Convergent Validity of the MBTI and MMTIC Assessments - Issue 2 - 2013 Journal of Psychological Type

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Mason

Teenagers (N = 123, mean age = 16.54) completed both the 2008 revision of the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children (MMTIC) and Form M of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) on two occasions. Continuous scale scores showed strong correlations across instruments (mean r = .75, range .65 to .83), while category agreements varied with significant differences on S–N, T–F, and J–P. Test–retest continuous correlations were very good for both measures, and matched type descriptions were rated more accurate than mismatched ones. Overall, findings supported convergent validity and reliability.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

More than thirty years of publishing research articles related to the theory and applications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument. 73 Journal of Psychological Type® Issue 2 2013 | Convergent Validity of the MBTI® and MMTIC® Assessments
Robert W. McPeek1 and Judith Breiner
Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. | | | --- | --- | | ABSTRACT
Teenagers (N = 123 , mean age = 16.54) were administered both the 2008 revision of the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children® and Form M of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator® assessments on two occasions. This design allowed both a comparison of results of the two instruments to each other and test-retest reliability computations for each. Continuous scores of the four scales of the two instruments correlated strongly (mean r = .75 , range .65 to .83) . Category result agreement was less consistent , with significant differences in the S–N , T–F, and J–P results. Test-retest continuous score correlations were very good for both instruments , with MMTIC® scale results ranging from r = .77 to .83 and | MBTI® results ranging from r = .83 to .90. Self-estimates of type preferences on a 5-point Likert scale also correlated well with results from both instruments , and descriptions matched to assessment results were rated as more accurate than mismatched descriptions , even when only one preference of four was mismatched. In conclusion , the results (using continuous scores) showed high agreement of the two measures of type inan age group where both instruments are appropriate , as well as high test-retest reliability and good agreement with self-estimates of type for both measures. The ability of subjects to distinguish matched from mismatched type descriptions is important evidence that such descriptions are not generic or horoscope-like. Type constructs | Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type Thomas G. Carskadon, Ph. D., Founding Editor ISSN 1938-3290 8 | measured by the two instruments have convergent validity, and thus results using the two instruments contribute to a common understanding of psychological type. The MMTIC assessment , however, was rated as easier to read and understand than the MBTI assessment and thus may be a better choice for younger children or less accomplished readers.
Note: For the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, the eight preference categories are the following: Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N) , Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F), Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P) .
INTRODUCTION
The most commonly used assessment of psychological type, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® assessment (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk , & Hammer, 1998) , is designed for use with individuals whose reading level meets or exceeds eighth grade , approximately age 14 (see Quenk , 2000) . However, the constructs measured by the MBTI assessment are presumed to be innate, and children are believed to show evidence of them at ages younger than the instrument is targeting. The Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children , or MMTIC , assessment was therefore designed for use with younger clients , using language appropriate for children (Murphy & Meisgeier, 2008) . The core constructs of the two type instruments are intended to be the same , with interchangeable definitions for the four preference domains (Extraversion– Introversion , Sensing–Intuition , Thinking–Feeling , and Judging–Perceiving) . The common underlying theory presumes that these domains dynamically interact with one another to influence behavior, following the same rules.
The MMTIC® Manual (Murphy & Meisgeier, 2008) indicates that the children’s instrument is appropriate and validated for children and adolescents from elementary (grade 2) to high (grade 12) schools , or approximately ages 7 to 18. There is thus a user overlap (ages 14–18) between the intended audiences for the

FAQs

What was the study design and sample used to compare MBTI and MMTIC?

The study administered both the 2008 revision of the MMTIC and Form M of the MBTI to teenagers (N = 123, mean age 16.54) on two occasions, enabling instrument-to-instrument comparison and test-retest reliability checks.

How strong was the agreement between the MBTI and MMTIC continuous scale scores?

Continuous scores of the four scales correlated strongly between instruments, with a mean r of .75 (range .65 to .83). Test-retest continuous score correlations were also very good for both measures.

What did the results say about the accuracy of matched versus mismatched type descriptions?

Self-estimated type preferences correlated well with both instruments, and descriptions matched to assessment results were rated as more accurate than mismatched descriptions, even when only one preference was mismatched.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Mason

Convergent Validity of the MBTI and MMTIC Assessments - Issue 2 - 2013 Journal of Psychological Type_Page 1

Open in WPS to view all 14 pages