A third assessment offered is the quantitative top down constructed The Jung Typology Test that is used for prediction. Individual obtain their four letter type formula according to Carl Jung’s and Briggs-Myers’ typology approach to personality. It is a shorter version of the MBTI, providing the same information on the 16PF on a much smaller scale. The JTT has a closed end question format that forces participants to choose their answer on a Likert-scale. There is a reduction in error because there is no proctor present and the instructions are easy to read.
Compared with the MBTI is has a convergent validity, they both measures the same construct or concept but uses different methods. The JTT also has face validity but lacks accurate predictive validity. However, because of its subjective scoring there is a large chance for error. In addition, the last assessment offered is the Personal Values Assessment (PVA). The PVA structure is a simple survey that takes a few minutes to complete. The test-taker is asked to choose ten words from a list of values and behaviors that most reflect who they are, not who they desire to become.
This list of value and behaviors include words such as accountability, forgiveness, wealth, independence and much more. The PVA is a computer adaptive test. Unlike the three previous assessment, the PVA does not use standard format of questions. Instead, participants are given a list of words and told to choose ten that best describes them. As with the JTT, compared with the Sil the PVA has convergent validity, where they both measure the same construct but uses different methods. It also has both content validity as well as face validity. It does what it claims to do and nothing more.
Psychometric evidence suggests that this test has a strong test-retest reliability. In terms of validity, the PVA has a strong construct validity, the assessment measures the area of personal values and how it corresponds to different aspects in our lives. The presentation of result was done through a PDF formats. There was no live staff to explain how to read the report nor was there anyone to answer any question that could have been ask. On the other hand, it was possible for a person that took the test to go to career services to have them present the result.
The information was present through a sense of hierarchy, tables and charts the present your four letter codes, then occupations that pertained to those codes and finally a section on information that the codes are least like. Due to the differences between the two-letter categories are not clear; it is possible for people with relatively similar raw scores to be labeled with different personalities. Many individuals try to fit their personalities and actions based on the nature of their results.
For example if a person scores in the INFPs, they might look at a list of most popular occupations for INFPs, and say that all of those applied to them when in fact they never considered a job in less than half of the list careers. Individuals tend to not read the report fully through and see the parts that they only like. I found that reading the career trends for INFPs and the Most Popular Occupations that although I did not agree with the popular occupation, my personality was more allied with the trends. The MBTI has many applied value particularly in the work places as well as career counseling.
On page four of my result sheet, there is a section title “How you type affects your career choice. ” Underneath the section was a short description of the kind of task and work environment that is preferred by my fourletter code. For example, my code was INFPs, according to the report I would be better suited to environments that offer private time as well as long periods of concentration without inte iption. There were also small sections that were labeled action steps, which explain how one can use their results in their everyday life.
Another way the results can be applied is to understand what types of challenges your specific four-letter code will face and how to overcome these adversities. The MBTI is one of the more popular personality assessment, yet it is not without it biases. The MBTI has been subjected to many criticisms due to transparency, lack of objectivity and readability. The subjective accuracy of the current MBTI depends on the participant being honest during their self-reporting. The most common bias is from the individual taking the test.
For example if the person knows that this results will be looked at by future employers then will try to make themselves seem more outgoing and responsible than they really are. As a result, individuals are highly motivated to fake their response. A second criticism and problem with the MBTI is that it either seems extremely transparent and other times the wording is very vague. Although the questions are very transparent, the data reported can be very vague and generalize, so much so that it can be applied to any personality type.
Therefore, participants end up rating their descriptions highly. Lastly, the MBTI lacks predicative validity. Then there is presentation was very different from the MBTI or JTT report. Unlike like the MBTI that only presented the code and its relationship with the occupational field. The Sll went above and beyond with it presentation. The report started with an explanation of how to read the results, then progress to in detailed description of the general occupational themes (GOT), where your theme code was reported and your highest themes.
On the SII, I got a theme code of SR because my highest themes were social and realistic. Below the theme code, your GOT results were presented in a descending order, from the highest to lowest interest. I took more than sixty minutes to complete the test. I believe that I ended up finishing the test within three weeks. Then there was the presentation of the results, there was two option in which a person can receive their score, I opted for the online receipt.
Because there is no time limit or a number of session in which a person can complete the test, there might be problems with the accuracy of the result. For me I found that because I completed the assessment on two different points, there was response bias. I remembered that I started the test as a part of assignment, but I finished before I decide to switch my major. There is a lot of response bias in this test. When I first started this assessment, I was not trying to answer the question as my normal self.
Rather I wanted to have my result confirm that I made the right decision to be in a particular field, on question such as if I preferred to stay out or spend time alone. I always choose the answer presented as an extroverted personality. This was also another assessment that used the Likert-scale except this one used a five-point response scale and then there were sections where it use a seven point response. Question would ask the individual if they strongly agreed to strongly disagreed. There was no yes or no response.
