Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - וועלכע ביסטו?
בעפאר דו גוגל'ס וואס דאס איז בכלל, קליק דא און פיהל אויס די שאלות.
דערנאך לייענט אויף וויקיפדיע וואס דאס איז
רק כדי להוציא מלבן של הצדיקים והתמימים (ווי יואב זאגט):
Criticism
The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers–Briggs advocates).[39] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[39][6] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak.[6][7] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[6][7]
For example, some researchers expected that scores would show a bimodal distribution with peaks near the ends of the scales, but found that scores on the individual subscales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner similar to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the center of the subscale such that a score on one side is classified as one type, and a score on the other side as the opposite type. This fails to support the concept of type: the norm is for people to lie near the middle of the subscale.[35][6][40][41][42] "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers’ theory-based assumption of categorical “types” of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to “type” advocates to cite in defense of their position." [42]
In 1991, the National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research studies and concluded that only the I-E scale has high correlations with comparable scales of other instruments and low correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts, showing strong validity. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 review committee concluded at the time there was "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs".[43] This study based its measurement of validity on "criterion-related validity (i.e., does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or career success/job performance?)."[43] Studies have found that there is insufficient evidence to make claims about utility, particularly of the four letter type given after the test.[6]
The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting by the person tested.[19]:52–53 Unlike some personality measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses.[44] As a result, individuals motivated to do so can fake their responses,[45] and one study found that the MBTI judgment/perception dimension correlates weakly with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale.[46] If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may answer as they assume they should."[19]:53 However, the MBTI ethical guidelines state, "It is unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants."[31] The intent of the MBTI is to provide "a framework for understanding individual differences, and … a dynamic model of individual development".[47]
איך האב באקומען INTP, פאר (introversion, intuition, thinking, perceiving), וואס איז דיינע?
דערנאך לייענט אויף וויקיפדיע וואס דאס איז
רק כדי להוציא מלבן של הצדיקים והתמימים (ווי יואב זאגט):
Criticism
The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers–Briggs advocates).[39] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[39][6] Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak.[6][7] A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these relationships can be drawn."[6][7]
For example, some researchers expected that scores would show a bimodal distribution with peaks near the ends of the scales, but found that scores on the individual subscales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner similar to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the center of the subscale such that a score on one side is classified as one type, and a score on the other side as the opposite type. This fails to support the concept of type: the norm is for people to lie near the middle of the subscale.[35][6][40][41][42] "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers’ theory-based assumption of categorical “types” of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to “type” advocates to cite in defense of their position." [42]
In 1991, the National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research studies and concluded that only the I-E scale has high correlations with comparable scales of other instruments and low correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts, showing strong validity. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 review committee concluded at the time there was "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs".[43] This study based its measurement of validity on "criterion-related validity (i.e., does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or career success/job performance?)."[43] Studies have found that there is insufficient evidence to make claims about utility, particularly of the four letter type given after the test.[6]
The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting by the person tested.[19]:52–53 Unlike some personality measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses.[44] As a result, individuals motivated to do so can fake their responses,[45] and one study found that the MBTI judgment/perception dimension correlates weakly with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale.[46] If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may answer as they assume they should."[19]:53 However, the MBTI ethical guidelines state, "It is unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants."[31] The intent of the MBTI is to provide "a framework for understanding individual differences, and … a dynamic model of individual development".[47]
איך האב באקומען INTP, פאר (introversion, intuition, thinking, perceiving), וואס איז דיינע?
