I agree with our host that this is not the forum for debating the merits
of Freud and Jung. And, the subject of instrument use/misuse has been
debated on this and other newsgroups on a number of occasions.
Psychometric instruments designed to measure the
Jungian/Multiple Bi-Polar model include Isabel Myers and Katherine
Briggs' MBTI, David Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI), and
Anthony Gregorc' Gregorc Stle Delineator (GSD).
Critics of the MBTI draw notice to the forced-choice format assuming
that the opposing functions or orientations are not independent but
mutually exclusive. The descriptions are based on those proposed by
Jung and were without subsequent research. Badenoch (1986) citing
Cury (1983) note that in test-retest correlations the reliability is
as high as .83 and averages .78. The internal consistency scores as
high as .88 and average .86. The MBTI has been extensively perfected
in terms of item content, reliability and validity; and has been
updated periodically since the first version developed in 1942.
Robert Bacal's question of "How does one assess whether a tool that
might be used to promote a learning organization SHOULD be used?" is
a good one. His recognition that any instrument is merely a tool is
significant. Yes, I can use a screwdriver to cut a piece of wood but
a saw would be a better _tool_. The MBTI and other instruments are
an attempt to attain simplicity in describing a multiplicity of
behaviors.
Man's increased understanding of himself and his world has been a
major ingredient in the history of human society. The chief
intellectual characteristic of this history has been man's ability to
increasingly remove himself from the here-and-now and place himself
in an abstracted world of concepts and logic. Individuals acting
without knowledge of preference do not have the option of choosing to
act differently; this option comes with self-awareness. When a
person becomes self-aware, he is in a position to acknowledge
responsibility for that which he does including that which he does to
himself, to acknowledge that he is the cause of his actions and thus
to take ownership of his life. Self-responsibility grows out of self-
awareness.
Any instrument which provides insight into self can have value. It
will at best, however, only provide a snapshot of a person's
characteristic mode of response in an otherwise dynamic pattern of
behavior. So how _does_ one select an instrument? By the theory?
By the empirical support? by the validity and reliability? Or some
other cirterion? Yes to all of the above.
There are a number of instruments on the market which were developed
without sampling and have no empirical support or sound theory.
IMHO, every instrument should have some form of research which you can
at least review. On the other hand, I would not rely soley on the
merits of the research or the data, especially in dealing with
behaivoral measures.
In a general sense, a measuring instrument is valid if it does what
it is intended to do. Validity is a matter of degree rather than an
all-or-none property. Psychological measures serve three purposes:
(1) establishment of a functional relationship with a particular
variable, (2) representation of a specific universe of content, and
(3) measurement of psychological traits. In many isntances, there is
no way to equivocally prove that any combination of descriptors
actually "measures" a word. The degree to which it is necessary and
difficult to validate measures of psychological variables is
proportional to the degree to which the variable is concrete or
abstract.
Content validity ultimately rests on appeals to reason regarding the
adequacy with which the content has been cast in the form of test
items. Validity as it relates to the question of whether or not the
instrument is in fact representative of reality is merely a notion
of what is actually there. Reality is a multiple set of mental
constructions made by humans; their constructions are on their minds,
and they are, in the main, accessible to the humans who make them. A
good instrument will approximate an individual's natural tendency to
select one item as opposed to another. In so doing, it moves the
person toward a greater understanding of the "reality" that exists
outside and independent of themselves. The ontological position of
perceived reality asserts that individual perseptions yield partial
and incomplete views of the whole. Reality for any individual is at
best only a partial picture of the whole.
Reliability, referring to the extent of consistency and
replicability, is based upon the assumption that there is a single
reality that repeatedly yields the same results. Psychometrics,
however, is a concatenation of numerous and often uncontrollable
antecendent variables.
So, back to Robert's original question of tool selection (after this
long detour). Like any tool, each is designed for a specific use.
There are choice tools for specific applications. Each is dependent
upon a number of factors. There will be no one tool which is a
"Shopmate" for all conditions. Like a good journeyman, the craftsman
will be knowledgeable about the types of tools available and when to
apply each. And, like any good tool, the instrument of application
must be continuously maintained in good working order.
Enough ramblings for today.
Pete
--
Peter L. Heineman, Manager of Contract Training
University of Nebraska at Omaha
College of Continuing Studies
1313 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68182-0335
(402) 595-2340 FAX (402) 595-2345
Internet: pheineman@unomaha.edu
Education is a training in the middle way
between the dogmatic belief in absolutes
and the cynical negation of all belief.
Benjamin Barber
--"Pete Heineman" <PETE@ccs.unomaha.edu>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>