A critique of MBTI

Career assessments are part of a holistic career counselling process. Assessments have a role as a starting point for clients to “identify, understand and appreciate the unique aspects that make them up as an individual” (Osborn & Zunker, 2016, p. xii). Tests can catalogue client aptitudes, abilities, interests, values, personality and career decision-making skills, as an integral component in our career practitioner toolbox. Further, career assessment tools are often standardised quantitative instruments, which use norms - or “typical scores” - to enable comparisons of client results with a statistical representation of a similar population (Osborn & Zunker, 2016).

As part of our process of seeking appropriate instruments to use with a client, not only do we need to consider how reliable, and valid an assessment is; and what norms are used (Osborn & Zunker, 2016), but also how culture and personal characteristics may affect test norms. We should also factor in aspects of "age, gender, ability, race, ethnic group, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, linguistic background” (Flores et al., 2003, p. 45). During test construction, minorities are often not well catered for, meaning that we cannot necessarily assume accurate generalisations about client results (Flores et al., 2003).

We also must consider "equivalence" with assessment, as it relates to language, constructs, scales and norms within any test (Flores et al., 2003). The meaning of words and ideas - such as behaviour or values - change between different cultures. We need to ask ourselves if the questions/scales are relatable and understandable; and if the culture of clients is represented in norms. We need to be aware of the duality of those who walk in two value worlds - such as Māori and Pasifika people - of both individuality and the collective (Apulu, 2022). These differences must be noted and taken into account when interpreting results.

According to the Myers-Briggs website, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI,  is “based on large representative norms that account for race, age and gender” (The Myers Briggs Foundation, 2022). They note that there have been “hundreds of studies over the past 40 years which have proven the instrument to be both valid and reliable" (The Myers Briggs Foundation, 2022). In the Buros Centre for Testing review, the Myers Briggs Foundation is quoted as stating that the MBTI is the "most popular personality type inventory" (Mastrangelo, 2001, p. 816).

MBTI is designed for ages 14 year and older, and is very accessible: there are a number of free tests which self-calculate online; if completing a full inventory with a licenced provider the test can be hand written and scored, or completed as an online version. MBTI is available in 29 languages, which should be useful for a range of cultures to complete the test in their first language (Mastrangelo, 2001; The Myers Briggs Foundation, 2022). 

While we may find this test personally valid, when working with clients it is essential to independently establish the validity of qualitative assessments. The Buros Centre for Testing found that the MBTI test/retest reliability after 4 weeks was only 65% (Mastrangelo, 2001). Sixteen years later in 2017, NBTI reliability estimates ranged from 38% to 97%, again averaging around two thirds (Harris, 2017). This means that over a third of clients will get a different result if they retook the test. Our clients are likely paying $350 for a professional MBTI assessment from a licenced practitioner, and it is easy to see that many would be unhappy with that level of reliability in their results.

The founder of many of the concepts which MBTI is based upon, Carl Jung, warned that his personality types were useful primarily as tools for studying large numbers of people, and became all but meaningless when applied to individuals (Pittenger, 2005), throwing further doubt upon the validity of the test. It has also been noted that MBTI appears to have “no evidence to show a positive relation[ship] between MBTI tests and success within an occupation” (Pittenger, 1993, p. 52). Critiques have also been made about the binary scoring scales leading to less than valid results (Harris, 2017; Mastrangelo, 2001). Tests such as the Big Five (aka NEO) use scales, considered more valid and appropriate measure. 

MBTI can be a useful tool to gather general preference information and a good self reflection tool, but it should not be relied upon AT ALL for hiring decisions. It is a preference indicator not a personality measure (Mastrangelo, 2001).

Sam, Alexandra, Donna, Karen & Helen

References:

Apulu, M. (2022). How to grow a culturally responsive career practice. [Master's thesis: University of Otago]. https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10652/5711/MPP_2022_Peter_Apulu.pdf

Flores, L. Y., Spanierman, L. B., & Obasi, E. M. (2003). Ethical and professional issues in career assessment with diverse racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(1), 76-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907202237461

Harris, S. M. (2017). [127] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Step III. In J. F. Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.) The Twentieth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 521-526). The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Mastrangelo, P. M. (2001). [251] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [Form M]. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 816-820). Buros Center for Testing.

Nord, C. (2017). Could fMRI be a viable biomarker in psychiatry? A test-retest reliability fMRI study. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/experimental-psychology/blog/fmri-viable-biomarker-psychiatry-test-retest-reliability-fmri-study/

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short. Journal of Career Planning and Placement, 54(1), 48-53.

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210

Osborn, D. S., & Zunker, V. G. (2016). Using Assessment Results for Career Development (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

The Myers Briggs Foundation (2022). MBTI® Basics. https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

* Karen Bennett, Alexandra Howe, Donna Manley & Helen Davie-Martin have kindly prepared much of the material used in this post. And I have mashed it up, and connected it :-)