history of the Myers-Briggs® assessment?
3. Who uses the MBTI® assessment?
4. What can the MBTI® assessment be used for?
5. Can the MBTI® assessment be used for selection or hiring?
6. Does the MBTI® assessment describe my whole personality?
7. What is a personality preference?
8. How is the MBTI® assessment related to Jung’s theory?
9. Is the MBTI® assessment available for free online?
10. I took the MBTI® assessment years ago. Is there any reason to take it again?
11. Can anyone interpret MBTI® results?
12. How should I interpret the results of my MBTI® assessment?
13. I’ve heard the MBTI® assessment is a personality type questionnaire, not a trait questionnaire. What does this mean?
14. I have heard the MBTI® assessment "puts people into a box." Does it?
15. What is the scientific basis of the MBTI® assessment?
16. Is the MBTI® assessment reliable?
17. Is the MBTI® assessment valid?
18. How do I find out more about the MBTI® assessment?

1. Who created the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment?

The MBTI® assessment was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. Both were highly educated college graduates who employed the scientific method in creating the assessment. Although neither were psychologists, they spent years studying Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types and join the ranks of people like Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, and Jane Goodall, who made lasting contributions to their fields despite a lack of formal training.

Myers worked with the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey, a major assessment publisher, who helped develop the MBTI® assessment and publish it in 1962.

Since then, the MBTI® assessment has been updated regularly based on continuing research by trained psychologists.

Were Briggs and Myers qualified psychologists?

Briggs earned a bachelor’s degree with honours in agriculture from the Michigan Agricultural College (now Michigan State University) and Myers achieved a bachelor’s degree with honours in political science from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. During the time period when the MBTI® assessment was initially being developed (mid 1940s to 1950), only 3 to 5 percent of women and only 5 to 7 percent of men held a bachelor’s degree in the United States. 1

While neither Myers nor Briggs were psychologists, they based the MBTI® assessment on the work of Carl Jung, Swiss psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of analytical psychology. Both Briggs and Myers spent many years studying Jung’s theory of psychological types in order to create the assessment.

In later years, Myers also worked closely on MBTI® research projects with Dr. Mary McCaulley, a clinical psychologist at the University of Florida.

After the death of Myers, her work was continued by a variety of experts, among whom most are doctoral level psychologists. As an example, the most recent commercial forms of the MBTI® assessment were developed by a core team of five PhD level psychologists and researchers. There were two additional PhD level psychologists to support statistical analysis, and a larger team of psychologists in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, and Japan as consultants to the project.

Back to top

2. What is the history of the Myers-Briggs® assessment?

The history of the MBTI® assessment spans many years, from its inception by Katharine Briggs, based on Carl Jung’s theory, development by Isabel Myers until her death, and to the ongoing development today by teams of psychologists including the research team at The Myers-Briggs Company (formerly CPP, Inc.).

• 1943: The first version of the MBTI® assessment is developed
• 1962: Educational Testing Service (ETS) publishes an updated form of the MBTI® assessment
• 1977: CPP releases Form G, the original commercial version of the MBTI® assessment
• 1997: OPP Ltd (UK distributor of the MBTI® assessment) releases the European English Step I™ assessment after extensive national data collection
• 1998: CPP releases Form M of the MBTI® Step I™ assessment after extensive national data collection
• 2001: CPP releases Form Q of the MBTI® Step II™ assessment
• 2003–2007: OPP and CPP research and release new version of the MBTI® Step II™ assessment in European English and 8 other European languages
• 2018: The Myers-Briggs Company (formerly CPP, Inc.) releases an international revision, the Global Step I™ and Global Step II™ assessments

The MBTI® Global assessments more accurately measure personality type across different countries and cultures and provide a consistent assessment and reporting experience for all respondents, with no reduction in the accuracy of the resulting type preferences.

Back to top

3. Who uses the MBTI® assessment?

The MBTI® assessment is most often used by organisational development professionals, coaches, and consultants, as well as by career counsellors and educators. A fundamental step in any change process is to develop and improve self-awareness. For the MBTI® assessment, this awareness is about one’s own and others’ predilections to behave in specific ways. This information can then be used to improve interpersonal skills, manage conflict, improve relationships, and inform career choices.

Researchers in a variety of domains make use of the MBTI® assessment and type concepts when examining normal personality and related attributes. The MBTI® assessment is not used to a great extent by clinical psychologists because it assesses normal personality, not mental health and disorders. The MBTI® assessment is also used by human resource professionals for a variety of purposes. However, the MBTI® assessment is not intended for use as part of a hiring process, nor to assign people to specific teams, roles, or functions within an organisation.

The MBTI® assessment was designed to help people understand personality differences in the general population. While there are no "better" or "worse" personality preferences, the MBTI® assessment can help people understand their strengths and blind spots and how they might differ from others.

Organisational experts have drawn on these insights for many years to help individuals and teams be more effective at work. It is most often used by organisations to help individuals develop and build self-awareness and to help teams work better together. For example, the MBTI® assessment can help in conflict resolution, leadership development, career coaching, team development, managing change, improving communication, and decision making. Similarly, other professionals use insights from the MBTI® assessment to advise students about educational decisions, to counsel couples, and to help people in various non-work settings.

Businesses, government agencies, colleges, universities, schools, charities, and sports teams use the MBTI® assessment. For examples, read our case studies.

The MBTI® assessment should not be used to identify personality "disorders" or mental illness. Therefore, it is not used in clinical psychology settings or to diagnose conditions such as depression, narcissism, or anxiety. The lack of use in clinical populations has, on occasion, been taken out of context as a way of denigrating the MBTI® assessment.

For example, critics sometimes cite a 2012 article in the Washington Post in which Carl Thoreson, PhD, psychologist, Stanford Emeritus and former Chairman of CPP, Inc. (now The Myers-Briggs Company), is quoted as saying he didn’t use the MBTI® assessment in his research at Stanford because "it would be questioned by my academic colleagues" (Cunningham, 2012). What was missing from the article, however, was the fact that the focus of Dr. Thoreson’s work at Stanford was on altering "type A" behaviours to reduce heart attack mortality (Friedman et al., 1986). Since the MBTI® assessment is not designed to measure type A personalities, it simply isn’t an appropriate tool for the topic—so naturally, its use in his work would have been questioned had he used it. When an assessment isn’t used because it’s not the appropriate assessment for the intended purpose, that just means it’s not the right tool for the job - but that doesn’t invalidate the assessment.

Back to top

4. What can the MBTI® assessment be used for?

The MBTI® assessment builds an understanding of strengths and blind spots. It also helps people understand how they might differ from one another. It is valuable for individuals and teams as they tackle such challenges as communication, handling conflict, managing change, making decisions, being a leader, or changing careers.

The Myers-Briggs® assessment is far more than just a personality questionnaire. Its benefits include:

• A common language for understanding and describing the interpersonal differences that define us as individuals
• An easy-to-understand but sophisticated way of understanding how people are similar and how they are different
• Memorable and inspiring insights that help people understand challenging relationships
• A positive view of all personalities, which avoids defensiveness and invites people to make genuine and lasting changes to their behaviour

The MBTI® framework is designed specifically for individual growth and development. As such, the assessment and interpretation process provide an opportunity for personal exploration that is difficult to achieve with other assessments.

There is a great deal more to the MBTI® assessment than simply knowing your "four letters." In fact, when people stop at this point, the MBTI® assessment can be wrongly used as a label and people can become disillusioned rather than inspired. The verification, or best-fit, process is a stepping-stone on a journey of self-exploration and awareness, enabling people to build awareness, widen their choices, and develop in directions they determine. If used appropriately the MBTI® assessment becomes part of their everyday lives and not a "one-off" experience.

Some of the most common applications of MBTI® knowledge are:

Team development

The basic MBTI® model is simple and easy to understand, which makes it an ideal tool for understanding other people. This understanding is the foundation of successful team development. The MBTI® assessment can help team members effectively communicate, handle conflict, manage change, and make decisions. Case studies from Molson and Diageo offer more information.

Leadership development

Leaders need a broad range of abilities and skills, but a good level of self-awareness is essential if a manager is to make good use of these capabilities, as is a framework for understanding other people. The MBTI® assessment is an extremely useful tool in helping leaders achieve this awareness and is widely used by organisations and independent coaches in leadership development. Find out more about leadership development by reading these case studies from JetBlue and Deichmann-Obuv.

Communication and influencing

We each have a preferred communication style, a way in which we like to be communicated to, and which we are more likely to find persuasive. We tend to use this same preferred approach when communicating to others. The MBTI® assessment can help us identify our preferred style, giving us the ability to flex and change our approach in order to communicate more effectively (and more persuasively) with those of a different personality type. Find out more by reading case studies from Pixio Corporation and TDC Group.

Change management

Organisations merge or are taken over, government policies change, IT systems and communication methods morph into new configurations; the rules of the game keep changing. The MBTI® assessment provides an explanation of why different people can react very differently to change, and it offers a way of helping people work together effectively. To learn more, read these case studies from Launchpad and Waitrose.

Decision making

The MBTI® assessment provides a framework that can be used by individuals and teams for making well-rounded decisions. For individuals, understanding their decision making preferences can help them see both the positives and the possible drawbacks in the way they normally do things and see the advantages of alternative processes. For teams, using the MBTI® assessment in this way helps prevent "groupthink." Case studies from Macmillan Cancer Support and Pension Insurance Corporation offer examples of using MBTI® insights to aid decision making.

Conflict management

The MBTI® assessment shows what we tend to focus on and how we respond to conflict. By understanding how people of the 16 different personality types (including ourselves) typically behave in these situations, we can approach conflict in a more productive way and resolve conflict more effectively. Case studies from the San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center and The Church of England show how the MBTI® assessment has been used in conflict management.

Coping with stress

The MBTI® assessment can help people see what their stress triggers are and show them how to avoid or ameliorate the effects of these triggers. It also describes one's likely reaction to everyday stress and to more extreme situations in which individuals may behave in atypical ways. Knowing this information allows them to recognise this reaction and take action to prevent things escalating further. The Canadian Police College and the England and Wales Cricket Board have used the MBTI® assessment to address stress.

Coaching

The MBTI® assessment can give coaching clients the information and insights they need to increase their self-awareness and their understanding of other people. It helps them recognise their natural preferences, while also learning to operate outside them when necessary. For both clients and coaches, MBTI® feedback can help identify typical behaviours, blind spots, strengths that can be leveraged, areas for growth, and tips for action planning. Find out more from The Delta Associates and the Royal Air Force case studies.

Career development

The MBTI® assessment can help individuals understand how their personality preferences relate to their chosen career, how development as an individual may inform career development, and how best to apply one’s natural gifts to career choices. Learn more from case studies from Nokia and the University of Surrey.

Career orientation and exploration

For those leaving school or university, and those considering a change of career, many factors need to be considered, such as one’s abilities, qualification, interests, and personal and family needs. Personality also plays a role. The MBTI® assessment can help individuals see what jobs people with their personality type typically gravitate to, and what aspects of their personality would be more or less useful in their chosen career. Case studies from Colorado College and HEC offer more detail about using MBTI® type during career exploration.

Back to top

5. Can the MBTI® assessment be used for selection or hiring?

No. The MBTI® assessment is not intended for use in selection of job candidates, nor for making internal decisions regarding job placement, selection for teams or task forces, or other similar activities. The Myers & Briggs Foundation is clear regarding the ethical use of the MBTI® assessment: It is unethical to require job applicants to take the assessment if the results will be used to screen out applicants.

The design of the MBTI® assessment is for development, not for selection:

• Items in the MBTI® assessment are "clear-purpose,"; meaning that no attempt is made to disguise which preference pair an item is designed to measure. Consequently, by simply doing some background research about what the MBTI® assessment measures, job candidates could easily fake their responses to generate what they might see as an "ideal" profile for the job to which they are applying.
• Similarly, the MBTI® assessment does not incorporate any sort of "lie scale" to serve as an alert that a candidate may not be responding honestly.
• The assessment is focused on an individual’s personality preferences, rather than a person’s skill or competence. No preference is seen as "bad" or as something that should be screened out during the hiring process. Instead, a person’s preference indicates their natural way of doing things, but individuals can learn to be flexible and engage in behaviours outside of their preference when a particular situation calls for it. For example, someone with a preference for Introversion might be very good at public speaking or networking, it might just take that person more energy.
• Finally, the ethos of the MBTI® assessment is that the questionnaire is used in conjunction with interactive feedback, where the individual works out what type best fits him or her; this approach is not suited to selection as the individual could, essentially, choose whichever type the hiring managers want to see.

Given that it is not appropriate for selection, there have (appropriately) been no meaningful studies evaluating the ability of the MBTI® assessment for this purpose. On the other hand, numerous meaningful studies have examined the value of the MBTI® assessment in the context of individual development.

Back to top

6. Does the MBTI® assessment describe my whole personality?

The MBTI® assessment was not designed to describe every aspect of personality. It focuses on four preference pairs:

• Extraversion–Introversion (E–I): From where you get your energy
• Sensing–Intuition (S–N): What information you prefer to gather and trust
• Thinking–Feeling (T–F): The process you prefer to use in making decisions
• Judging–Perceiving (J–P): How you deal with the world around you

This isn’t to say that everyone who has a preference for Sensing, for example, is alike in every aspect. Personality is more complex than that! However, sorting people into the 16 types based on certain aspects of personality can illustrate how people are alike and how they are different. Looking at personality in this way is useful for certain purposes.

No personality assessment measures all aspects of personality or completely describes an individual. All personality assessments are using a model (some based on theory, some lacking a theory) to summarise large groups of individuals in a relatively small number of useful descriptors.

Back to top

7. What is a personality preference?

The MBTI® assessment looks at our personality preferences. We all have preferences for all sorts of things; most of use prefer to use one hand rather than the other when we write something, for example. Having a preference doesn’t mean that you can’t do things in a different way; if you are left-handed, you can probably write with your right hand if you need to. In the same way, we all have preferences when it comes to our personality. The Jung-Myers approach focuses on four pairs of preferences:

• Extraversion–Introversion (E–I): Do you prefer to get your energy from, and focus your attention on, the outside world of people and things (E) or your inner world of thoughts, feelings, and reflections (I)?
• Sensing–Intuition (S–N): Do you prefer to gather and trust information that is realistic, concrete, practical, and gathered by your five senses (S) or information based on connections, possibilities, ideas, and what could be (N)?
• Thinking–Feeling (T–F): Do you prefer to make decisions on the basis of objective logic (T) or on how the decision will affect people and whether it agrees with your values (F)?
• Judging–Perceiving (J–P): Do you prefer to live your life in an ordered, structured way, seeking closure (J) or in an emergent, spontaneous way, keeping your options open (P)?

According to Jung-Myers theory, you will have a preference for E or for I, for S or for N, for T or for F, and for J or for P.

• Preferences do not indicate skill or ability. For example, if your preferred hand were injured, you would still be able to use your nonpreferred hand but doing so may take more effort.
• Types are made up of preferences and there are no "right" or "wrong" types; each has its strengths and blind spots.
• Everyone uses all eight preferences, but we prefer to use those that are in our four-letter or whole type.
• It is not always possible to know what another person’s type is because she or he may be acting "out of preference." For example, an inspirational public speaker may prefer Introversion, but may use Extraversion to do the job.

Back to top

8. How is the MBTI® assessment related to Jung’s theory?

In his seminal work, Psychological Types, Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung discussed in detail three of the four preference pairs measured by the MBTI® assessment. The fourth preference pair was implied but not fully developed in his work. Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs included this fourth preference pair (Judging–Perceiving) in their model of personality, leading to the 16 types measured by the MBTI® assessment. When Myers and Briggs developed the MBTI® assessment, their mission was to make Jung’s theory of personality types accessible to the general population.

Quotes from Jung:

"Every individual is an exception to the rule." (Jung, 1921/1971, p. 516)

• This quote is also often used to argue that Jung’s theory isn’t valid and that people can’t be reduced to 16 personality types. However, taken in context Jung was explaining that although personality preferences exist, it is important to avoid making quick assumptions about a person’s personality type based on what one sees.
• When taking the MBTI® assessment, it is therefore important to receive competent interactive feedback in order to confirm the type that fits best.
• Two people with the same underlying type may have had very different life experiences, such as the way they were brought up, the culture that they were raised in and the culture they currently live in, and the people they have met, had relationships with, and lost. While they will have many things in common, they will not be identical people; they will both be "exceptions to the rule."

"An ENFP is like every other ENFP, like some other ENFPs, and like no other ENFP" (Myers, 2015).

• Jung advises us to remember that no one personality type description can explain all aspects of a person’s entire being or psyche. This notion is reflected in the statement, So in his quote, Jung likely was not refuting his own theory of psychological types but rather was trying to ensure its proper use. He was also likely acknowledging that any model or theory for describing or explaining human behaviour, including his theory, will be imperfect in some way.

Jung compared his model of personality with points on a compass: "they are just as arbitrary and just as indispensable," and added, "I would not for anything dispense with this compass on my psychological voyages of discovery" (Jung4, 1921/1971, p. 541).

• Jung is again emphasising that no theory of human personality and behaviour is perfect, as each person is unique. Yet, understanding basic personality differences is useful in interacting with other people!

What these quotes show is that most models or theories in psychology are useful for helping to understand human behaviour but are not intended to describe every minutia of personality or behaviour. A model or theory has value to the extent that it provides insights, people find it useful, and it leads to improvements in daily life.

Back to top

9. Is the MBTI® assessment available for free online?

No. The genuine MBTI® assessment is copyrighted and only accessible by individuals who are MBTI® certified and available through MBTI®Online, which allows you to complete the assessment and provides a self-directed interpretation.

The MBTI® assessment is backed up by 75 years of research and continues to be refined and updated. The assessment also has considerable evidence for its reliability and validity, much of which is reported in its manual. You may find free questionnaires that are based on Jung and Myers and Briggs' theory and that talk about the four preference pairs. But free personality assessments typically lack evidence showing they are reliable and valid measures.

Back to top

10. I took the MBTI® assessment years ago. Is there any reason to take it again?

If the initial MBTI® assessment experience followed the recommended process, included a structured best-fit feedback process, and if you are certain of your type, then it is not necessary to take the indicator again. But if you are uncertain of your type and it is possible that life events at the time of the first administration may have affected the outcome of the assessment, then it might be worthwhile to retake the MBTI® assessment and have a quality interpretation with a certified practitioner.

Even when individuals are very sure of their four-letter type, it may be useful for them to take the MBTI® Step II™ assessment. This instrument looks at the behavioural facets within a person’s four-letter type, revealing what makes them different to others of the same Step I™ type. Typically, completing the Step II™ assessment will add much more to an individual’s understanding of personality than simply completing the Step I™ assessment again.

Back to top

11. Can anyone interpret MBTI® results?

The Myers-Briggs Company and The Myers & Briggs Foundation allow the Myers-Briggs® instrument to be administered by certified practitioners. The ethical guidelines for the MBTI® assessment require that administration of the assessment includes either an interpretative session in which participants discuss the results with a certified professional, or an online interactive feedback session. The Myers-Briggs Company provides a comprehensive body of information via a manual, guides, other written materials, and workshops and seminars designed to aid in effective administration of the instrument. There is a self-directed version of the MBTI® assessment, called MBTI®Online, that includes an online interpretation and best-fit process.

Back to top

12. How should I interpret the results of my MBTI® assessment?

If you complete the MBTI® assessment you should never just be given the four letters of your personality type. Instead, to be ethically compliant, an interpretation either from an MBTI® certified practitioner or through the MBTI®Online system should be provided. You will have the opportunity to reflect on what you think your MBTI® type is, read a description of the MBTI® type that resulted from scoring your answers, and decide on your best-fit type.

Your practitioner can give you a detailed description of your best-fit type and explain how to use your type knowledge in work and life. Personalised reports with your MBTI® results are available that cover many topics, such as career choice, communication, decision making, conflict, etc.

Back to top

13. I’ve heard the MBTI® assessment is a personality type questionnaire, not a trait questionnaire. What does this mean?

"Type" and "trait" are two different approaches to personality.

The MBTI® assessment is based on type theory, which states that personality has qualitatively different attributes. Qualitatively different means that one category differs from the other in a manner that is more than the amount of an attribute. For example, we either have a preference for Thinking or for Feeling, which are two qualitatively different ways of making decisions. In MBTI® theory we can and do use both preferences, but one is more natural.

A different model of understanding personality is "trait" theory. Trait theory states that there are underlying characteristics that everyone has, and people have different "amounts" of these characteristics. For example, everyone has some degree of self-acceptance, but some people have a lot of self-acceptance, others have little self-acceptance, and still others fall anywhere in between "a lot" and "a little."

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and both can be useful in different contexts. Alternatively, the two different types of assessments can be used together to gain a more in-depth picture of someone’s personality.

Very often, we will see and describe the world around us in terms of "amounts of" something, or traits. For example, we might describe how tall we are and we might talk about whether we are taller or shorter than others. This trait approach is used by many personality questionnaires. Each person possesses a number of what are assumed to be "universal" personality traits, and the questionnaire measures along a spectrum how much of each of the traits the person has. People can score from low to high on each trait.

For example, empathy is something we all have, just in varying amounts. When people are using a trait-based approach in describing personality, they might say "I work with someone who is much more empathetic than most people" or "that person is not very empathetic." Trait tools are used for selection or hiring people in part because they can be used to compare people and predict how people are likely to behave.

This is very different from the type approach. The MBTI® assessment is based on type theory and the underlying assumption that people belong to distinct, qualitatively different preference categories. For example, we either have a preference for Thinking or for Feeling, one or the other. Our preference is the side that is more natural and tends to be more automatic and easier. Although we have a preference for one side, we can and do use both our preferred and non-preferred sides when needed. This is one reason why type tools are not useful for selection or hiring, but are helpful in development, as we can understand how to "flex" our behaviour as the situation requires.

Some supporters of type questionnaires feel that trait-based questionnaires are prescriptive or inhuman, as having "too much" or "too little" of a trait can sometimes be seen as problematic or negative. Some supporters of trait questionnaires see type questionnaires as simplistic and unscientific, as they are not intended to make comparisons between individuals. In fact, many people use both type and trait assessments, separately and together. The different approaches can give subtly different information about an individual, which can be extremely useful in gaining a more sophisticated understanding of the person.

Back to top

14. I have heard the MBTI® assessment "puts people into a box." Does it?

The intention behind the MBTI® assessment is not to stereotype or "put people into a box," but to help people understand themselves and others in a simple, easy-to-remember way.

People are complex. It often takes time to really get to know someone and understand how that person does things and why. However, there are patterns in how people behave and their motivations. With time, as we get to know our friends and colleagues, we often build up an idea of how we are similar and how we differ.

The MBTI® assessment is simply another way of building up that picture and understanding others better. Every person is a unique individual, but we share certain characteristics. Your MBTI® preferences show you that you have certain things in common with others of the same MBTI® type. They also highlight how you might be different from others with a different type than yours.

What the MBTI® assessment does not do is describe your whole personality or identity. It certainly does not define you! Instead, it focuses on four core aspects of personality. It is also worth remembering that personality is not the only thing that influences how we behave. For example, we all have different motivations, experiences, values, hobbies, skills, and cultures that shape us.

Some people do say they feel "put into a box" and this can be the case with any personality questionnaire, not just the MBTI® assessment. People with an unsatisfactory MBTI® experience are often those who did not participate in a skilled interpretation session with an MBTI® certified practitioner, and they may not have had the chance to discover their best-fit type. Therefore, a feedback session with an MBTI® certified practitioner or completing MBTI®Online, which includes an interactive feedback session, is recommended.

Back to top

15. What is the scientific basis of the MBTI® assessment?

Four editions (1962, 1985, 1998, 2018) of its manual have been published, providing a wealth of research-based evidence on its reliability and validity. The manual also explains the theory behind the assessment, its construction, and the data collection and analysis of the scales.

It is well established that the Myers-Briggs® assessment meets all requirements for educational and psychological tests, and you can access information on its validity and reliability. Scientists have been scrutinising it for more than 50 years, and it has been cited and reviewed thousands of times (a Google Scholar search for "MBTI" found over 31,000 records). The Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) also publishes helpful information on the reliability and validity of the Myers-Briggs® assessment.

For more information, Dr. Rich Thompson, The Myers-Briggs Company’s head of research, deconstructs common criticisms of the MBTI® assessment. You can also read a white paper addressing misconceptions about the MBTI® assessment.

Sources of scientific research on the MBTI® assessment:

When psychologists or practitioners evaluate a psychometric test or questionnaire, they usually ask two main questions: "Is it reliable?" and "Is it valid?" On both of these criteria, the MBTI® assessment performs well. Reputable psychometric tools have been developed through years of rigorous research, and The Myers-Briggs Company makes these research findings available via the MBTI® Manual for the Global Step I™ and Step II™ Assessments (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2018). This manual is provided to all MBTI® certified practitioners as part of their certification materials. Major findings are also published in data supplements that can be downloaded from The Myers-Briggs Company website for the current commercial version and prior commercial versions.

In addition, there are many articles by independent researchers in established journals. Interested parties can find hundreds of these on a free searchable database published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT), called Mary and Isabel’s Library Online (MILO).

Finally, the MBTI® assessment meets the stringent requirements for psychological assessments in psychology societies around the world (e.g., the British Psychological Society, The Health Professions Council of South Africa, and Sistema de Avaliação de Testes Psicológicos in Brazil). Furthermore, the MBTI® assessment has been voluntarily submitted to organisations in the United States for independent review such as those provided in Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook, in Psyctests by the American Psychological Association, and in the Comprehensive Guide to Career Assessment (7th ed.) published by the National Career Development Association (NCDA). Note that the American Psychological Association (APA) does not approve or disapprove the use of assessments in the United States. Instead, the APA provides ethical guidelines that put the onus on the users of assessments to evaluate their reliability, validity, and appropriateness.

Back to top

16. Is the MBTI® assessment reliable?

Reliability looks at whether the questions that comprise each measure are consistent with each other (internal consistency reliability) and whether the results of a test are consistent over time (test-retest reliability). The general standard for a scale on any psychometric assessment is to have an internal consistency reliability of .70 or above. The four preference scales on the MBTI® assessment have internal consistency reliabilities of around .90, and test-retest correlations are over .80 for periods up to 15 weeks. In brief, the MBTI® assessment is reliable.

It is common to find quotes indicating that 50 percent of participants received a different classification on one or more of the MBTI® scales when they take the MBTI® assessment again. This is because it is not simply a matter of having one preference pair result matching. All four preference pairs need to match. Details can be found under What is the test-retest reliability of the MBTI® assessment?

What is the internal consistency reliability of the MBTI® assessment?

By convention, an internal consistency estimate of .70 is a minimum acceptable value for psychometric measures, and the preference scales that comprise the MBTI® assessment clearly exceed this threshold. This is true for people of different ages, ethnicities, and employment statuses.

Reliability is not a property that is inherent to an assessment or a test. Instead, reliability must be considered for a specific sample and for a particular purpose. Generally, studies report on the internal consistency reliability of the sample used in a specific study. As such, the question "is the MBTI® assessment reliable" is not an accurate question and communicates a misunderstanding of psychological assessment. Instead, the correct question to ask is if the MBTI® assessment demonstrates internal consistency reliability for a sample comprised of some identifiable group.

Details on internal consistency reliability are provided in the manual and in other portions of this document. Note, in many cases reliability estimates from prior commercial forms are reported. Because the current and prior forms of the assessment are highly correlated, the results can be generalised to the current forms. As further data accumulate, they will be reported by The Myers-Briggs Company in downloadable supplements.

The Myers-Briggs Company (formerly CPP, Inc.) examined the internal consistency reliability of its commercial archive on MBTI® Form M. In a sample of over 5 million people who completed the MBTI® assessment, the internal consistency reliability measures of the four preference scales exceeded the value of acceptable reliability of .70. The following figure summarises the level of internal consistency reliability for the four preference scales by age groups for this sample.

The MBTI® Global Step I™ assessment has similar internal consistency reliability estimates. Some of the key samples are reported in the following table. Additional detail can be found in the MBTI® Manual for the Global Step I™ and Step II™ Assessments (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2018) or the manual supplements or technical briefs for the MBTI® global assessments.

Internal consistency of the MBTI® Global Step I™ preference scales:

In summary, the MBTI® assessment exceeds the guidelines for internal consistency reliability in samples of people who are likely to make use of the MBTI® assessment in a variety of countries and across a wide range of age groups. Information on other samples and populations can be found by searching for published studies focused on the sample or population of interest.

What is the test-retest reliability of the MBTI® assessment?

Test-retest reliability is typically reported for a sample by correlating the results for a specific measure on two separate occasions. Test-retest correlations have no firm standards but in general stronger correlations or higher levels of test-retest reliability are more likely over shorter time intervals. The MBTI Form M manual supplement (Schaubhut, Herk, & Thompson, 2009) shows 1-month test-retest reliabilities for the preference scales range from .94 to .97 and 4-year test-retest reliabilities range from .57 to .81. The current commercial MBTI® Global Step I™ assessment had test-retest reliabilities that ranged from .81 to .86 for intervals from 1 to 6 weeks and from 7 to 15 weeks, respectively, as reported in the table that follows and in the MBTI® Manual for the Global Step I™ and Step II™ Assessments(Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2018).

Test-retest correlations of the MBTI® Global Step I™ preference scales:

Test-retest reliability for whole type:

The MBTI® assessment is unique in that rather than focusing on the test-retest reliability of a single scale, critics argue that it is the whole type or four-letter type that should be considered when looking at test-retest reliability. About 50 percent of people get the same four-letter or whole type on retest. Note, other personality assessments do not report test-retest reliability for a configuration of results. For example, no one reports the consistency of the configuration of the Big Five categories provided as part of the reporting of results across administrations.

Nonetheless, whole type or four-letter type consistency has traditionally been reported for the MBTI® assessment. However, the typical rules for test-retest correlations cannot be used in this case. Instead, it is necessary to consider if the MBTI® assessment does better than chance in placing a respondent into the same whole type, which is accomplished by having the same four preferences on two administrations of the assessment.

One way to consider this is to examine what would be expected on retest if the MBTI® assessment yielded random or nearly random placement into the 16 types as suggested by some critics. To that end, consider that if the MBTI® assessment yielded random placement into the four preference pairs on retest, then because there are 16 types, the probability of getting any 1 of the 16 whole types is 6.25 percent (1/16 = 6.25). Further, because whole types are made up of four sets of two preferences, the probability matching on one, two, three, or four letters differs based on the 6.25 base rate. For example, again assuming the MBTI® assessment is unreliable and invalid, the probability of getting ISTJ on one administration and ENFP (the opposite) on second administration is 6.25. Similarly, if unreliable and invalid, the likelihood of getting ISTJ on both administrations would also be 6.25. matching two letters (ISTJ and ISFP) would be more likely, and add to a 37.5 percent chance.

These probabilities for the different combinations of preferences are summarised in the following figure, along with results found in the global sample and summarised in the MBTI® Manual for the Global Step I™ and Step II™ Assessments (Myers et al., 2018). As can be seen, the consistency of all four preferences being the same on retest are closer to 50 percent, meaning just over half of all cases have the same whole or four-letter type results on retest. This is eight (8) times what is expected by chance. What we observe in actual data is that the most common outcome is for people to match on all four letters. The second most common outcome is matching on three out of four letters. The least common outcome are four different letters.

In summary, the MBTI® preference scales demonstrate more than adequate test-retest reliability in the global sample for the global forms of the assessment. Moreover, the MBTI® assessment, when considered as a configuration of all four preference scales, exceeds what would be expected by chance by eight times, with 90 percent of people getting the same results for three or four of the preference scales. Note too that for most people who have a change of a single preference, the preference that changed was the one that was least clear. It is very rare (without intentionally responding in an inaccurate way) for preferences that are clear to change on retest (Myers et al., 2018).

Back to top

17. Is the MBTI® assessment valid?

Validity looks at whether an assessment measures what it is supposed to measure. The MBTI® assessment is supposed to measure personality type and then to be used as a tool for individual development and self-awareness. Much evidence has accumulated supporting the validity of the MBTI® assessment, and this evidence has been published in four manuals (1962, 1985, 1998, 2018) and a variety of technical supplements. The latest and exhaustive summary of validity evidence for the MBTI® Step I™ and Step II™ assessments can be found in chapters 9 and 10 of the MBTI® Manual for the Global Step I™ and Step II™ Assessments (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2018).

The MBTI® assessment has been found to be valid in a number of ways, with studies that evaluate the following:

• Relationships with behaviour
• Relationships with other questionnaires
• Internal measurement structure
• Predictive validity
• Perceived value
• Practical validity

A wealth of research-based evidence on MBTI® validity can be found in the manuals, technical briefs, and supplements, and more is also available on this webpage.

Is there validity evidence regarding behaviour and MBTI® type?

Anderson, Kulas, and Thompson (2018) explored links between MBTI® types and managerial behaviours. First, an independent sample of 160 students rated 1 of 16 hypothetical managers (10 students for each corresponding MBTI® type) on Benchmarks® 360 items, an instrument from the Center for Creative Leadership® (CCL®). Second, a sample of 4,450 managers for whom MBTI® type was known and who had Benchmarks® ratings provided by others (not self-ratings) was examined. The average hypothetical and actual manager ratings were then correlated for each of the whole type combinations. It was expected that as the actual and hypothetical ratings shared more MBTI® preferences, the correlations would increase, and as they shared fewer preferences, the correlations would decrease.

The results of this analysis are presented in the figure below. For the expected and actual MBTI® types, the behaviour of managers converged, meaning that managers behaved as expected. When the MBTI® type is opposite, behaviours diverged, meaning that opposite MBTI® types had dissimilar behaviours. Thus the study shows there are observable differences between personality types.

McPeek et al. (2013) administered the Form M and the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children® (MMTIC®; Murphy & Meisgeier, 2008) assessments to a sample of 123 teenagers. As part of the feedback session, the participants were given two type descriptions composed of 12 adjectives and short phrases drawn from the 16 type descriptions found in Lawrence (1998) and in Myers’ Introduction to Type® booklet (1998). When the MBTI® and MMTIC® results disagreed, participants were given two type descriptions that corresponded to the results from the two assessments. When the results of the two assessments agreed (i.e., yielded the same four-letter type), participants received one description that matched their type and one that did not. The mismatched type description was randomly selected to be either a description of the opposite type (i.e., all four preferences were different from the reported type) or a description that differed from the reported type by only one preference. Participants were asked to rate the accuracy of each of the type descriptions they received. The mismatched descriptions were rated much less descriptive than the matched ones, even when the mismatch involved only a single preference, although the difference was much greater when all four preferences differed from the reported type.

A second study of type and self (Schaubhut, 2013) used a sample of 1,886 individuals who had completed the MBTI® Step I™ assessment and volunteered to take part in a study in which they were asked to read type descriptions taken from the Introduction to Type® booklet (Myers, 1998) and rate each one on a five-point scale as to how well it described them, from "very little" to "very much." Participants read a type description that matched their reported type on all four preferences; descriptions that differed by one, two, and three preferences from their reported type; and a description that was the opposite of their reported type (i.e., differed on all four preferences). The data were analysed separately for each of the 16 types. For all 16 types, the type description that matched the participants’ reported type was rated higher on average than any other description, even the description that differed from their reported type by only one preference. For 13 of the 16 types, the average ratings increased incrementally from the description that was opposite the reported type to the description that matched the reported type. Sixteen analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were run using the number of matches as the independent variable and the ratings as the dependent variable. All the ANOVAs were significant. For 2 types, INTJ and INFJ, the effect sizes were small; for 9 types there was a medium effect size; and for 5 types (ISTJ, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, and ESTJ) there were large effect sizes.

It is worth noting that these studies directly contradict claims such as "the MBTI® assessment is like a horoscope - all the type descriptions are positive, and you could agree with any of them." Individuals are much more likely to agree with descriptions that match their type and much less likely to agree with descriptions that do not.

Is there validity evidence for the MBTI® assessment based on how it relates to other measures of personality?

If the MBTI® assessment is measuring what it is supposed to, then when people take the questionnaire alongside other assessments that measure the same or similar concepts, there should be a high degree of correlation between the two sets of results. Similarly, there should be low or no correlations among measures that are measuring different concepts. These concepts are referred to as convergent and divergent validity, respectively. The global manual and the country/language supplements provide evidence for these forms of validity. Here, the focus is on the relationships of the MBTI® assessment with the five-factor model (FFM, or Big Five) approach to personality.

Several studies have examined the relationships among Big Five personality measures (a personality model favoured by many academics) and the MBTI® assessment (Furnham, Moutafi, & Crump, 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1989). Drawing on these prior studies, Arneson (2016) conducted a meta-analysis2 of the correlations among the measures of the MBTI® assessment (Form G) and the Big Five (NEO-PI-R™). The results of this meta-analysis are summarised in the table below with key relationships highlighted in red. The meta-analysis, and the studies upon which it is based, demonstrate that the:

• MBTI® Extraversion-Introversion scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Extraversion
• MBTI® Sensing-Intuition scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Openness
• MBTI® Thinking-Feeling scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Agreeableness
• MBTI® Judging-Perceiving scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Conscientiousness

Similar results were found by Renner, Menschik-Bendele, Alexandrovicz, and Deakin (2014) using a German translation of the MBTI® European assessment and NEO-FFI™ assessment.

The Big Five concept of Neuroticism is not included in the MBTI® model. While this concept may be of interest to some personality psychologists, it was not a part of Jung’s or Myers’ theorising, and is therefore not included in the MBTI® assessment. Note, however, that there is a modest correlation between the Big Five measure of Neuroticism and the E-I preference in the direction of Introversion. It is likely that this correlation is largely driven by the confound between measures of psychosocial adjustment and more extreme levels of introversion, along with a bias against introverts in Western culture.

The various studies of the MBTI® assessment and the Big Five suggest that the MBTI® preferences are related to conceptually similar Big Five measures. The relationships are sufficiently high to suggest that the two models tap elements of personality that are similar, but not so high as to make the two approaches to personality redundant. Further, the relationships are sufficiently high to indicate that if critics of the MBTI® assessment suggest it has no validity, then they may also be obligated to apply the same criticism to the five-factor model.

Other studies have examined the relationships between the MBTI® assessment and Big Five approaches and have found that the two can enhance rather than contradict each other. Therefore, studies that show the five-factor model demonstrates incremental validity over the MBTI® assessment in predicting performance (e.g. Furnham, Jensen, & Crump, 2008) should be considered alongside situations in which the MBTI® assessment has shown incremental validity over the five-factor model or other questionnaires. Examples include:

• Incremental validity of the MBTI® assessment over the NEO-PI-R in predicting attributional adjustment (Edwards, Lanning, & Hooke, 2002)
• Incremental validity over the Big Five in predicting trust (Insko et al., 2001)
• Added predictive power when the MBTI® assessment was used with the Strong Interest Inventory® assessment to predict students’ selection of academic majors (Pulver & Kelly, 2008)
• Added unique explanatory variance over and above the NEO-FFI in a confirmatory factor analysis (Renner, Menschik-Bendele, Alexandrovicz, & Deakin, 2014)

Is there validity evidence based on the measurement structure of the MBTI® assessment?

Bess, Harvey, and Swartz (2003) conducted a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the 94 items used on MBTI® Form G. Their results clearly supported the view that the 94-item pool for Form G was dominated by the predicted four-factor structure. In discussing their results, they wrote:

The fact that this a priori factor structure was yet again recovered via exploratory means and found to fit reasonably well using confirmatory analysis, in a sample of "real world" managerial employees that is arguably quite different from the college student based samples that have been seen in earlier confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, speaks directly to the robustness and generalizability of past claims of support for the predicted 4-factor MBTI latent structure.... The criticisms [of the MBTI assessment] that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, [our findings]—especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996)—provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings. (p. 4)

Is there evidence of predictive validity of the MBTI® assessment?

For a psychometric tool used in development, arguably the most important evidence of predictive validity is whether it has demonstrated effective outcomes (Rogers, 2017; Scoular, 2011). One area where the MBTI® assessment has been used to demonstrate such validation is in the area of careers and occupational choice. When occupational tasks are compatible with the preferences or inclinations of the individual performing them, higher satisfaction is likely to result than when the fit is less congruent (Dawis, 1996).

Hammer (1996) summarised studies of job satisfaction in the MBTI® Career Report Manual (Hammer & Macdaid, 1992) and included a synopsis of more than a dozen studies on the subject. Among the occupations studied for job satisfaction were bank officers/financial managers, computer professionals, dietitians, elementary and secondary school teachers, intensive care nurses, healthcare managers and executives, lawyers, managers, occupational therapists, parish pastors, paediatric nurse practitioners, pharmacists, marketing teachers, secretaries, teachers, and vocational education administrators. Hammer pointed out some of the difficulties in conducting research on satisfaction, such as a restriction in the range of data on job satisfaction (most people tend to say they are satisfied with their job). He summarised the literature as follows:

When satisfaction is measured globally, its relationship with psychological type is equivocal. However, among those studies that do show a relationship, a pattern seems to emerge. Overall, Introverts and Perceiving types seem less satisfied with their work than do Extraverts and Judging types, although the one study that examined men and women separately suggested that overall results may be misleading if gender is not accounted for. When specific facets or aspects of job satisfaction are employed instead of global measures, the picture becomes clearer. For example, the T-F scale seems to be important in identifying satisfaction with co-workers. Type theory would predict that different types will have different criteria for satisfaction, and this seems to be at least partially supported by the research.

Studies of person-environment fit suggest that those who are dissatisfied in an occupation tend to be those types who are opposite from the modal type in the occupation. A number of studies have also suggested that those types who are less frequent or underrepresented in an occupation tend to be less satisfied or have higher intention to leave the occupation than do those types who are more frequent or whose fit with the occupation is judged to be better. (pp. 40-41)

Subsequent studies support Hammer’s 1996 summary. Hopkins (1997) surveyed 133 members of an association of type practitioners (the sample was highly educated, high in job tenure, middle-aged, and Caucasian) and concluded that people who felt their job matched their personality were more satisfied with their job than were those who did not. SFs were the least satisfied group. In personal telephone calls with some participants, Hopkins (personal communication) also noted that, of the four process pair groups, SFs seemed the most grateful that someone was listening to them and their concerns. In his study, co-workers, the work itself, and supervision were far more important to job satisfaction than were pay and promotions.

Sitzmann, Ployhart, and Kim (2019) went further in investigating the link between personality type, behaviour, and occupation. Using a large sample of 178,087 individuals drawn from 315 different occupations, they found that occupations with a high degree of task significance (decisions have a large effect on other people, mistakes have a large impact, there is responsibility for the health and safety of others and for their work outcomes) show less diversity of personality amongst job incumbents and that this in turn predicts longer job tenure. Other researchers have demonstrated links between the MBTI® assessment and homogeneity within organisations, as predicted by Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) theory (Quintero, Segal, King, & Black, 2009; Thomas, Benne, Marr, Thomas, & Hume, 2000; Wallick, Cambre, & McClugage, 2000).

In reviewing the literature on type and turnover, the focus has been on the relationship between job fit and job dissatisfaction. Hammer (1996) reviewed research from the 1985 MBTI® Manual(Myers & McCaulley, 1985) and other studies and concluded:

Although few studies have been conducted on turnover, those that are available provide some support for the proposition that types working in environments or jobs that are not a good match for their preferences are more likely to leave or to say they are going to leave than are those whose type provides a better fit for either the tasks or the environment. Future studies examining the relationship of type and turnover should heed Garden’s (1989) finding that organizational size may be a mediating variable. (p. 47)

The MBTI® assessment has been shown to predict useful outcomes in several other areas, including:

• Improving school grades (McPeek et al., 2013)
• Broadening career goals (Katz, Joiner, & Seaman, 1999)
• Confirming career choice (Leong, Hardin, & Gaylor, 2005)
• Improving communication (Ang, 2002)
• Improving problem-solving style in teams (Sedlock, 2005)
• Delivering return on investment from training and development workshops (Stockill, 2014)
• Designing residential environments (Schroeder, Warner, & Malone, 1980)

Is there validity evidence for the perceived value of the MBTI® assessment?

For any assessment used in development, one of the most important questions is, has it demonstrated effective outcomes and made a difference to people? The MBTI® assessment has been shown to be useful for a range of real-life personal and organisational outcomes, including, for example, improved grades in students whose teachers had received MBTI®-based training (McPeek et al., 2013), better communication (Ang, 2002), greater certainty in career choice (Leong, Hardin, & Gaylor, 2005), and improvements in team functioning (Sedlock, 2005; Stockhill, 2014).

In a study carried out by OPP Ltd, the European distributor of the MBTI® assessment (now part of The Myers-Briggs Company), 927 people were asked what benefits they had experienced since they became aware of their MBTI® type. Eighty-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that they capitalised on their strengths more, 73 percent that they felt more confident in their personal life, 72 percent that they felt more confident in their contributions at work, and 65 percent that they made better decisions.

Other research conducted by CPP, Inc., using a third-party marketing firm to obtain participants investigated the utility of the MBTI® assessment with a random sample of 944 adults that matched the age, gender, ethnic, educational, and employment status distribution of the United States.3 Participants were asked whether they could recall ever completing any personality assessment, and if so, which one they completed. Then, for each assessment the participant recalled completing, she or he was asked how useful the information provided by the assessment was. In this sample, obtained independently of the publisher of the MBTI® assessment, 82 percent of people who recalled taking the MBTI® assessment reported they found it "useful," and their responses fell into these categories: useful "to a moderate extent" (42 percent), "to a great extent" (24 percent), or "to a very great extent" (16 percent).

In a second sample of about 1,500 people who had completed the MBTI® assessment and who obtained a quality interpretation of the results, rather than just being provided a four-letter type, the participants were asked if they would recommend the MBTI® assessment to a friend or colleague. Of these 1,500 people 96 percent indicated they would recommend it. They were further asked about a variety of possible benefits from learning about their MBTI® type. As can be seen in the next figure, which summarises results, most participants reported experiencing several benefits.

Is there evidence for the validity of using the MBTI® assessment to address practical concerns?

Many studies have shown the validity of the MBTI® assessment when used for a variety of purposes:

• Career search (Tinsley, Tinsley, & Rushing, 2002)
• Dealing with conflict (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975; Insko et al., 2001; Mills, Robey, & Smith, 1985)
• Decision making (Gallen, 2006; Haley & Stumpf, 1989; Hough & Ogilvie, 2005)
• Interplay of occupational and organisational membership (Bradley-Geist & Landis, 2012)
• Health, well-being, coping, and stress (Allread & Marras, 2006; Buckworth, Granello, & Belmore, 2002; Du Toit, Coetzee, & Visser, 2005; Horacek & Betts, 1998; Short & Grasha, 1995)
• Relationship with occupational interests (Briggs, Copeland, & Haynes, 2007; Fleenor, 1997; Garden, 1997)
• Ratings of transformational leadership (Brown & Reilly, 2009; Hautala, 2005, 2006; Sundstrom & Busby, 1997)
• Use of technology, email, and social media (Bishop-Clark, Dietz-Uhler, & Fisher, 2006-2007; Bowen, Ferguson, Lehmann, & Rohde, 2003; Hackston & Dost, 2016; Weber, Schaubhut, & Thompson, 2011)
• Working in teams (Amato & Amato, 2005; Choi, Deek, & Im, 2008; Glaman, Jones, & Rozelle, 1996; Hammer & Huszczo, 1996; Schullery & Schullery, 2006)

What else can you tell me about the validity of the MBTI® instrument?

There are several ways to demonstrate validity of a personality assessment. The country/language manual supplements for the MBTI® Global Step I™ and Step II™ assessments focuses on convergent and divergent validity. This approach to validity examines whether the assessment is related to other measures in a manner that is consistent with what would be expected based on the theory or approach underlying both assessments. For example, if two scales on two assessments measure a similar characteristic, then a person who scores high on the scale on the one assessment should also score high on the scale on the other assessment (convergent validity). If the scales are measuring very different, even contradictory, characteristics, then one would expect a high score on one scale and a low score on the other scale (divergent validity).

The supplements and the MBTI® Global Manual report on correlations among the MBTI® preference scales and the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1980) and the California Psychological Inventory™ (Gough & Bradley, 2005). Prior studies on the various forms of the MBTI® assessment (Form M and the European Step I™; Form Q and the European Step II™) remain relevant due to high correlations between those forms and MBTI® Global Step I™ and Step II™, respectively. Supplements to the original manuals4 have also been published showing additional validity evidence. In addition to the manuals, supplements have been published for these assessments as well, and are freely available online; for both proponents and critics to evaluate: Form M and Form Q, European Step I™. Summaries of such studies can be found in the manual.

Note that the MBTI® assessment is not intended to predict job performance and should not be used in selection. Therefore, validity data related to the application of the MBTI® assessment in recruitment are not available. Moyle and Hackston (2018) summarise some of the differences between what is important for the validity of questionnaires used in selection and questionnaires, like the MBTI® assessment, used in development.

Back to top

18. How do I find out more about the MBTI® assessment?

To find out more, read the MBTI® Global Manual or supplements, attend a training or certification program, watch the TED talk from Jean Kummerow or Michael Segovia, or Introduction the MBTI® Global assessment webinar, check out sample reports, or order an Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type booklet.

Also check out The Myers & Briggs Foundation website and the library page at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, which maintains an extensive database of MBTI® research.

Back to top

Tell us what you need.
GET IN TOUCH

Tell us what you need
Get In Touch