When we ask “Is Myers-Briggs valid”, we refer to validity in the nerdiest sense. That is, does the test actually measure what it claims to measure? In this case, the test does not demonstrate aspects of test validity overall. A few aspects of it are valid, but there are a some key issues that place the test in question for many of its uses.
The test’s scales were initially based on many of Carl Jung’s ideas about personality types. We all agree that Jung was “smart AF” and very influential in the beginnings of the mental health field. However, he did not derive his ideas from systematic testing and research. Jung proposed personality types after working with a specific set of individuals with severe psychopathology.
So the degree to which his facets of personality truly occurred the way Jung proposed they did was never certain (especially with individuals not experiencing psychopathology). Cut to now, the test does not show the ability to predict multiple qualities in the overall population (e.g., leadership ability).
Later systematic research on those personality scales of the test revealed a pretty mixed bag. Many of the 16 specific personality dimensions have not been validated in research. Many of the scales do not seem to line up with things that actually occur in the world.
Is Myers-Briggs valid in any ways? Research has found extensive support for the extroversion and introversion aspects of personality (the degree we engage or disengage with others and our environment). The Myers-Briggs, however, proposes these as categorically “one or other other”. That is, the test tells those who take it that they are either only extraverted or introverted. But any of us can display extraverted or introverted behaviors depending on the context. A good podcast uses effective analogies to describe this issue.
This dichotomy also brings up an issue of precision. The Myers Briggs test places a person completely in one category even if they display multiple characteristics of an opposing trait (i.e., intraversion vs extraversion). The test has no continuums. This categorical versus continuous issue is the same critique often leveled at the DSM system. For example, the DSM often considers someone as experiencing major depression or not. But what about those people who experience just some degree of depression?
If not Myers Briggs, then what do we use? There are a number of personality tests out there with great precision, accuracy, and clinical utility. The Big 5 personality inventory, the Personality Assessment Inventory, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (now in its 3rd Edition; MMPI-3), have extensive research behind them*. They have been shown to provide great personality and clinical information.
The Myers Briggs is popular and often described as interesting and fun. A fun instrument can always make a possibly confusing topic more intriguing. But whether a test provides utility to help our clients is a different question and depends on an individual test itself. The Myers Briggs may not be one of those, especially with more valid therapist resources readily available.
*bridge dissemination does not currently have business relationships with any personality testing organizations or companies, nor does it promote the proprietary efforts of any individual test or testing service.
