fbpx

Myers-Briggs Test: Strengths, Limitations, & The Call for Advanced Personality Assessments

Victoria Sambursky

The personality testing market is currently estimated at $2 Billion, and chances are, if you have taken one of these introspective questionnaires, you’ve probably have taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). And even though millions of MBTI tests are administered every year, and the online version of the test has been updated for ease of use, the test itself is decades old. Based on how the world has changed since the MBTI was first published (1962), coupled with the standards of psychological test validation – the MBTI still falls short, and the need for an innovative personality assessment tool is greater than ever.

Below, we examine both positive and negative reviews of the Myers-Briggs test and the latest research showing its limitations. We also address the growing need for an advanced diagnostic tool that accurately evaluates a person’s aptitude based on multiple factors, including their environment. Knowing that a better personality assessment is necessary for today’s world – it’s time to think bigger.

The Genesis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The MBTI was designed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, inspired by the work of psychologist Carl Jung. The MBTI is based on 93 questions that group people into 16 different types broken down into four sets of binary characteristics, including:

  • Introvert (I) versus Extrovert (E)
  • Intuitive (N) versus Sensory (S)
  • Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F)
  • Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P)

The test looks at eight different cognitive functions that human beings use to interact with the world. Out of the eight, it’s broken down into four perceiving parts and four decision-making functions. Based on which combination of traits a person falls into, the assessment ultimately assigns them one of the 16 types.

For some, the MBTI “type theory” is seen as valuable: “My research with graduate student Dakota Jackson has found evidence of associations between type and self-efficacy, attachment style, and some clinical symptomologies. Some artificial intelligence researchers are even looking to type theory as the basis for artificial personality styles,” states Aqualus M. Gordon, Ph.D., in an article defending the use of MBTI. Dario Nardi’s research at UCLA suggests that individuals have preferred neural networks that form the basis of their emotional, cognitive, and behavioral patterns, which distinguishes their personality type. In other words, he believes that there may be a neurological basis for type.

However, according to most research circles, the Myers-Briggs is primarily based on theory, with no empirical evidence. This issue has prompted many skeptics of the assessment. In an article by VOX, Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, states, “There’s just no evidence behind it. The characteristics measured by the test have almost no predictive power on how happy you’ll be in a situation, how you’ll perform at your job, or how happy you’ll be in your marriage.” The article also reports, “Virtually no major psychology journals have published research on the test, almost all of it comes in dubious outlets was The Journal of Psychological Type, which was specifically created for this type of research.”

MBTI Limitations

Validity

The MBTI was born out of a set of theories, and those ideas were not tested before the tool became a commercial product, states an article in LiveScience. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant says on LinkedIn that psychologists and researchers require that a personality test pass specific criteria to be trusted or valid. He adds, “In social science, we use four standards: Are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not really.” Grant also reveals, “A test is valid if it predicts outcomes that matter. If we’re going to use it in organizations, it should shed light on how well I’ll perform in a particular job or with a specific group of people.”

Low Test, Re-Test Reliability

Some research suggests the Myers-Briggs tool is unreliable because the same person can get different results when retaking the test or low re-test reliability. “Across a 5-week re-test period, 50 percent of the participants received a different classification on one or more of the (MBTI) scales. This is to say that the test fails to meet standards of test-retest reliability,” states David Pittenger in his paper, Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Missing Pieces of Personality

Some researchers feel the MBTI is not comprehensive because its categories do not capture the full extent of personality. For example, there is no measure of emotional stability, which is considered a critical predictor in terms of thinking patterns, feeling, and action. As psychologists Robert McCrae and Paul Costa state, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on the four domains it does sample.”

Personalities Change Over Time

The categories people are grouped into after they complete the Myers-Briggs test also carry several issues. One limitation is the MBTI’s black-and-white categories: You are either thinking or feeling, an extrovert or introvert, a judger or a feeler, and so on. “This limitation [of the MBTI] is a shortcoming because people don’t fall neatly into two categories on any personality dimension; instead, people have many different degrees of the dimension,” Michael Ashton, professor of psychology at Brock University in Ontario, told Live Science.

The other issue with this limited design is that it assumes personality does not change over time. Wiebke Bleidorn, Ph.D., director of the Personality Change Lab at the University of California Davis, tells the American Psychological Association, “Between the 1970s and the early 2000s, laypeople and scholars alike thought personality traits are so stable, they cannot change at all.” She then adds, “Two seminal meta-analyses have shown that personality traits are relatively stable, but they also change, and they do so actually across the lifespan, meaning that there is no upper boundary. People aged 70 and older can still undergo pretty remarkable changes in their personality traits.”

Need for An Advanced & Scientifically Valid Assessment Tool

Many of today’s personality tests are based on the age-old MBTI formula. But what does this say about these tests if the MBTI has so many drawbacks and limitations? Maybe it’s time for an innovative assessment tool to find a person’s true potential. As we can see, traditional aptitude tests like the MBTI view personality traits as static and do not take into account an individual’s cognitive orientation – or worldview. This missing piece limits the ability to see the whole person. If a person is only allowed to view his or herself in a few dimensions rather than seeking deeper insights – how will they achieve personal, professional, or educational success?

Research tells us that a person’s traits and behaviors can change over time based on different factors, including the environment. With this knowledge, the Myers-Briggs test falls short, and the need for an advanced diagnostic tool that accurately assesses an individual’s aptitude is more significant than ever. Providing a holistic view of a person’s cognitive process concerning their traits, perceptions, and behavior generates a more valid and reliable analysis. Our COSEC (Cognitive Orientation & Social-Emotional Competency) assessment considers these factors and helps people find their personalized way to well-being and success. How are we different?

  • Our assessment is backed by 18 years of research, with more than 700,000 subjects taking the assessment – making us scientifically valid and reliable.
  • We understand that people do not fall neatly into categories and offer 8000+ Types.
  • We know that personalities change over time and use cognitive markers to measure and find the unique pattern of how a person perceives their environment.

Our innovative approach digs deep to uncover the details of an individual’s personality and behavior. Providing a holistic and granularized view of a person’s cognitive process generates a more accurate analysis – unlocking the potential for more significant personal, educational, and professional success. Knowing that an advanced and scientifically valid test is necessary for today’s world – it’s time to think bigger and for a major paradigm shift to take place in the world of personality assessments. It’s time for COSEC.