Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 6

4.0 Reference .................................................................................................................................... 8

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Personality Test

As is well known, everyone has his character, attitude, style and manner. These are among the
words that are mentioned when talking about someone. A suitable term for those words is
personality. In this regard, personality is the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within
the individual that are organized and relatively enduring and that influences the individual
interactions with adaptations to the intrapsychic, physical and social environments.
Psychological traits describe ways in which people are different from each other. It also can be
defined as ways in which people are similar to others. The variety of personalities makes a
person unique compared to someone else in many things. Uniqueness is not only limited to
creating a diversity of behaviour in the organization; in fact, it directly impacts work
achievement, how to socialize, how to communicate and various aspects of a person's life. It
can be said that the observation or evaluation done on a person over some time can identify the
specific personality of that individual, where this evaluation can be said to be able to give an
early prediction of the impact of an individual's work or the effectiveness of that individual's
life.
In assessing an individual's personality, from a psychological point of view, many
evaluation tools can be used: personality tests. Personality tests are tools used to assess human
personality. It is designed to measure the characteristics and patterns of traits people exhibit
across various situations. It can be used to explain a clinical diagnosis, guide therapeutic
interventions, and help predict how people may respond in different situations. There are many
psychological tests in psychology to identify a person's personality, for example, the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Giving further details about this personality test is an introspective questionnaire report
that shows different psychological preferences in how an individual sees the world and makes
a decision. In the original history, the MBTI was developed by an individual from the United
States, Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. MBTI was developed
through the original idea, which is the conceptual theory with four main psychological
functions: sensation, intuition, feeling and thinking. Through this MBTI personality
assessment, it can identify four dominant behavioural elements, namely
Inversion/Extraversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perception; from
this result, there is a 16-personality test that breaks personality into several categories. Among
them is the INFP personality category, which describes a person's nature (introversion,
intuition, feeling and perception). Although this MBTI personality test is quite popular and
known by many, it has been widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community
where there is not enough evidence for its scientific validity to recommend use as a personality
or career guidance tool.

Figure 1
MBTI explanation chart

Note. The following shows the 16 personality types in the MBTI, including a letter for each side of
the four scales the person aligns with most.
2.0 Discussion

As discussed, MBTI is a very popular personality test. Millions of people have taken it where it needs
more scientific grounds where the validity and reliability of the test can determine the quality of the
test. In this case, validity can tell us where the test measures what it is supposed to measure, while
reliability tells us that we will have the same result if we take the test again a few weeks or years later.
This writing section will explain more about the validity and reliability related to the MBTI test.

Validity
Start by knowing that validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended
to measure. Looking at the MBTI test, several things prove that the MBTI is low in validity.
According to (Stein & Swan, 2019) one of the fundamental issues in the philosophy of science
is how to judge if a scientific hypothesis is "acceptable," which is a valuable skill for psychology
students to master. A psychological theory's capacity to increase our understanding of psychology is
constrained if it lacks "acceptability." Lack of "acceptability" in the MBTI's situation would make it
challenging to evaluate results from the MBTI example correlations between scores on one of the
dichotomies and proclivities for particular jobs since the explanations that the MBTI theory offer would
not be accurate. In addition, as everyone knows, the creation of a test must undergo some specific
procedures to prevent any errors from occurring; however, the truth about human psychology was
probably what Jung was attempting to ascertain, but he did not do it by formulating logical theories that
could be put to the test and updated when new information came to light. On the contrary, he saw the
unscientific nature of his theories as a strength. As a result, his beliefs frequently do not help researchers
attempt to move closer to verified truth. Jung's theories fall under "synthetic" theories, which are prone
to becoming unnecessarily complicated at the price of applicability and validity since they are founded
on logic and anecdotal observation rather than rigorous empirical data. They found friends and family
members "whose type preferences seemed to the authors to be evident from long acquaintance and 20
years of careful observation of behavior," and they created forced-choice questions that seemed to
distinguish people of "known" type from one another, even though the resulting choices between
options were not always logical opposites. Their preferences on each issue might be viewed as the real
indications of type because they analyzed "genuine" examples of each kind.
In another research (Pittenger, 2005) the fact that Jung's theory and the MBTI are typologies is
emphasized as an essential aspect that deserves consideration. The instrument expressly treats different
personality types as distinct groups. According to this viewpoint, distinct populations of people display
distinct personality traits on both a quantitative and qualitative level. These populations will, in other
words, exhibit relative heterogeneity of variance between groups and relative homogeneity of variation
within groups. Most personality tests represent a trait perspective that characterizes personality as a
construct best measured using a continuous variable that ranges between two extremes. In general,
continuous MBTI scores are likely overutilized. Despite how intuitively or psychometrically superior
it may appear to employ continuous scores in many situations, it must be recalled that type scales are
dichotomous, and the indicator was built accordingly. In general, dichotomous classification is probably
preferable unless there are specific reasons to the contrary. More from (Pittenger, 2005) there is a
notable absence of data proving the incremental validity of the MBTI over other personality
assessments, as stated. Given the renewed interest in the function of personality tests in the workplace,
such a conclusion is not unexpected. Despite this, it was considering the attention devoted to various
personality orientations industrial–organizational psychologists. The popularity of the MBTI as a
consulting tool is likely a result of the publisher's successful marketing strategy and the instrument's
straightforward and simple-sounding scoring methodology.
Consequently, the MBTI can be used to explain the concept of individual variances in
personality and the relationship between personal characteristics and behavior to a broad audience
nonthreateningly. The instrument could even catalyze exercises that result in better employee team
spirit. However, it is a misrepresentation of the existing evidence to report the data using the four-letter
type formula rather than the scaled scores. Without sufficient empirical evidence, it is impossible to
recommend applications of a personality test. Although numerous claims have been made about the
conformity and utility of the MBTI in business contexts, the evidence does not support these claims.

Reliability
The reliability of a test refers to how consistently it measures the subject matter. Test-retest reliability
was measured to determine the MBTI test's viability (Pittenger, 1993). The standard deviation and test-
retest reliability of the test are two factors that affect the standard error of measurement, which in turn
helps the author determine whether the 5-point difference between the two people represents a
significant difference between them or if the difference merely reflects a measurement error. When the
standard deviation is high and the reliability is poor, as has been shown by research, it is reasonable to
infer that significant individual differences exist. For each of the four dimensions, the standard error of
measurement is sizable. Unfortunately, to categorize people into a rigid dichotomy, the MBTI scoring
method obscures this significant divergence. As a result, two individuals may have similar raw scores
yet belong to distinct classes. This happens as a result of cutoff points that separate the dimensions. One
classification is supplied if the score is higher than the cutoff; the other classification is given if the
score is lower than the cutoff. Even though some MBTI users attempt to interpret how near a score is
to the cutoff, this practice is at odds with MBTI's theory. In conclusion, despite what it would seem,
there are some variances between the two-letter groups. Due to the complete classification system used
by the MBTI, it is conceivable for individuals with comparatively identical scores to be assigned various
types.
 Also study from (Myers and McCaulley, 1985; Myers et al., 1998 in Lamond) saw
personality type as invariant. If this is the case, then test-retest reliabilities should be high.
Report studies where the between-test period has ranged from four to five weeks to five years.
Reliability is consistently good, with correlations between continuous scores mostly in the 0.77
to 0.89. After five weeks, agreement for preferences ranged from 77% to 92%, with
approximately half the sample remaining the same on all four scales, a result significantly better
than chance. Even when the mood of the respondents was deliberately elevated or depressed
prior to the second administration, results were consistent with those already mentioned
(Howes and Carskadon, 1979). In about three-quarters of the cases, the retest will show the
same three or four letters, with changes occurring when the original preference score was low.
(Pittenger D. J., 1993) They have mentioned that the pattern of results is consistent
across these studies. For example, (Strieker and Ross 1964 in Pittenger D.J.,1993) found that
over 14 months, the lowest test-retest correlation was for the TF scale (r(38) = .48). The highest
was for the El scale (r(38) = .73). Although the reliabilities are generally high, there is a
paradox. First, the reliabilities suggest that types have the potential to change at each test. If
each of the 16 types represents a very different personality trait, it is hard to reconcile a test
that allows individuals to make radical shifts in their type. Taken as a whole, these data suggest
that the MBTI does not provide the assessment of personality types that it claims. The research
up to this point indicates that additional psychological categories derived from various
nomological networks can also describe the kinds specified by the MBTI. Although factor
analysis implies that the test can identify the four components, these data offer, at best,
mediocre support.

3.0 Conclusion

One of the most popular tests is the MBTI personality test, which can be mentioned. The instrument's
popularity, however, is not in line with research findings, and the MBTI handbook does not offer norms
based on continuous scores, according to the study. In addition, the veracity of a large portion of the
manual's supporting data is in question. Therefore, predicting behavioral or professional results using
MBTI preference scores is problematic.
Furthermore, test-retest estimates call into question the dependability of MBTI scores.
According to some academics, all personality tests have poor psychometric standing. The problems
with item transparency and the resulting response distortion, which can range from a lack of self-
awareness to purposeful faking and the repercussions of response sets in general, are unquestionably
considerations that apply to all self-report questionnaires. There is insufficient research on the MBTI's
utility in organizational settings, and most known studies are faulty. They also stated that there is
currently insufficient high-quality evidence to back up the usage of the MBTI in career counseling
programs. The majority of the evidence now available is based on poor technique. The MBTI generally
provides a straightforward psychometric explanation of Jungian personality types. The measure has
clear psychometric limitations. However, this concise definition may be useful in some situations (such
as forecasting an individual's typical cognitive and interpersonal behaviour style). With increased
research and development, the MBTI may play a more useful role in applied psychological assessment.
Developing accurate and comprehensive local norms, including relevant motivational distortion scores,
should increase prediction validity in the Australian setting. Given the lack of acceptable local norms,
it would be prudent for practitioners to be aware of its possible misuse and to exercise caution while
performing personality assessments with the instrument. Psychometrically, the current enthusiasm for
the MBTI is completely unfounded. Numerous studies indicate this MBTI exam's validity and reliability
while highlighting some limitations that should be considered when using it.
4.0 Reference

Lamond, D. (n.d.). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Evidence Of Its Validity, Reliability And
Normative Characterisctics For Managers In An Autralian Context.

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI… and coming up short. Journal of Career Planning and
Employment, 48-52.

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of educational research,
467-488.

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 210-221.

Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A
teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Soc Personal Psychol Compass.