This paper evaluates the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), an assessment instrument grounded in Carl Jung's theory of personality types. It examines the instrument's purpose, design, and format — including its forced-choice binary item structure and seventh-grade reading level — before analyzing its psychometric properties. Evidence from multiple studies indicates strong test-retest reliability (.83–.97) and high convergent validity with other instruments, including the Strong Interest Inventory and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. However, the paper also demonstrates that the MBTI's predictive validity is limited, particularly when the instrument is applied outside its intended scope. The review concludes that the MBTI is a highly effective tool for understanding personality preferences when used as designed, but is frequently misapplied in clinical, organizational, and predictive contexts for which it was not developed.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an assessment instrument that attempts, with a large degree of success, to make Carl Jung's definitions and understandings of personality types practically applicable. The different sets of opposing preferences Jung described as existing in various combinations in different individuals — introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving — are tested and assigned percentages, yielding a coded four-letter "type" that expresses an individual's preferences. Studies have found certain characteristics to be typical of various types, supporting both the usefulness and the validity and consistency of the MBTI instrument.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was designed to provide a clear method of measuring the personality preferences identified and defined by Carl Jung — with the judging/perceiving preference actually defined by Myers and Briggs themselves (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000). The test is not intended to define specific competencies or personality traits, though it is often misapplied for such purposes; rather, it demonstrates preference and can be used to predict patterns of interaction (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000). It is intended for use with virtually all populations who have reached the capacity for abstract thought. The current instrument is written at a seventh-grade reading level, enabling broad applicability and usability (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000).
The measurement itself is relatively straightforward: each individual's responses yield percentages of preference in each of the four category pairs, indicating which preference the individual holds in each category as well as the strength of that preference. The implications of these measurements are far more complex than the measurements themselves, however, and this is where confusion and misuse often arise (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000). Individual preferences are not strong indicators of perceptual and interactive patterns on their own; rather, it is the combination of various preferences that can influence behavior. This is still not the same as identifying personality traits (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000).
The items on the test are all forced-choice binary responses — respondents must select one of two statements that conflict with each other from the perspective of the test's defined categories, even if the statements are not mutually exclusive in plain language. "I enjoy going to parties" versus "I enjoy spending time alone" is a simplified but typical example of the items that appear on the instrument (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000). The current form of the instrument was standardized using a diverse sample of over three thousand respondents, all over the age of eighteen and living in the United States (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000). Although other adaptations of the instrument exist, this North America-oriented version is what is reviewed here and what has been utilized in the research studies examined.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has remained a popular instrument for many decades and through numerous updates largely because of its proven reliability. In the most recent form of the instrument, test-retest reliability was found to range from .83 to .97 over a four-week interval, with internal consistency generally holding above .90 (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2000). Reliability measures for more complex applications — such as consistency in measuring cognitive processes and other unintended uses — are less consistent and demonstrate the practical limitations of the instrument (Sipps & DiCaudo, 1988; Carey, 1989).
The instrument has also been subjected to numerous tests of convergent validity, having been used alongside a variety of other instruments that assess the same or similar aspects of personality, and it has shown a high level of agreement with them (Pulver & Kelly, 2008; Brown & Reilly, 2009; Sipps & DiCaudo, 1988). When compared to results on the Strong Interest Inventory in a study attempting to predict college major selection, convergent validity exceeded .90 between the two tests (Pulver & Kelly, 2008). The predictive validity of the two tests used in conjunction was slightly under .50, however, and the predictive validity of the Strong Interest Inventory alone exceeded .45, meaning the MBTI does not have a statistically significant independent predictive validity in this admittedly narrow and unintended application (Pulver & Kelly, 2008).
The predictive validity of the MBTI is further called into question by certain other applications, despite continued high convergent validity. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used alongside the MBTI in a study attempting to predict levels of transformational leadership based on personality assessment. Although there was a high correlation between certain MBTI outcomes and self-reported levels of transformational leadership, there was no correlation between any MBTI or MLQ outcomes and actual levels of transformational leadership as measured by reports from other employees (Brown & Reilly, 2009). As the MBTI was not designed as a predictive instrument, its predictive validity in many situations is significantly limited.
"Practical applications and key limitations identified"
"Critical summaries of five supporting studies"
The analysis of previous reviews and current research studies utilizing the MBTI demonstrates both the efficacy and the limitations of the instrument. Its reliability and convergent validity are well supported by the evidence, making it a valuable tool for fostering self-understanding and exploring personality preferences. Its predictive validity, however, is limited — particularly when the instrument is applied to contexts for which it was not designed. Used in the manner it was intended, the MBTI is a highly effective and accurate tool for presenting a basic understanding of personality preferences and interactions, enabling greater self-awareness without serving as a basis for decisions about specific individuals' capabilities or performance.
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.