60+ years of research highlight the MBTI assessment’s methodology and accuracy

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Dec. 8, 2015—CPP, Inc. (CPP.com), an industry leader in research, training, and organizational development tools, and publisher of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment, today released two new informational videos that succinctly chronicle the history of the MBTI® assessment as a psychometrically validated instrument built on decades of research. The videos capture the thoughts of Richard Thompson, PhD, CPP’s Divisional Director of Research, on why the MBTI instrument has become the world’s most popular personality assessment. Thompson—who leads the team responsible for ensuring the ongoing validity and reliability of the instrument—discusses correlations of the MBTI assessment and the Big Five Personality Traits model, and addresses common critical feedback.

The MBTI Assessment and the Big Five Personality Traits
{http://bit.ly/MBTIandtheBig5} 
For the past 30 years, academic psychologists and researchers have relied heavily on the Big Five Personality Traits to account for measures of personality. But Thompson points out that long before the Big Five model was developed, Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers had already identified four of these five dimensions, putting the MBTI assessment far ahead of the game in measuring important personality constructs. 

“The four overlapping dimensions that the MBTI assessment measures have been shown to correlate highly with the Big Five measures. So if you think the MBTI tool is measuring nothing, then the Big Five is measuring nothing as well—a position that very few researchers would take,” says Thompson. “The fact that they correlate as highly as they do means that they are both in fact measuring similar items.”

The MBTI Assessment and its Critics {http://bit.ly/MBTIandcritics} 
Since it began publishing the MBTI assessment, CPP has consistently updated the instrument and its corresponding technical supplements and manuals with new research. Thompson points out, however, that out-of-date materials are frequently and incorrectly referenced by some of the assessment’s critics. He also notes that many common criticisms are aimed at uses for which the MBTI instrument was not designed, such as selection for hiring. He makes the case that, when used properly, the MBTI assessment accurately measures what it is intended to measure, and the updated manuals published by CPP are intended to help clarify these common misconceptions and guide correct usage. 

According to the most recent manual on the MBTI assessment, the test and re-test agreement for the individual preferences rate falls in the range of 80% to 90%—meaning participants are likely to receive the same results on consecutive MBTI administrations. Thompson also discusses the benefits of the instrument’s either/or question format, which measures dichotomous dimensions and places people’s preferences clearly into one category or the other. “By using the dichotomous items, the assessment’s results are clearer to people who aren’t necessarily statisticians.”

To view the latest MBTI assessment Manual Supplement, please visit:{http://bit.ly/21Jvni7}