Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Research Paper:
Both of these concrete personality traits, which the MBTI instrument was not designed to measure, were more directly measured through the utilization of other more specifically and concretely designed instruments, and the values recorded by various individuals on these instruments compared with their responses on the MBTI instrument, in order to determine whether or not the instrument has greater applicability and validity in determining personality traits than its creators intended.
The results of the study showed that there did appear to be a high degree of convergent validity, but the authors point out that the constructs used to establish this validity are different than those suggest by the authors of the MBTI. This makes this measure of convergent validity less directly significant for a review of the MBTI instrument itself.
Brown, F. & Reilly, D. (2009). "The Myers-Briggs type indicator and transformational leadership." Journal of management development 28(10), pp. 916-32.
In this study, the authors examined the results of the Myers Brigg Type Indicator instrument when completed by a population of managers and other business leaders, when compared to the same population's results on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The research was an attempt to determine if certain results on the MBTI could be equated with evidence of transformational leadership, a particular leadership style thought to be highly dependent upon specific personality traits and types. To this end, results on the MBTI were compared with results from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measured self-reported instances of transformational leadership and the actual occurrence of specific traits, as well. This questionnaire was also administered to employees of the managerial population, to come to a better understanding of the actual level of transformational leadership exhibited by the managerial population that was the primary focus of the study.
The study showed that there was a high correlation between certain results on the MBTI and claims of transformational leadership qualities and behaviors, but it was also found that there was no correlation between MBTI results and actual instances of evidenced transformational leadership. No concrete convergent or predictive statistics were published.
Carey, C. (1989). "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Measure of Aspects of Cognitive Style." Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
22(2), pp / 94-9.
A series of specifically designed tests were used in conjunction with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument in this study, in order to determine the relationship, if any, that existed between the personality preferences as demonstrated in responses to the MBTI and cognitive complexity and independence. The other tests used in this study were not fully vetted psychological/cognitive assessment instruments, but rather independent cognitive and field tests that taken together provided an assessment of each individual respondent's independence and cognitive complexity. Seventy-nine female college students made up the population for this study, which the author acknowledges has limited applicability due to the narrow scope of those included in the study and the relatively small size of the study's population in purely numerical terms, though the results render the applicability issue rather moot.
Though some aspects of cognitive functioning appeared to be correlated to results on the MBTI, the instrument did not account for all issues of cognitive complexity. Independence in thinking was much more strongly correlated to specific results on the MBTI, which is unsurprising as this trait is more directly related to certain measured preferences.
Pulver, C. & Kelly, K. (2008). "Incremental Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
in Predicting Academic Major Selection of Undecided University Students."
Journal of career assessment 16(4), pp. 441-55.
In another misapplication of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the instrument was used in conjunction with the Strong Interest Inventory in order to test the value of each of these instruments in predicting college major choices. A population of college students who were still undecided at the time of the study were given both instruments, and when they chose majors at the end of their fourth semesters these choices were categorized based on a certain consensus of evaluation of the major material. These categorized choices were then compared to the preferences demonstrated on the MBTI and the SII, and predictive values for these two tests were then established. Analysis took part in a two-phase manner, however, with correlation to responses on the SII alone being established, and then the difference in correlation to the use of both instruments was measured to determine the specific predictive value of and practical assistance provided by the MBTI instrument itself.
This value was not found to be especially high; the SII alone had a predictive validity of 45.4%…[continue]
"Myers-Briggs Eval Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" (2010, July 04) Retrieved December 7, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/myers-briggs-eval-type-indicator-9909
"Myers-Briggs Eval Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" 04 July 2010. Web.7 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/myers-briggs-eval-type-indicator-9909>
"Myers-Briggs Eval Myers-Briggs Type Indicator", 04 July 2010, Accessed.7 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/myers-briggs-eval-type-indicator-9909