Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality questionnaire designed to identify certain psychological differences according to the typological theories of Carl Gustav Jung as published in his 1921 book Psychological Types (English edition, 1923). The original developers of the indicator were Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. They began developing the indicator during World War II, believing that a knowledge of personality preferences would help the women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be "most comfortable and effective."
While many academic psychologists have criticized the indicator in research literature, claiming that it "lacks convincing validity data,"  proponents and sellers of the test cite unblinded anecdotal predictions of individual behavior.
The definitive published source of reference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is The Manual produced by CPP, from which much of the information in this article is drawn, along with training materials from CPP and their European training partners, Oxford Psychologists Press.
Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the concept of Psychological Type.
In a similar way to left- or right- handedness, the principle is that individuals also find certain ways of thinking and acting easier than others. The MBTI endeavours to sort some of these psychological opposites into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting sixteen possible combinations. None of these combinations is 'better' or 'worse', however Briggs and Myers recognised that everyone has an overall combination which is most comfortable for them: in the same way as writing with the left hand is hard work for a right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preference more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviourally flexible) with practice and development.
The preferences are normally notated with the initial letters of each of their four preferences, for instance:
- ISTJ - Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging
- ENFP - Extroverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving
And so on for all sixteen possible combinations.
The four dichotomies
The four pairs of preferences or dichotomies are shown in the table to the right.
Note that the terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the MBTI, which differ from their everyday usage. For example, people with a preference for Judging over Perceiving are not necessarily more 'judgmental' or less 'perceptive'.
The MBTI does not measure aptitude, either: it simply sorts for one preference over another. So someone reporting a high score for Extraversion over Introversion on the MBTI cannot be correctly described as 'more' or 'strongly' Extraverted: they simply have a clear preference.
Functions (S-N and T-F)
The Sensing-Intuition and Thinking-Feeling dichotomies are often called the MBTI Functions. Individuals tend to trust one preference over the other, although balanced individuals have the ability to use both. Indeed, the flexibility to sense-check information and decisions using the less-preferred function can be valuable in many situations, such as in groups that have preferences in common among a number of members (and therefore a potential blind spot, that is, a tendency to underuse the opposite functions, which could result in groupthink). However, since people use their preferred function more, they tend to be much more practiced and comfortable with its use, much like athletes who enjoy their sport and therefore practice constantly.
Sensing and Intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals with a preference for sensing prefer to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches that seem to come out of nowhere. They prefer to look for detail and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those with a preference for intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.
Thinking and Feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. Both Thinking and Feeling types strive to make rational choices, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (S or N). Those with a preference for Feeling prefer to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. Those with a preference for Thinking prefer to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules.
As noted already, people with a Thinking preference do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, 'think better' than their Feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and in any case, the MBTI is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those with a Feeling preference are not necessarily 'more feeling' or emotional than their Thinking peers.
The preferences for Introversion and Extraversion are sometimes referred to as attitudes. Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the functions can show in the external world of behavior, action, people and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator sorts for an overall preference for one or the other of these.
People with a preference for Extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their level of energy and motivation tends to decline. Conversely, those whose preference is Introversion become less energized as they act: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. People with Introversion preferences need time out to reflect in order to rebuild energy.
The terms Extravert and Introvert are used in a special sense when discussing Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Someone with a clear E preference is not necessarily a party animal or a show-off, any more than someone clearly preferring I is necessarily shy, retiring and unsociable. An INTP meeting another INTP is an excellent example of this; the conversation will frequently begin with a recognition of a shared interest, such as science fiction, and continue with a rapid exchange of data and theories incomprehensible to an outsider to the conversation, the two only breaking off when interrupted by a third party or thirst.
In addition to the two Function pairs and Attitudes, Myers and Briggs identified that individuals also had preference to favour either their Judging function (T or F) or their Perceiving function (S or N) in relating to the outside world. Myers and Briggs called this one's "ambassador" to the world; i.e., the one sent forth to deal with the world.
Contrary to the popularized "J" being decisive or "P" being flexible, Myers and Briggs taught that a person whose type ends in J" really means that person "leads with" or "shows the world" whichever is in the Judging function - either T or F. A TJ comes across as extremely logical and rational, while a person who is FJ is a "heart on the sleeve" type of person.
A person whose type ends in a "P" will show the world/ lead with either the S or N. The SP shows extreme organization, while an NP approaches the world with ideas, ideas and more bright ideas! It's all about possibilities.
For instance, an ESTP is not, as popularly mistakenly identified as a "hang-loose, open-ended" person, but rather, one who extroverts organization! This is a wonderful organizer of all things, products, people... That understanding is derived from looking at what is in the Perceiving Function - in the ESTP, it is an S - for sensate.
On the other hand, an ENTP is actually a person who is comfortable with the open-ended, but not because of the "P". It is because what is in the "P" - Perceiving function is N- for Intuition.
What has mistakenly been offered as the definition for P and J actually just recycles the definition of Intuitive and Sensate. The "Ambassador" explanation is true to the Myers-Briggs interpretation.
The expression of MBTI type is more than the sum of the four individual preferences, because of the way in which the preferences interact through type dynamics and type development (see below).
Descriptions of each type can be found on the typelogic website.
In-depth descriptions of each type, including statistics, can be found in The MBTI Manual (op cit) nbvcn
C. G. Jung first spoke about typology at the Munich Psychological Congress in 1913. Katharine Cook Briggs began her research into personality in 1917, developing a four-type framework: Social, Thoughtful, Executive, and Spontaneous. In 1923 Jung's Psychological Types was published in English translation (having first been published in German in 1921). Katharine Briggs's first publications are two articles describing Jung's theory, in the journal New Republic in 1926 (Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box) and 1928 (Up From Barbarism). Katharine Briggs' daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, wrote a prize-winning mystery novel Murder Yet to Come in 1929, using typological ideas. She added to her mother's typological research, which she would progressively take over entirely. In 1942, the "Briggs-Myers Type Indicator" was created, and the Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to the modern form (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) in 1956.
Format and administration of the MBTI
The current North American English version of the MBTI Step I includes 93 forced-choice questions (there are 88 in the European English version). Forced-choice means that the individual has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. The choices are a mixture of word pairs and short statements. Choices are not literal opposites but chosen to reflect opposite preferences on the same dichotomy. Participants may skip questions if they feel they are unable to choose.
Using psychometric techniques, such as item response theory, the MBTI will then be scored and will attempt to identify the preference, and clarity of preference, in each dichotomy. After taking the MBTI, participants are usually asked to complete a Best Fit exercise (see above) and then given a readout of their Reported Type, which will usually include a bar graph and number to show how clear they were about each preference when they completed the questionnaire.
During construction of the MBTI, thousands of items were used, and most were thrown out because they did not have high midpoint discrimination, meaning the results of that one item did not, on average, move an individual score away from the midpoint. Using only items with high midpoint discrimination allows the MBTI to have fewer items on it but still provide as much statistical information as other instruments with many more items with lower midpoint discrimination. The MBTI requires five points one way or another to indicate a clear preference.
Isabel Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences as well as similarities, and at the time of her death was developing a more in depth method to offer clues about how each person expresses and experiences their type pattern, which is called MBTI Step II.
In addition to this, the Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI) (Saunders, 1989) is a scoring system for the longer MBTI, Form J , that includes the 20 subscales above, plus an additional factor of Comfort-Discomfort (which purportedly corresponds to the missing factor of Neuroticism), with seven additional scales indicating a sense of overall comfort and confidence versus discomfort and anxiety (guarded-optimistic, defiant-compliant, carefree-worried, decisive-ambivalent, intrepid-inhibited, leader-follower, proactive-distractible), plus a composite of these called "strain". Each of these comfort-discomfort subscales also loads on one of the four type dimensions, e.g., proactive-distractible is also a judging-perceiving subscale. There are also scales for type-scale consistency and comfort-scale consistency. Reliability of 23 of the 27 TDI subscales is greater than .50; "an acceptable result given the brevity of the subscales" (Saunders, 1989).
A "Step III" is also being developed in a joint project involving CPP, publisher of the whole family of MBTI works; CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type), which holds all of Myers' and McCaulley's original work; and the MBTI Trust, headed by Katharine and Peter Myers. Step III will further address the use of perception and judgment by respondents.
Precepts and ethics
The following precepts are generally used in the ethical administration of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:-
Type not trait The MBTI sorts for type, it does not indicate the strength of ability. The questionnaire allows the clarity of a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that you fundamentally prefer one thing over the other, not a bit of both.
Own best judge Individuals are considered the best judge of their own type. Whilst the MBTI questionnaire provides a Reported Type, this is considered only an indication of their probable overall Type. A Best Fit Process is usually used to allow the individual to develop their understanding of the four dichotomies, form their own hypothesis as to their overall Type and compare this against the Reported Type. In more than 20% of cases, the hypothesis and the reported type differ in one or more dichotomies: the clarity of each preference, any potential for bias in the report and, often, a comparison of two or more whole Types may then be used to help the subject determine his or her own Best Fit.
No right or wrong No preference or total type is considered 'better' or 'worse' than another - they are all, as in the title of the book on this subject by Isabel Briggs Myers, Gifts Differing.
Voluntary It is considered unethical to compel anyone to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It should always be taken voluntarily.
Confidentiality The result of the MBTI Reported and Best Fit type are confidential between the individual and administrator and, ethically, not for disclosure without permission.
Not for selection Because MBTI is a measure of preference, not aptitude, and because there are no right or wrong types, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is not considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain highly competent individuals of different types, with complementary preferences.
Importance of proper feedback Individuals should always be given detailed feedback from a trained administrator and an opportunity to undertake a Best Fit exercise to check against their Reported Type. Feedback can be given in person or, where this is not practical, by telephone or electronically.
Applications of the MBTI
The indicator is frequently used in the areas of career counseling, pedagogy, group dynamics, employee training, leadership training, life coaching, executive coaching, marriage counseling, and personal development.
Type dynamics and development
|The Sixteen Types|
|The table organizing the sixteen types was created by Isabel Myers, who preferred INFP (To find the opposite type of the one you are looking at, jump over one type diagonally.)|
|U.S.A. Population Breakdown|
|By using inferential statistics an estimate of the preferences found in the US population has been gathered.|
The interaction of two, three, or four preferences are known as type dynamics. For each of the sixteen four-preference MBTI Types, one function will be the most dominant and is likely to be evident earliest in life. A secondary or auxiliary function typically becomes more evident (differentiates) during teenage years and provides balance to the dominant. In normal development, individuals tend to become more fluent with a third, tertiary function during mid life, whilst the fourth inferior function remains least consciously developed and is often considered to be more associated with the unconscious, being most evident in situations such as high stress (sometimes referred to as being in the grip of the inferior function).
The sequence of differentiation of dominant, auxiliary and tertiary functions through life is termed type development. This is an idealized sequence, which may be disrupted by major life events (for example, the death or serious illness of a parent during one's childhood is considered commonly to halt full development of the auxiliary function).
The dynamic sequence of functions and their attitudes can be determined in the following way:
- The overall lifestyle preference (J-P) determines whether the judging (T-F) or perceiving (S-N) preference is most evident in the outside world, i.e. which function has an extroverted attitude
- For those with an overall preference for Extroversion, the function with the extroverted attitude will be the dominant function - for example, for someone with an ESTJ type, the dominant function is the judging function, Thinking, and this is experienced with an extroverted attitude (this is notated as a dominant Te); the same would be true of an ENTJ; whilst for an ESTP, the dominant function will be the perceiving function, Sensing, notated as a dominant Se.
- For those with an overall preference for Introversion, the function with the extroverted attitude is the auxiliary; the dominant is the other function in the main 4-letter preference. So the dominant function for ISTJ is introverted Sensing (Si) with the auxiliary (supporting) function being extroverted Thinking (Te).
- The Auxiliary function for Extrovert types is the less preferred of the Judging or Perceiving functions and it is experienced with an introverted attitude: for example, the auxiliary function for ESTJ is introverted sensing (Si) and the auxiliary for ENFP would be introverted feeling (Fi)
- The Tertiary function is the opposite preference from the Auxiliary, for example if the Auxiliary is Thinking then the Tertiary would be Feeling. The attitude of the Tertiary is the subject of some debate and therefore is not normally indicated, i.e. if the Auxiliary was Te then the Tertiary would be F (not Fe or Fi)
- The Inferior function is the opposite preference and attitude from the dominant, so for an ESTJ with dominant Te, the Inferior would be Fi.
Note that for those with an overall Extroversion preference, the dominant function is the one most evident in the external world: whilst it is the auxiliary function that is most evident externally for Introverts, as their dominant function relates to the interior world. It can be less easy to directly observe the dominant function with Introverts: it's all going on behind the scenes!
A couple of examples of whole types will help to clarify this further.
Taking the ESTJ example above:
- Extroverted function is a Judging function (T-F) because of the overall J preference
- Extroverted function is dominant because of overall E preference
- Dominant function is therefore extraverted Thinking (Te)
- Auxiliary function will be the less dominant Perceiving function - intraverted Sensing (Si)
- Tertiary function is the opposite preference to the Auxiliary - Intuition (N)
- Inferior function is the opposite preference and attitude to the Dominant - intraverted Feeling (Fi)
The dynamics of the ESTJ, then, are founded in the primary tension between the extraverted Thinking dominant and introverted Feeling inferior: The dominant tendency to order the ESTJ's environment, to set clear boundaries, to clarify roles and timetables, and to direct the activities around them, is underscored by an attraction to the sentimental, the heartwarming, and the precious. ESTJs, for instance, may enjoy making memory scrapbooks or other such personal crafts. Though the ESTJ can seem insensitive to the feelings of others in their normal activities, under tremendous stress, they can suddenly express feelings of being unappreciated or wounded by insensitivity.
Looking at the diametrically opposite four-letter Type, INFP:
- Extroverted function is a Perceiving function because of the overall P preference
- Introverted function is dominant because of the overall I preference
- Dominant function is therefore introverted Feeling (Fi)
- Auxiliary function is extraverted Intuition (Ne)
- Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary, Sensing (S)
- Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant, extroverted Thinking (Te)
The dynamics of the INFP rest on exactly the same fundamental tension of introverted Feeling and extroverted Thinking, though in reverse. The dominant tendency of the INFP is toward building a rich internal framework of values and toward championing human rights, often devoting themselves to causes such as saving the environment or civil rights. However, because of their tendency to avoid the limelight, their inclination to not rush into decisions, and to maintain a reserved posture, they rarely are found in executive director type positions of the organizations that serve those causes. Normally, the INFP dislikes being "in charge" of things. When not under stress, the INFP exudes a personal warmth that is unspoken and sympathetic, but under extreme stress, they can suddenly become rigid and directive, exerting their extroverted Thinking erratically.
Every type--and its opposite--is the expression of these interactions, which give each type its unique "signature" that can be recognized. It is through this dynamic pattern and signature that devotees to the MBTI can recognize others' type soon after meeting them.
Correlations to other instruments
David W. Keirsey mapped four 'Temperaments' to the existing Myers-Briggs system groupings SP, SJ, NF and NT; often resulting in confusion of the two theories. However, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter is not directly associated with the official Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Big Five McCrae & Costa  present correlations between the MBTI scales and the Big Five personality construct, which is a conglomeration of characteristics found in nearly all personality and psychological tests. The five personality characteristics are extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (or neuroticism). The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed as part of a longitudinal study of aging. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.)
These data suggest that four of the MBTI scales are related to the Big Five personality traits. These correlations show that E-I and S-N are strongly related to extraversion and openness respectively, while T-F and J-P are moderately related to agreeableness and conscientiousness respectively. The emotional stability dimension of the Big Five is largely absent from the MBTI.
These findings led McCrae and Costa to conclude "There was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types... Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it."
Study of scoring consistency
Split-half reliability of the MBTI scales is good, although test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. But this variation is better than with most other personality tools, which show a similar variation over time. However, because the MBTI dichotomies scores in the middle of the distribution, type allocations are less reliable. Within each scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorisations remain the same when retested within nine months, and around 75% when retested after nine months. About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months. 
It is important to note that the greatest variation in reports relates to individuals who have lower preference scores (below 5). After the preference score exceeds 5, the test-retest correlations are outstanding (.89 to .99).
The scientific basis of the MBTI has been questioned. Neither Katharine Cook Briggs nor Isabel Briggs Myers had any scientific qualifications in the field of psychometric testing. Furthermore, Carl Jung's theory of psychological type, which the MBTI attempts to operationalise, is not based on any scientific studies. Jung's methods primarily included introspection and anecdote, methods largely rejected by the modern field of cognitive psychology. 
The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has also been subject to criticism, in particular, the dichotomous scoring of dimensions. For example, it was expected that scores would show a bimodal distribution with peaks near the ends of the scales. However, scores on the individual subscales are actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner similar to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the centre 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. 
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)  and it has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.  Estimations on the research related to the most utilized tool published in fifty years (e.g. 40 million administrations) is affected by the popularity of the instrument.
The reliability of the test has been interpreted as being low, with test takers who retake the test often being assigned a different type. According to surveys performed by the proponents of Myers-Briggs, the highest percentage of people who fell into the same category on the second test is only 47%. Furthermore, a wide range of 39% - 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting weeks or years later, and many people's types were also found to vary according to the time of the day. Skeptics claim that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results. Allegedly, the terminology of the MBTI is so vague that it allows any kind of behavior to fit any personality type, resulting in the Forer effect, where an individual gives a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies specifically to them . As a result, when people are asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI, only half of people pick the same profile. 
However, while the Forer effect (which may apply to horoscopes) is said to apply to "vague and general personality descriptions" , the descriptions offered for the Myers-Briggs types are often detailed and specific. For example, David Keirsey examined how the four temperaments differ in terms of language use, intellectual orientation, educational and vocational interests, social orientation, self image, personal values, social roles, and even characteristic hand gestures. Keirsey went on to describe the hierarchy of intellectual roles played by each of the four types within each temperament, resulting in sixteen unique descriptions which, unlike the Forer effect, rely not on the universal traits that make human beings the same, but on the specific traits that make human beings different from one another.
Although the proportion of different personality types varies between different careers  the relevance of the MBTI for career planning has been questioned, with reservations about the relevance of type to job performance or satisfaction, and concerns about the potential misuse of the instrument in labelling individuals. 
- Personality psychology
- Big five personality traits
- Holland Codes
- EQ SQ Theory
- Keirsey Temperament Sorter
- DISC assessment
- False dilemma
- Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
- Five Factor Personality Inventory - Children
- Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator
- Enneagram of personality
- Personality pattern recognition
- ↑ Jung, Carl Gustav (August 1, 1971). Psychological Types (Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-09774.
- ↑ Myers, Isabel Briggs with Peter B. Myers (1980, 1995). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. ISBN 0-89106-074-X.
- ↑ Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford, ISBN 1-59385-070-0, p. 65.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 McCrae, R R; Costa, P T (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1):17-40.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Stricker, L J; Ross, J (1964) An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian Personality Typology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(1):62-71.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Barron-Tieger, Barbara; Tieger, Paul D. (1995). Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-84522-1.
- ↑ Consulting Psychologists Press (2004). Trademark Guidelines. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- ↑ Myers, Isabel Briggs; McCaulley Mary H.; Quenk, Naomi L.; Hammer, Allen L. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator). Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition. ISBN 0-89106-130-4
- ↑ Geyer, Peter (1998) Some Significant Dates. Retrieved December 5, 2005.
- ↑ University of Florida (2003) Guide to the Isabel Briggs Myers Papers 1885-1992, George A. Smathers Libraries, Department of Special and Area Studies Collections, Gainesville, FL. Retrieved December 5, 2005.
- ↑ Harvey, R J (1996) Reliability and Validity, in MBTI Applications. A.L. Hammer, Editor. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA. p. 5- 29.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Carroll, Robert Todd (January 9, 2004). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved January 8, 2004.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Pittenger, D.J. (1993) Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short (pdf). Journal of Career Planning & Placement.
- ↑ Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001, April). Bimodal score distributions and the MBTI: Fact or artifact? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Matthews, P (2004) The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality. bmj.com Rapid Responses. But see also Clack & Allen's response to Matthews.
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
- ↑ Carskadon, TG & Cook, DD (1982). Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type. Research in Psychological Type 5: 89-94.
- ↑ Forer effect from the Skeptic's Dictionary
- ↑ Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. ISBN 1-885705-02-6.
- ↑ Druckman, D. and R. A. Bjork, Eds. (1992). In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-04747-1.
References and further reading
- Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford, ISBN 1-59385-070-0
- Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001, April). Bimodal score distributions and the MBTI: Fact or artifact? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
- Bourne, Dana (2005); Personality Types and the Transgender Community. Retrieved November 14, 2005
- Falt, Jack; Bibliography of MBTI/Temperament Books by Author. Retrieved December 20, 2004
- Georgia State University; GSU Master Teacher Program: On Learning Styles. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- Jung, Carl Gustav (1965); Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage Books: New York, 1965. p. 207
- Matthews, Paul (2004); The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality. bmj.com Rapid Responses. Retrieved February 9, 2005
- Myers, Isabel Briggs (1980); Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Davies-Black Publishing; Reprint edition (May 1, 1995). ISBN 0-89106-074-X
- Pearman, R., Lombardo, M. Eichinger, R.;(2005); "YOU: Being More Effective In Your MBTI(R) Type." Minn.:Lominger International, Inc.
- Pearman, R., Albritton, S.; (1996); "I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You." Mountain View, Ca: Davies-Black Publishing.
- Personality Plus; Employers love personality tests. But what do they really reveal?
- Saunders, D. (1989). Type Differentiation Indicator Manual: A scoring system for Form J of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
- Skeptics Dictionary "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" 
- Virginia Tech; The Relationship Between Psychological Type and Professional Orientation Among Technology Education Teachers. Retrieved December 20, 2004
- Thomas G. Long (October 1992). "Myers-Briggs and other Modern Astrologies". Theology Today 49 (3): 291-95.
Criticism of MBTI
16 Personality Type Comparison
- Information on Myers-Briggs Personality Types
- Simple descriptions of all 16 MBTI types
- 16 Personality Type Comparison
Differentiation Between Personality Testing and Typing
Template:Jungian psychologyar:مؤشر أنماط مايرز-بريغز cs:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator de:Myers-Briggs-Typindikatorko:마이어스-브릭스 유형 지표 hu:Myers–Briggs-típuselmélet nl:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator no:Myers-Briggs Type Indicatorfi:Myers-Briggs-tyyppi-indikaattori sv:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator uk:MBTI
There is no pharmaceutical or device industry support for this site and we need your viewer supported Donations | Editorial Board | Governance | Licensing | Disclaimers | Avoid Plagiarism | Policies