Validity and Reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

J Best Pract Health Prof Divers (Spring, 2017), 10(1), 1–27.
ISSN: 2745-2843 © Winston-Salem State University
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Validity and Reliability of the
Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator:
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Ken Randall,1 PhD, MHR, PT; Mary Isaacson,1 EdD;
Carrie Ciro,1 PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Author Affiliations: 1 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Corresponding Author: Ken Randall, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University
of Oklahoma Schusterman Center, 4502 East 41st Street, Room 2H20, Tulsa, OK 74135
([e-mail])
ABSTRACT
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is frequently used by health professions and educational
programs to address the diversity of personalities that exist. No systematic review of the litera-
ture or meta-analysis of its validity and reliability has occurred. This comprehensive literature
search identified 221 potential studies, of which seven met our inclusion criteria. Four of the
studies examined construct validity, but their varying methods did not permit pooling for
meta-analysis. These studies agree that the instrument has reasonable construct validity. The
three studies of test-retest reliability did allow a meta-analysis to be performed, albeit with cau-
tion due to substantial heterogeneity. Results indicate that the Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-
Intuition, and Judging-Perceiving Subscales have satisfactory reliabilities of .75 or higher and
that the Thinking-Feeling subscale has a reliability of .61. The majority of studies were con-
ducted on college-age students; thus, the evidence to support the tool’s utility applies more
to this group, and careful thought should be given when applying it to other individuals.
Keywords n Myers-Briggs Type Indicator n Personality n Reliability n Validity

2 J Best Pract Health Prof Divers: Vol. 10, No. 1, Spring 2017
INTRODUCTION
Personality is a commonly used term with a meaning that most of us readily comprehend, and
yet it is an elusive concept to fully describe or quantify. Broadly defined, it is the combination
of an individual’s cognitive, emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral response patterns (Angler,
2009; McAdams, 2009). It has been studied since antiquity, with Hippocrates being among
the first to describe personality by grouping individuals into temperaments that related to
particular characteristics or types (Hippocrates 1923). Since then, countless theories and
instruments have attempted to explicate and measure differences in personality more fully.
Included in these instruments is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which is reported
to be one of the most widely used instruments in the world for understanding personality
differences (Briggs Myers, 1998; Jackson, Parker, & Dipboye, 1996; Lorr, 1991; Saggino &
Kline, 1996; Salter, Evans, & Forney, 2006; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984;
Zumbo & Taylor, 1993).
The MBTI is used extensively in human resource management and is one of the most
commonly used instruments in higher education research and counseling (Hojat, Erdmann,
& Gonnella, 2013). Its application in medical education is quite varied and includes studies
of how certain preferences affect decision making (Pretz & Folse, 2011) and how knowledge
of an individual’s type can enhance communication (Eksteen & Basson, 2015). Moreover,
addressing the differences in type and preferences between instructors and students may mini-
mize negative outcomes in both academic and clinical settings (Bell et al., 2011). In the au-
thors’ experience, we use the MBTI as both an educational and an academic advisement tool.
Our occupational therapy and physical therapy students learn about the 16 MBTI types and
about how differing preferences can influence interactions with members of the health care
team and with patients and their loved ones. We also provide academic advisors and clinical
instructors with information about individual student types that includes tips grounded in
the MBTI literature on how to enhance their learning, communication, and feedback based
on each student’s preference. Although we pay attention to the preferences of all students,
we also examine the preferences of learners from diverse backgrounds to determine if any
trends exist in personality type. In an ongoing effort to use the best evidence to inform our
educational program, we wanted to understand the psychometric properties of the MBTI to
determine whether we should continue to use it with our students.
Since its inception in the 1940s, numerous studies have examined various aspects of the
MBTI, including many related to validity and reliability. Over the past 35 years, a number
of relatively thorough reviews of the literature regarding these features of the MBTI have ap-
peared (Carlson, 1985; Carlyn, 1977; Gardner & Martinko, 1996; Murray, 1990; Pittenger,
1993), including a compendium of research by the publishers of the tool itself (Thorne &
Gough, 1999). However, none of these reviews was systematic in nature, nor did any apply

Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator 3
the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration (2016), considered the standard for compre-
hensive literature searches (Sampson et al., 2006) and quality appraisal. In 2002, Capraro
and Capraro conducted a meta-analytic reliability generalization study of articles investigating
a number of the psychometric properties of the MBTI; however, the scope of the study was
limited to articles published between 1998 and 2001. To date, we could find no completed
systematic review of the literature or in-depth meta-analysis of studies that meet the standards
suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration to assess the psychometric properties of the MBTI.
THE MYERS BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR
The MBTI measures the degree to which an individual prefers to operate from four dichoto-
mous type pairs using a series of forced-choice questions that represent behavioral prefer-
ences. In accord with Jung’s theory of types, it proposes that everyone has a natural preference
for one of the two opposites on each of four scales, emphasizing that one preference is not
better than another. According to supporters of the MBTI, this distinguishes it from most
psychological assessments, which quantify personality traits, many of which consider one end
of the scale to be more positive and the other more negative (Schaubhut, Herk, & Thompson,
2009, p. 4). The MBTI emphasizes the word preference and uses single letters of the alphabet
to denote its eight preferences. The definitions for each MBTI preference show a distinct link
with Jung’s original definitions:
Extraversion (E) is the tendency to focus on the outer world of people and
external events. People who prefer extraversion direct their energy and at-
tention outward and receive energy from external events, experiences, and
interactions.
Introversion (I) is the preference to focus on the inner world of ideas and ex-
periences. Individuals direct their energy and attention inward and receive
energy from their internal thoughts, feelings, reflections, and time alone.
Sensing (S) is the preference to take information in through the eyes, ears,
and other senses. People who are predominantly sensing are observant of
what is going on around them and are especially good at recognizing the
practical realities of a situation.
Intuition (N) is the ability to take in information by seeing the big picture,
focusing on relationships and connections between facts. People who prefer
intuition tend to grasp patterns and are especially adept at seeing new pos-
sibilities and different perspectives.

4 J Best Pract Health Prof Divers: Vol. 10, No. 1, Spring 2017
Thinking (T) is the preference in decision making to look at the logical con-
sequences of a choice or action. People who prefer this type try to mentally
remove themselves from a situation to examine it objectively and analyze
cause and effect.
Feeling (F) is the use of emotion in decision making, and people with this
preference tend to consider what is important to them and to other people.
They mentally place themselves in a situation and identify with the people
involved so that they can make decisions based on person-centered values.
Judging (J) is the preference to organize life in a planned, orderly way, with
a desire to regulate and control it. People who prefer judging make deci-
sions, achieve closure, and appreciate an environment that is structured
and organized.
Perceiving (P) is the tendency to live in a flexible, spontaneous way, seeking
to experience and understand life rather than control it. People who are
perceiving prefer to be open to experience and last-minute options. They
enjoy and trust their resourcefulness and ability to adapt to the demands of
a situation (Briggs-Myers, 1993; Hall & Nordby, 1973).
The MBTI treats each preference equally, so there are no principal functions or sub-
ordinate functions as described by Jung. Given four sets of dichotomous preferences that
can occur in any combination, the MBTI proposes that there are sixteen different personality
types. With the MBTI, four letters represent each type, which indicate the four dominant
preference areas. For example, ENFP is Extraversion Intuitive Feeling Perceiving, which has
its own set of characteristics, some like and some different from the other fifteen types. Simi-
lar to Jung’s work in Psychological Types (1923), the MBTI addresses various combinations of
each type, such as introverted-sensing or intuitive-thinking-perceiving. The MBTI allows its
user to describe two people with the exact four-letter combination of preferences in generali-
ties similar to both, yet accounts for the individual differences produced by variation of the
extent (or strength) of each person’s preference. This echoes Jung’s belief that his types can
be used to describe groups of people as well as individuals (Jung, 1921/1923).
According to the companion manual to the MBTI, Introduction to Type (Briggs Myers,
1998; Myers, Kirby, & Briggs Meyers, 2015), which was first published in 1970 and is currently
in its seventh edition, the goal of the instrument is to foster self-understanding, enhance
learning and communication, assist with conflict management, and enhance relationships. It
is a tool “with intent not to stereotype, but to allow understanding of individual preferences”
(Jessup, 2002, p. 503). Between 1943 and 1975, the MBTI evolved through a number of itera-
tions, spanning Forms A through F. In 1975 Consulting Psychologist Press acquired the rights

Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator 5
to sell the MBTI as a proprietary instrument (Pittenger, 1993), and it became readily available
for widespread use as Form G (McCaulley, 1990). In 1998, Form G underwent revision and
was published as Form M, which can be administered by the publisher, by computer, or by
using a self-scorable version. Additionally, two MBTI instruments that explore type more
deeply are the Step II (first published as Form K in 1989 and subsequently revised as Form Q
in 2001) and Step III (published in 2009). Step II explores differences within the same type,
and Step III is administered only by counselors specifically trained in the tool in one-on-one
sessions (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Mitchell, 2009). There are currently four distinct
forms of the MBTI, each differing in its use and scoring: Form M and Form M self-scorable,
Step II Form Q, and Step III. The MBTI has a European version and has been translated into
21 languages, including Chinese, German, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, and Spanish (Myers
& Briggs Foundation, 2016).
Most criticisms of the MBTI relate to the dichotomous nature of the instrument, its
translation of continuous scale scores into nominal categories of preference, and whether it
reflects the theory on which it is based (Barbuto, 1997; Daisly, 2011; Pittenger, 1993; Zemke,
1992). The forced-choice nature of the MBTI does not allow respondents to select a median
or neutral response (Barbuto, 1997); they must choose a response that places them into one
preference or the other (either Extraversion or Introversion, Sensing or iNtuition, Thinking
or Feeling, Judging or Perceiving). Scoring for the MBTI reflects the most frequently selected
side of the four dichotomies, which determines preference, reflected in the four-letter com-
bination that expresses overall type. Barbuto (1997) suggests that this nominal aspect of
the MBTI results deviates from Jung’s original theory. These observations lead to questions
regarding the validity and reliability of the MBTI (Zemke, 1992).
Key properties of an assessment tool such as the MBTI are validity and reliability. These
relate to aspects of its construction, evaluation, and documentation as described by the Stan-
dards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Associa-
tion, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Educa-
tion, 2014). Validity is the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations
of scores for the proposed uses of the test. Construct validity refers to the extent to which a test
actually measures what the theory says it does. Reliability is the degree to which scores for an
individual or group are consistent over repeated administrations of the same test. Test-retest
reliability assesses the degree to which test scores are consistent from one test administration
to the next. Internal consistency reliability assesses the stability of results across items within a
test (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &
National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, chaps. 1, 2).
At present, no complete study has investigated the breadth of articles published about
the MBTI or performed an in-depth analysis of the psychometric properties of the instru-
ment as a whole or its various forms. This systematic review/meta-analysis seeks to inform
our research question: in the adult population, is the MBTI a useful test in terms of construct

6 J Best Pract Health Prof Divers: Vol. 10, No. 1, Spring 2017
validity, test-retest reliability, and/or internal consistency reliability in determining personal-
ity preference in the areas of inward or outward focus (extraversion/introversion), informa-
tion processing (sensing/intuition), decision making (thinking/feeling), and organization
(judging/perceiving)?
METHODS
Rationale for Methods
This systematic review of the key psychometric properties of the MBTI adhered to the
Cochrane guidelines and consisted of a priori identification of inclusion criteria, which
determined our search strategy, followed by a two-phase process of critical appraisal of in-
cluded studies with the intent to extract data for analysis. Inclusion criteria for this review
incorporated the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines (Cochrane Collaboration Diagnostic
Test Accuracy Working Group 2011; Deeks, Wisniewski, & Davenport, 2013; Higgins et al.,
2011) and contained questions extracted from its tool for assessing risk of bias (Higgins & Alt-
man, 2008), as well as strategies for systematic reviews proposed by Meline (2006) and Slavin
(1986). Some Cochrane criteria, such as those pertaining to randomized controlled trials or
multiple-group designs, were not applicable and thus not used. Other recommended criteria
were incorporated into the rubric we applied to assess each article’s quality.
Inclusion Criteria and Rationale
The inclusion criteria for studies in this systematic review/meta-analysis were as follows:
• The study was consistent with the research question.
• The study examined construct validity, test-retest reliability, and/or internal
consistency reliability for the MBTI as new data.
• Subjects in the study were adults (18 years or older).
• The study was written in English and published in a peer-reviewed journal
in 1975 or later, or the study was a dissertation written in English and pub-
lished in 2011 or later.
• Sample size and level of significance were reported or were obtainable from
study authors.
• The study authors expressed data for reliability as alpha coefficients, item-
total correlations, corrected item-total correlations, intraclass correlation
(ICC) coefficients, Pearson correlation coefficients, Spearman rank correla-
tion coefficients, or kappa coefficients; and/or expressed data for validity
as structural equation modeling, alpha coefficients, item-total correlations,