Furthermore, people change over time as a result of experience. Thus, the MBTI may capture one's current state, but can not predict one's state in the future.
The MBTI is currently the fourth most frequently used standardized test in community-based treatment settings. The test is intended for subjects 14 years and older. Versions adapted for other countries have been developed. The test administrator must have a college degree and have completed a college course in the interpretation of psychological tests and measurement. The test may be taken in a pencil-and-paper or computer format. The original MBIT was published in 1962 by Educational Testing Services. Publication of this instrument was assumed by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. In 1975. Revisions to the MBTI include a standardization of Form F. And a new Form G. In 1975. In 1998, a major revision to Form G. was implemented as well as a new Form M. Finally, a new Form Q. was developed in 2001. Cost for forms, answer sheets, and report forms total ~$2-3 each.
The WRAT3 is intended for subjects aged 5 to 75 years. The test must be administered and scored by a professional with adequate supervision in accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association. The test may be taken in a pencil-and-paper format only. The original WRAT instrument was developed in 1965 and published by Guidance Associates. In 1984, the WRAT-Revised (R) was developed. The third version of this instrument, the WRAT3, was published in 1993. The (R) and (3) versions were developed by Jastak Associates. Cost for forms, answer sheets, and report forms total ~$5 each.
Other than MBTI, other nonclinical personality tests include Adult Personality Inventory (API-R), California Psychological Inventory 260 (CPI-260), and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The API-R is a multidimensional tool for assessment of personality, interpersonal style, and career preference. The test is a 324-item questionnaire to be used with individuals 16 years and older. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency coefficients average.75. The CPI-260 assesses normal adult personality. The test was developed with 260 true/false questions and is arranged with 29 scales; 20 folk scales, 3 structural scales, and 6 special purpose scales. This test identifies an individual's strengths and areas for development. The tool also provides understanding of preferences, attitudes, and behaviors in management and leadership situations. The MSCEIT is an ability test of emotional intelligence that is designed for test-takers 17 years and older. The assessment consists of 141 items that yield a total emotional intelligence score as well as various sub-scores. Test-retest reliability for the MSCEIT is.86 and internal consistency is.91-.93.
The most similar test to the WRAT-3 is the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), which covers similar material. The PIAT is an individually administered, norm-referenced measure of academic achievement. The test was designed for individuals in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Split-half reliability ranges from.84 for kindergarten Mathematics to.98 for third grade Reading Recognition. The median split-half reliability for the total test is.98. Correlation of WRAT-3 to other achievement tests are in the.50s to.70s (California Achievement Test and Stanford Achievement Test) and.60s to.80s (California Test of Basic Skills). The Kaufman Functional Academic Skills Test (K-FAST) was introduced as an alternative to WRAT3. Strong correlations on raw and standard scores were shown between these two tests, as well as between each of these tests and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, a screener of verbal and nonverbal intelligence (Klimczak, Bradford, Burright, & Donovick, 2000).
In conclusion, the MBTI and WRAT3 tests have adequate reliability and validity to justify their use. However, these tests serve different functions. Thus, direct comparisons are not meaningful. The MBTI is predominantly used to assess behavioral and emotional factors in subjects aged 14 years and older. Conversely, the WRAT3 is designed to measure academic performance or achievement in subjects from 5 to 75 years old.
Although primarily designed for different purposes, several authors have attempted to use the MBTI to predict performance in various endeavors. Jones et al. (Harasym, Leong, Juschka, Lucier, & Lorscheider, 1995).
Caution should be exercised when analyzing the results of any psychological test. These tests are only one element of a comprehensive assessment and should not be used as a sole indicator for psychological function. Adjunctive information should include subject history and a review of relevant psychological, medical, and educational records.
Carlson, J.G. (1985). Recent assessments of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. J Pers Assess, 49(4), 356-365.
Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 461-473.
Harasym, P.H., Leong, E.J., Juschka, B.B., Lucier, G.E., & Lorscheider, F.L. (1995). Myers-Briggs psychological type and achievement in anatomy and physiology. Am J. Physiol, 268(6 Pt 3), S61-65.
Harvey, R.J. (1996). Reliability and validity. In a.L. Hammer (Ed.), MBTI Applications (pp. 24). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Jones, a.C., Courts, F.J., Sandow, P.L., & Watson, R.E. (1997). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and dental school performance. J Dent Educ, 61(12), 928-933.
Klimczak, N.C., Bradford, K.A., Burright, R.G., & Donovick, P.J. (2000). K-FAST and WRAT-3: are they really different? Clin Neuropsychol, 14(1), 135-138.
McCarley, N.G., & Carskadon, T.G. (1983). Test-retest reliabilities of scales and sub-scales of the Myers-Briggs Type: Indicators of criteria for clinical interpretative hypothesis involving them. Research in Psychological Type, 6(1), 24-36.
Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict-handling and personality dimensions of project-management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57, 1135-1143.
Moore, T. (1987). Personality tests are back. Fortune, March, 74-82.
Nutt, P.C. (1990). Strategic decisions made by top executives and middle managers with data and process dominant styles. Journal of Management Studies, 27, 173-194.
Ruble, T.L., & Cosier, R.A. (1990). Effects of cognitive styles and decision setting on performance. Organizational Behavior…