5.3

Reliability and Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument

A 25-Year Review and Psychometric Synthesis of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) – Form M


Erford, B. T., Zhang, X., Sweeting, E., Russo, M., Rashid, A., Sherman, M. F., Bradford, E. L., Wang, X., Gao, A., Huang, X., Liu, Z., Haskew, A., MacInerney, E., Moore, E., Thompson, D., Barboza, S., Huang, X., Zhou, A., Xu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2025).
A 25-Year Review and Psychometric Synthesis of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) – Form M.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 103(4), 403–407.

Most research using MBTI® instruments is either applied or correlational designs and does not analyze psychometric properties. This paper analyzed research results from 193 studies using MBTI Form M from 1999 to 2024. An aggregated n of 57,170 participants was compared to the normative proportions (n = 3009) published in the MBTI Manual (1998/2009, 3rd ed.).

Studies included in review were: 10 articles providing evidence of internal consistency, 6 articles providing evidence of convergent validity, 13 articles providing evidence of sample means and standard deviations, 13 articles providing evidence of intra-scale correlations, and 178 articles providing evidence of typological proportions in samples.

The synthesis calculated internal consistency, convergent validity across six personality instruments, and compared type distribution in the aggregated sample against the normative sample in the MBTI Manual. The psychometric synthesis found internal consistency was 0.845–0.921 across subscales and total scores. Convergent evidence with similar constructs was robust across six personality instruments.

The authors indicate that studies reporting structural validity and test-retest designs were absent from the 25-year literature sampling (outside of the MBTI Manual). As for test-retest studies, several were published in the early 2000s; unfortunately, they did not make it into this analysis. The distribution of type across study samples differed in some types from the national representative sample (NRS) in the MBTI Manual. There are likely several reasons for this, including different versions of the MBTI instrument being used in studies through the years, the limits of the NRS mentioned in the 1998 manual, and varied sampling techniques across research.


ARTICLE PERMALINK: https://www.myersbriggs.org/research-and-library/journal-psychological-type/a-25-year-review-and-psychometric-synthesis-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-form-m/

ARTICLE COMMENTS:

Use the form below to leave comments on this article summary for the research team and/or request a copy of the article by checking the box. Your name and email are required. Thank you.





Give us your thoughts on this article here:


Journal of Psychological Type® Research Digest (JPT-RD) is made available through Myers & Briggs Foundation, worldwide publisher. The editorial team includes Kesstan Blandin, PhD, Logan Abbitt, MLIS, and Purnima Sims.

For inquiries about accessing original articles, contact library@myersbriggs.org.

Myers & Briggs Foundation carries the legacy of Isabel Briggs Myers and the MBTI® instrument through our mission to educate the public about psychological type—including its ethical, meaningful, and practical applications—and to conduct research on psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) instrument. The JPT-RD, published annually, is a publication that highlights research and ideas in the field of psychological type, the MBTI Instrument, and Jungian thought.

©2025 Myers & Briggs Foundation, Inc., publisher.

Contact the JPT-RD Editorial Team at research@myersbriggs.org.