Mark and Irena - Myers Briggs Personality Profiling Analysis

Feb 24 -- My good friend, Pat Dines, runs Mary.com.  We often discuss the merits and pitfalls of personality profiling.  He set me and my girlfriend up with a Myers Briggs test.  I'm an ENFP. She's an ESTP. Here's his analysis of the results... - Mark Brooks  (Picture from Prague Charles Bridge)

Key: Extrovert/Introvert, Sensing/iNtuitive, Thinking/Feeling, Perceiving/Judging.  "This looks very good. Irena is borderline S/N and you are an N but a weak N so I don't see a conflict there. You're more extroverted than she is which is good. Guys have problems with women who are more extroverted than they are. You're mid point TF and she is a slight T which is good for you. Women tend to be "F" types by nature (60%). Also, F men get along well with T women because it creates a balance between the sexes. F men are more sensitive to women's needs! You're both slight P's so that bodes well for spontaneity in your relationship which is good because business tends to force you to the "J" side of things so when you're together it will be fun. The two "p's" will help take the edge off.  (you're both in business so when you're playing, you'll enjoy the relaxation that another P brings to the party).  I'd give the match five stars.  The only slight problem you may have is in understanding each other's thinking process. She may be more practical than you because she doesn't have the intuitive edge that you have. But, I think if you both communicate well with each other and explain why you think the way you do, it will be a good balance. The SN scale can be deadly if you're more than 40% apart. You're only 13% apart so you may actually complement each other. You'll just have to be a little patient with the time she takes to reason things out, and she may actually help you make sure that your intuitiveness didn't make a faulty jump."

Mark Brooks: So, what are your thoughts on the merits and pitfalls of personality profiling?

Comments

[Fernando Ardenghi]

That type of written report is a sample of the ones that are not useful !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It says: "I'd give the match five stars."

Mr. Brooks: you do not need five stars, you need a number "like 92.55033557% probability of being compatible with Irena"; or "your personality type is similar in 92.55033557% to hers".

If you have both your_16PF_profile and the_16PF_profile_of_your_girlfriend
AND
if you and your girlfriend agree;

I could calculate for you "the probability of being compatible" using the method I had invented.

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

---------------------------------------------------------

DIFFERENT PERSONALITY TESTS FOR ON LINE DATING & MORE POWER CALCULATION FOR COMPATIBILITY MATCHING.

Case 1a)
Many dating sites are using an adapted Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test.
MBTI is a psychological test designed to assist a person in identifying their personality preferences. It has four BIPOLAR independent variables:
Extraverted (E) or Introverted (I)
Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N)
Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)
Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)
The different possibilities are 2*2*2*2 == 16 (personality types), they name:
ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers // ESTJ - The Guardians // ISFJ - The Nurturers // ESFJ - The Caregivers // ISTP - The Mechanics // ESTP - The Doers // ESFP - The Performers // ISFP - The Artists // ENTJ - The Executives // INTJ - The Scientists // ENTP - The Visionaries // INTP - The Thinkers // ENFJ - The Givers // INFJ - The Protectors // ENFP - The Inspirers // INFP - The Idealists

Test Result looks like this:

Personality type results: ESTJ

EI: 7 out of 17
Extrovert |-------------------------------------------------| Introvert
...............................|
..............................41%
SN: 8 out of 17
Sensation |-------------------------------------------------| iNtuition
....................................|
...................................47%
TF: 5 out of 17
Thinking |-------------------------------------------------| Feeling
........................|
.......................29%
JP: 5 out of 17
Judging |-------------------------------------------------| Perceiving
........................|
.......................29%

As only 16 personality types are rather few, dating sites upgrade the model using photos, likes and dislikes formulary/forms, etc.

- - - - - -

Case 1b)
A DISC-based system. In the 1920's, Harvard-trained psychologist and lawyer William Moulton Marston (PhD) developed a theory to better understand human emotional responses. To test his theories, Marston proposed four factors he viewed as the cornerstones of personality: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance. It is from these four factors that DISC theory takes its name.
Why DISC will not work enough for dating?
Using DISC, 4 variables 10 degrees, the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^4 == 10,000 of different possibilities (personality types). Other DISC reports use 4 variables 7 degrees and the Ensemble is 7*7*7*7 == 2,401 different possibilities,
You could also see more info at
http://www.discprofile.com/whatisdisc.htm

The "compatibility reports" look like this:
"Romeo and Julieta /// compatibility report
Romeo is usually confident, competitive, forceful, independent and adventurous with a high degree of pace and mobility. He will take risks and overstep prerogatives if he considers it necessary to reach goals. Romeo usually uses assertive persuasion to convince and win others over to his point of view. However, if this fails, he will often resort to either verbal aggression or withdrawal. On the other hand, if Romeo thinks he has offended someone, his need to remain popular suggests that he will turn on the charm and chat in order to repair the damage. Romeo is usually quick to think on his feet and is fast to act and react.
Julieta has a friendly, outgoing attitude toward others, which, coupled with an innate need to be liked and to avoid confrontation, could make her appear anxious to impress. She tends to be suggestive rather than decisive, and she will use persuasion, fact and detail to win others over to her point of view. Julieta can absorb detailed information and impart it to others in an entertaining and enthusiastic manner. She is usually a good leader in non_antagonistic situations but she dislikes disciplining others. Although detailed, she has a low boredom threshold for repetitive tasks, which can lead to error. She needs overt recognition and praise.
COMPATIBILITY: The commonality of people_orientation and activity rate should provide a satisfactory degree of compatibility. However, the differences in risk_consciousness and assertiveness suggest that this relationship may not be without its tension and frustrations. Therefore it is important that Romeo and Julieta concentrate their efforts on understanding each other's needs and personal motivations. "

Imagine to read hundreds and hundreds or written reports, it could be impossible to determine which ones suit better!!!

Note that other online dating sites use a Big-7 model / dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Self_Esteem and Self_Doubt; 10 degrees per variable, the Ensemble is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^7 == 10,000,000 different possibilities (personality types). ONE THOUSAND BIGGER!!!

- - - - - -

Case 2) Other dating sites use PROPRIETARY tests or models:

With 10 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10):
If only 5 variables are used, like a 5 Traits Inventory, Big-5 dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^5 == 100,000 different possibilities (personality types). This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.

With 10 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
If only 7 variables are used, Big-7 dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Self_Esteem and Self_Doubt; the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^7 == 10,000,000 different possibilities (personality types).

With 3 degrees per independent variable (Mostly agree / Nor agree nor disagree / Mostly disagree), at the results of the test; NOT at the questionnaire.
If only 12 variables are used the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is
3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3 == 1 * 3^12 == 531,441 == 5.3 * 10^5 different possibilities (personality types). This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.
If 16 variables are used the Ensemble is
3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3 == 1 * 3^16 == 43,046,721 == 4.3 * 10^7 different possibilities

With 5 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (Highly agree / Mostly agree / Nor agree nor disagree / Mostly disagree / Highly disagree)
If only 12 variables are used the Ensemble is
5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5 == 1 * 5^12 == 244,140,625 == 2.4 * 10^8 different possibilities
If 16 variables are used the Ensemble is
5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5== 1 * 5^16 == 152,587,890,625 == 1.5 * 10^11 different possibilities
More than World Population (WP): nearly 6,400 millions persons == 6.4 * 10^9

Although the validity & reliability of the proprietary tests could be high, i.e. >80%, the main problem / endeavour appears in how to compare and assign compatibility.

- - - - - -

Case 3)
Using a complete 16 Personality Factors model, 16PF test, the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^16 == 10,000,000,000,000,000 of different possibilities (personality types), thus each person is really unique. This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.
The output of the personality test is like this A:05, B:09, C:06, E:06, F:08, G:04, H:07, I:05, L:03, M:06, N:04, O:06, Q1:08, Q2:02, Q3:05, Q4:04.
(A) Warmth, (B) Reasoning, (C) Emotional Stability, (E) Dominance, (F) Liveliness, (G) Rule_Consciousness, (H) Social Boldness, (I) Sensitivity, (L) Vigilance, (M) Abstractedness, (N) Privateness, (O) Apprehension, (Q1) Openness to Change, (Q2) Self_Reliance, (Q3) Perfectionism and (Q4) Tension

World Population (WP): nearly 6,400 millions persons == 6.4 * 10^9
16PF`s Ensemble== E == 1 * 10^16
WP / E == (6.4 * 10^9) / (1 * 10^16) == 6.4 * 10^-7 == 64 * 10^-6
i.e. WP is 64 micro part of E!!!

If the comparison / matching algorithm "compares" each personality test’s result with the others, for a DataBase with an initial charge of N clients will need
[ N * (N-1) ] / 2 comparisons.
For 100,000 clients needs nearly 5,000,000,000 of comparisons.
For 1,000,000 clients needs nearly 500,000,000,000 of comparisons

It is really a hard work, requires time and power calculation!!!

Big-5 (like N, E, O, A, C; Costa & McCrae) or Big-7 will not be enough any more to evaluate Couple Similarity / Couple Compatibility between prospective mates; and the complete inventory, 16PF5 test or similar test like the IPIP-NEO with 30 items (Five broad domains of personality, followed by a more detailed description of personality according to the six subdomains that comprise each domain), must be used.

- - - - - -
The FREE version of the IPIP-NEO test can be taken at:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIP/

- - - - - -
The link where I post comments about Scientific Papers on THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPMENT is:
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=395

[Eric P.Straus]

I think that singles need all the tools possible in their "dating toolbox". Meet people at bars, use online dating, go on blind dates, go to a speed dating event, meet folks at parties, meet people with common interests. I believe that EVERYTHING in life is a numbers game (I don't send out just one resume when trying to find work, I send out 10 or 12 or 20. I don't apply to just ONE college, I apply to 6 or 10). Everything in life is a numbers game... and I think people make the mistake sometimes of just leaving their love life to "fate" rather than working hard at meeting people.

So, personality profiling can certainly be one additional tool to help find a mate. So can horoscopes. So can common interests, i.e. work or sports. All of these things can all be part of the work that's worth doing to find a companion.

What I DO object to are sites that suggest they HAVE the answers FOR people. (aka e-harmony and their "scientific matching"). That's just so much hocus pocus, and in my view, these sites do a disservice to single adults by suggesting that the SITES can take care of the hard work that's necessary to find a mate. NOTHING in life takes the place of hard work... in any pursuit. Lots of "fad diets" promise to help you lose weight.. but the only way to do it, really, is to eat less and work out... to WORK HARD. E-Harmony is like a fad diet... leading people on to think that something OTHER than hard work will find them their companion. Great marketing? Yeah. Believable? No.

So, if a single adult thinks that personality profiling will help them find a suitable mate, then "GO FOR IT" I say. If they think square dances are the way, that's great too.

And, one clarification... I only WISH I had come up with E-Harmony's marketing approach to online dating. (Didn't Dr. Clark just pocket $100MM?) Their "scientific matching" allows them to charge DOUBLE what most other sites charge. The revenues are A+. The science is F.

People need to meet people to find a companion. It's really that simple. And that's why at Cupid.com, we do BOTH online dating and speed dating events. So we can help people meet people. THAT is what it's ALL about.

Best,

Eric P. Straus
President
www.Cupid.com

[Steve]

Seems like Cupid.com isn't that well run if the president has enough time to BLOG

[james]

I'm a professional test user. Also married twice.

The secret formula for a successful match is Love, Hard work and maturity. Maturity means delaying your gratification, making sacrifices and placing your SO first.
I haven't yet found a test that measures these! Some indications of maturity can be picked up with the 16PF but the others have little to offer that will help a couple other than a superficial matching of interests. Both similarities and differences can be appealing.

Seems to me that a survey of how one would handle different situations is likely to be more beneficial than matching profiles.

[Jim Houran]

Research is clear that couples do NOT need to be strongly similar in terms of personality -- and often couples show little to no similarity in personality. Compatibility "tests" that focus on pairing people based on similarity of personality are misguided. And the Myers-Briggs is outdated theory and measurement at best. Time to move on to modern stuff that really works and is not a Barnum effect.

As for precision in matching, Fernando's heart is in the right place, but not even he can get that level of precision. Measurement error will ALWAYS be present and ALWAYS prevent being able to have reliable numbers past one or two decimal points. Moreover, such level of precision is probably over kill in practice.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com

[Fernando Ardenghi]

*** "Research is clear that couples do NOT need to be strongly similar in terms of personality -- and often couples show little to no similarity in personality."

* "CHANGE ASSORTATIVE MATING AND MARITAL QUALITY IN NEWLYWEDS: A COUPLE CENTERED APPROACH", February 2005 at "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology"
"................................
Couple Similarity and Marital Quality
... The observed SIMILARITY-SATISFACTION CORRELATIONS SUGGEST THAT SIMILARITY ON PERSONALITY RELATED DOMAINS WAS STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH SATISFACTION, whereas similarity on attitude-related domains was not.
.................
People may be attracted to those who have similar attitudes, values, and beliefs and even marry them (at least in part) on the basis of this similarity. However, once individuals are in a committed relationship, IT MAY BE PRIMARILY PERSONALITY SIMILARITY THAT INFLUENCES MARITAL HAPPINESS. This suggests that attitude and value similarity may play a different role in relationship development than personality similarity does. For example, whereas similarity in attitudes and values appears to be important early on in the relationship and may play an important role in relationship progression, personality similarity becomes more important as the relationship reaches greater commitment.....
..... FUTURE RESEARCH designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed.
.................................."

* "PERSONALITY, FAMILY HISTORY, AND COMPETENCE IN EARLY ADULT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS"
* "IDEAL MATE PERSONALITY CONCEPTS AND COMPATIBILITY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS"
* "PERSONALITY and SOCIAL NETWORK EFFECTS on ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS: A DYADIC APPROACH"
* "PERSONALITY, ATTACHMENT, AND SEXUALITY RELATED TO DATING RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES: Contrasting three perspectives on personal attribute interaction. "
* "SELF AND PARTNER PERSONALITY IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS"
* "PERSONALITY AND MARITAL SATISFACTION: A BEHAVIOURAL GENETIC ANALYSIS"

and more papers at http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/scientific-papers-t395.html

There is NO scientific paper published YET that takes into account temporal patterns of relationship variables through the years using the 16PF5 personality normative test for dating purposes!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** "Measurement error will ALWAYS be present and ALWAYS prevent being able to have reliable numbers past one or two decimal points. Moreover, such level of precision is probably over kill in practice."

1) Measurement: 16PF5 test, integer numbers only, like:
16PF5 Profile A:6.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:9.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:2.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4

2) Calculation: similarity between patterns calculated using quantum math equations with the quantitative method I had invented, named LIFEPROJECT METHOD.

I calculate similarity in PERSONALITY PATTERNS like these examples
person#1 - 16PF5 Profile A:6.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:9.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:2.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4
person#2 - 16PF5 Profile A:5.B:7.C:4.E:8.F:7.G:4.H:5.I:6.L:4.M:6.N:8.O:9.Q1:6.Q2:8.Q3:4.Q4:4

/person#2|C|person#1/ == /person#1|C|person#2/ == 74.79865772%

Client #Man1 ------ 16PF5 Profile A:6.B:7.C:5.E:8.F:8.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:4.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4
abv.
Client #Man1 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman1 ----- 16PF5 Profile 5.6.4.7.7.5.6.6.7.6.3.4.7.6.2.3
/#Man1|C|#Woman1/ == 88,38926174%

Client #Man1 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman2 ----- 16PF5 Profile 7.8.6.9.9.7.8.8.9.8.5.6.9.8.4.5
/#Man1|C|#Woman2/ == 87,58389262%

/#Man1|C|#Woman1/ is not the same as /#Man1|CQ|#Woman2/ because the algorithm I had invented takes into account the *score* and the *trend to score*

Client #Man1 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman3 ----- 16PF5 Profile 8.9.7.10.10.8.9.9.10.9.6.7.10.9.5.6
/#Man1|C|#Woman3/ == 60,23489933%

Here /#Man1| is the reverse of |#Woman4/
Client #Man1 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman4 ----- 16PF5 Profile 4.3.7.8.5.4.7.8.7.7.6.8.8.5.7.6
/#Man1|C|#Woman4/ == 68,15436242%

Client #Man2 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
Client #Woman5 ----- 16PF5 Profile 4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5
/#Man2|C|#Woman5/ == 63,75838900%

Client #Man2 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
Client #Woman6 ----- 16PF5 Profile 3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4
/#Man2|C|#Woman6/ == 41,61073800%

Client #Man2 --------- 16PF5 Profile 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
Client #Woman7 ----- 16PF5 Profile 7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8
/#Man2|C|#Woman7/ == 88,59060403%

More at:
http://www.bidnetwork.org/artefact-50155-en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braket
and
"METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE"
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00200.x

At page 413 says: "It is vital for the study of personal relationships, as for any scientific discipline, to develop methodologies that are specifically designed to address the questions posed by the discipline. The articles in this special issue represent an effort in that direction. Perhaps equally important is the need for individuals who are involved in relationships study to learn these new techniques and to apply them in their research. It is also important for investigators to challenge statisticians to create new analytic techniques when existing ones are inadequate. These tasks are left to you, the reader."

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

[Jim Houran]

Hi Fernando,

The numbers you report will never be that precise (or reliable) in real life practice.

Most measures (even ones like GRE, MCAT, IQ, etc) have standards errors (SE) around + or - 1 to 5 points for each "score." Thus, questionnaire measurements claiming to be precise to ten decimals points is simply idealized.

I do agree, though, that researchers need to adopt better methods, which is why my team pushes to hard for research and matching methods grounded in Item Response Theory. We use it and the outcomes are much better than what we see with 16PF, DiSC, etc. It is the gold standard in the tests and measurements field.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com

[Fernando Ardenghi]

Dr. Houran, we are speaking about two different things!!!

You are speaking about precision of the measurement

and

I am speaking about precision of the calculation

The numbers I report are real values of LIFEPROJECT METHOD algorithm!!!
1) Measurement (personality): 16PF5 test, integer numbers only, quantized values.
2) Calculation (similarity between patterns): LIFEPROJECT METHOD algorithm, up to 8 decimals.
For big databases over 100,000 persons, if the algorithm DOES NOT have 8 decimals -e.g: like 88,38926174%- searching by your own is more powerful (more precise) than the algorithm itself!
This lack of precision is being suffered by PlentyOfFish, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, eHarmony (uses dyadic adjustment scale ), Yahoo!Personals (WeAttract), True?, cybersuitors, Parship, Ulteem, MatchWise?, OKCuped, Mary, Mate1, Nomoredates and others

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29tier.htm
"Researchers who studied online dating found that the customers typically ended up going out with fewer than 1 percent of the people whose profiles they studied, and that those dates often ended up being huge letdowns. "

Dr. Houran, Why did you and Dr. Rense Lange not try to validate the 16PF5 with IRT???

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

[Jim Houran]

Hi Fernando!

Precicison of matching follows directly from precision of measurement.

Also, Rense Lange did not conduct any IRT scaling analyses on the 16PF5 because (i) we already have IRT version of the Big 5 which is more versatile and (ii) no need for us to have an IRT version of the 16PF5. Similarity in personality is not a prerequisite for romantic compatibility, and personality tests are not good predictors of work performance (ala, our HR and organizational development research and assessments).

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com

[Fernando Ardenghi]

Hi Dr. Houran, It is always wonderful reading your posts!

'''Precision of matching follows directly from precision of measurement.'''
Not necessarily!!!, the quantitative method I had invented to calculate similarity between patterns is independent from measurement.

I think you wrote '''personality tests are not good predictors of work performance''' based on
the papers

"Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683-729"
http://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/morgeson_campion_dipboye_hollenbeck_murphy_schmitt_2007a.pdf
"...........
First, faking on self-report personality tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of personality tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report personality tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report personality measures.
.............."

Dr. Morgeson et al argue the low validities associated with self-report personality measures.

"Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60, 1029-1049"
http://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/morgeson_campion_dipboye_hollenbeck_murphy_schmitt_2007b.pdf
"We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report personality tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written
responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on personality; (2) the observed validities of personality tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using personality tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of personality tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for personality testing research and practice are discussed."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also wrote '''Similarity in personality is not a prerequisite for romantic compatibility'''

Personality measured with the Big Five???, which is only an oversimplification.

From the 16PF5 Manual
"Measuring the Big Five
For example, Big Five theories and analyses by Costa and McCrae; Goldberg, Fiske, Tupes and Christal; Wiggins; Norman; Digman; and other contemporary researchers are all extensions of Cattell's work with IPAT's 16 Primary Factors or based on 16PF data. More than 50 published studies have replicated the basic structure of these traits as consistent, broad measures of normal personality. Although Cattell had an important theoretical difference with more recent researchers (Cattell rejected the assumption that each factor was largely unrelated to the others), there is strong similarity across the three most commonly accepted five-factor models, despite differences in the names of the factors:

Cattell: Extraversion, Stability, Receptivity, Accommodation, Self-Control
Goldberg: Surgency, Emotional Stability, Intellect, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
Costa&McCrae: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness

Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns, so deeper analysis is typically warranted."

You wrote '''Similarity in personality is not a prerequisite for romantic compatibility, and personality tests are not good predictors of work performance'''

I hope I can launch an online dating site and use the quantitative method I had invented to calculate similarity between patterns to prove "Similarity* in personality* is the core for romantic compatibility and perhaps the 16PF5 is the best predictor of work performance"

*personality with 16PF5 test.
*similarity between patterns with LIFEPROJECT METHOD algorithm.

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

[Jim Houran]

Hi Fernando,

I mentioned the recruitment issue only to illustrate that personality assessments are ineffective predictors in other domains -- similar to the situation with romantic compatibility testing.

The literature is full of studies with various personality measures that generally come to the same conclusion, namely that similarity in personality is not prerequisite for relationship quality.

Also, the 16PF5 may contain more variables, but that does not mean those variables are distinct factors from the Big 5 constructs. In fact, factor analyses based solely on classical test theory (without differential item or test functioning analyses) are typically erroneous. Often we have found that what appears to be multiple variables turns out to be a single factor or dimension. As for predictive power, I do not know of any consensus in the literature that the 16PF predicts behavior better than the Big 5.

Moreover, the variables associated with the "Theory of Reasoned Action" seem to predict volitional behavior the best -- and no personality variables per se are involved!

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com