Often the individuals that we professionals work with, report a previous experience with an online assessment that gave a different 4-letter Type code. Much like free medical advice, the results can be harmful for similar reasons. Getting information, typological or medical, is an interesting personal exercise. The simple process of learning something about ourselves and believing that the information is true, gives a sense of accomplishment and autonomy. We like being in the know and in charge of our lives. Often people do not know the difference between accurate and inaccurate information (medical diagnosis or type designation). We humans are a trusting lot when it comes to the internet. The question for professionals is, what kind of language should be used when discussing the internet results from OZ after the results from the Majors Elements assessment indicates a difference?
Reading information that is about ourselves, and makes us feel good, is often hard to let go of. We like the feel good experience in all its forms. Typically, the mention of ice cream and cake makes the mouth water in anticipation of a feelgood experience. People read horoscopes for the same reason. Looking into a crystal ball for information that is useful in our lives is a tantalizing thought. The results given in online assessments are intended to make one feel good. This positive experience is then conveyed to colleagues and friends who want to get on the feel-good band wagon. If we as a professional tell them that they wasted their time, and the results are mostly bovine fertilizer, it makes them defensive. They may interpret our comments to mean that we have said that they are stupid and foolish.
Proper feedback occurs when we sit down (literally or remotely) with an individual and have them read an instrument report (result) that is known to be valid or known to be true. The professional and report provide options for the participant to think and ponder — whether they are this way or that way, never telling them what they are. The problem with online assessments, is that they say you are this or that! The truth is that very few people look at a 4-letter code result and say that fits me perfectly, every little nuance of it. Most people will tend to say, “You know, that’s a fairly good fit,” and then as a professional you respond, “Can you pinpoint, what seems a little funny, or not quite a good fit?” That’s where subscales (also, 8-Process and Formation information) come in, because the subscales are going to point out the specific elements that do not fit. To believe that we are this or that because we’ve spent 10 minutes online clicking things is an error. I tell professionals to say, “Let’s talk about that assessment you took online and why we need to be cautious with the information.” We as professionals must remember that even if a hundred thousand or a few million people have taken it, that doesn’t indicate that the authors have done the work to make sure it’s valid. Many people can take it and it can give invalid results to many people.
Being concrete about a response to individuals requires that we keep certain things in mind. If we say something like the Majors is a valid instrument, they may nod their heads and not really connect with that statement. How do we tell them that the Majors assessment is better than the online assessment? Keep in mind that the participant isn’t going to have access to the manual (and they really do not want to read it), so they’re only seeing the report and whatever the practitioner is telling them. What are some basic answers for the practitioner to use?
People need to be told that what they took online is designed to give a result that’s comfortable, and comfortable doesn’t necessarily mean accurate. Also, inform them that there’s a lot of work that has gone into The Majors Elements to make sure that the results are as accurate as possible. That means these are innate or genetic mental functions that we all have. There has also been a lot of effort to match the results of the assessment with what turns out to be what we call best fit or true type of the individual. I want people to know that those online assessments tend to make people feel good and people kind of enjoy them, and there’s an “aha” in getting that information. However, I think it’s most important to get information that we know, whether it is comfortable or not, that is accurate. It’s always up to the individual to decide over time what fits them. The important thing that I have learned is to avoid quick decisions, or quick reads about personality, for they may be inaccurate.
I know when I did work on Best Fit Type (working for other publishers on other instruments) it would be accomplished with just a little questionnaire about whether or not it fit them. I found in my personal experience and research that it would take nearly six weeks of talking with them before they were able to understand the concepts well enough to decide on a best fit type. Taking something online is different, in that they look at those results, and they say aha, that’s what I am, it feels good, it fits. I’m glad that people enjoy that, but when it comes to life and things that impact life, we want to be accurate. Taking The Majors Elements is like being sure that all of the information you get is correct. Not that it necessarily makes you feel good all the time (although learning about yourself should be a wonderful experience), but it’s accurate information. For example: like driving a car to a destination, it’s the information you have about where a town is, it looks like it’s good highway and not much traffic, and it’s going to be fine, but you end up being 5 miles off and you’ve got to figure out how to get there. That’s irritating, but if you get an accurate GPS to point the way (not recalculating), then you’ll feel much better when you get there. The Majors Elements is an accurate GPS.
We can talk about the research that has been done on the validity of the Majors, but the client may say, “What is validity?” When you say this is a valid assessment compared to the other one; how do you explain this? Here’s where the medical example helps:
Let’s say that you are having some symptoms and you jump online and found George who had a blog talking about his symptoms. Would you naturally think that he is going to prescribe/tell you what you need, or would you go to your doctor who is trained? The doctor has some validity (level of accuracy) in the assessment that he makes, based on his training and experience, but there is no way of knowing about George.
The Majors Elements is based upon my training, my expertise, plus the process of comparing the results from Elements with people and seeing if there is a match or best-fit. Therefore, taking The Majors Elements is like going through a person who specializes in a particular medical ailment and finding out accurate information about what is causing your symptoms, as opposed to jumping online and reading a blog about George and his ailments.
If you want to learn about type online, you can go and read articles teaching about the historical background, about different types, dichotomies, and everything else typological. However, the complexities around structuring and writing questions and item analysis (other stat stuff), requires an extensive amount of knowledge base that a lot of people who are constructing many of these online assessments do not have. I can’t throw all of them under the bus, but for the most part, based on what I read about them, most of them don’t have a lot of psychometric construction behind them. So, if you have chronic medical issues you’re not going to go to a blog and say, “Oh, I must have this.” You need to go have the issue assessed or take tests, you need somebody who has had experience looking at these things (assessment). A lot of times it’s hard for people to realize the Type is a journey, it’s not solely the result of a 10-minute test.
My educational background and the experience I’ve had with developing assessments for other companies is an important thing. Like a doctor with medical issues, clients need to know that my assessments can be trusted with typological issues. Professionals who study the manuals are equipped to respond to these common questions about why the Majors is better than the online stuff. Remember that the Wizard of OZ was a fake and left poor Dorothy stranded with Toto.
Blessings,
Dr. Mark
