For a decade, the 8-process scores have been used and evaluated. Even though many professionals have found this element of the Majors’ assessments to be very useful, questions remain about exactly what it is and is not. In this blog, I’ll cover some 8-process information that may clear things up for many who need a more accurate picture to help develop effective and meaningful use of these scores.
Why are they called the Majors/Jungian 8-Process Scores?
To be clear, the concept is directly from Jung’s text of Psychological Types (1923) and not from me. What makes these scores unique is the intended usage of the result. For over one hundred years individuals have been enticed to learn more about how they interact with the inner and outer world of objects (people, activities, and other elements of life). Jung clearly describes the eight mental functions with many examples of how they are used. Others have attempted to uncover an individual’s pattern of mental processes though assessment or analysis. This can be done through the 16 Type model and application of assumptions regarding developmental patterns. This has a lot of value but reveals a static (or fixed) model of mental functions to which a person must be molded into, often telling us more about the model than the person. I believed that a method to tell us about how the individual express those functions was needed. Jung spoke about this issue of expression and observability in his text where he tells us that we can clearly see the mental function that is dominant or primary in the person’s life. Often the second or auxiliary function is easily seen. Life impacts how the functions are learned and expressed. I’m not saying the static model, or 16 Type model is incorrect in any way. Rather, the expression of a mental function by an individual is life plus genetics (Jung referred to mental functions as innate processes). I wanted to assess the utility and accessibility of the 8-mental functions to get a clear snapshot of how they are expressed in the individual’s everyday activities. Often the stories behind the pattern of functions that the individual uses represent brush strokes on the painting of his or her life. When professionals listen to the when, how, and why certain patterns are learned and expressed they learn elements of that person’s individual differences, which are critical in being of service in coaching, counseling, and guidance. Perhaps, I should have referred to the scores and the “Majors’ assessment of Jung’s eight mental functions as expressed by life experiences applied to individuals in an 8-process score model.” This is clearer but takes up too much ink. I chose the “Majors/Jungian 8-Process Scores” as an abbreviation (8-Process Scores).
What is a Standardized T-Score!
When we go to a food market and buy bulk products, we put it on a scale and state we have this much of that. I’m 5’11’’ tall (used to be 6’ but shrinkage due to packaging age) measured on the foot/inches scale. I can state that if have this much vertical extension, but it is not correct to state that I have this much of a mental function. What you see when you view the numerical data on the 8-Process Scores from the Leaders Beacon assessment output is a Standardized T-Score. All eight scores represent a snapshot of that person’s access and utility (how usable) of mental functions in everyday life. Do mental functions change? No, but the expression and utility changes as life experience occurs impacting the individual (not typically over short period of time). The use of Standardized T-Scores provides some important connections between the eight functions. As well as how each one is used compared to the average scores of a norm group. The norm group is important and described fully in the manuals for the Majors PTI and Elements. The norm groups for the 8-Process Scores is balanced by 16 Types. There is a separate norm group for males and females (required due to gender differences in Type). They are standardized with a mean of 50 and standard deviation (SD) of 10. This may be gobbledygook to many who are not schooled into the psychometrics of assessment. I’ll attempt to state standardization in laymen’s terms. It means that all eight scores have an average score of 50. So, for females, a group of adult females balanced by type (equal number of persons per 16 type category) when scored on the 8-process scores the average score was 50. The SD of 10 indicates that on average how much these women score above and below 50 is 10. So, an individual scoring 35 is using and accessing a particular function much less than the average female. A score of 65 indicates above average use and access. The manuals contain a chart indicating average scores by 16 types so individual differences by type can be used in understanding the person’s unique expression of psychological type. Can you get a score of 0? No, mathematically that is not possible and in life all 8 mental function exist in everyone. It is true that some functions do not get much exercise in some individuals, but this is a topic for another blog. When looking an individuals 8-Process Scores the professional should examine the high and low scores for that individual. General comparisons with individuals of the same Type group can provide questions to ask. Never assume that any two individuals are supposed to be the same regardless of type and gender. Therefore, you can say that an individual scores above or below average (compared to the standardization group), but you cannot state that they have less than or more than others. The stories that individuals tell us professionals regarding the development or avoidance of a mental function is the basis of individual differences in expression and utility.
My intention in this blog has been to explain a couple of the most common questions that I have received over the past decade or so. Professionals are to be schooled in psychometrics enough to be able to grasp the scoring method and intent of the assessment. Further questions should be passed on the publisher leadersbeacon.com who will direct you accordingly.
Until next time blessings,
Dr. Mark.
