Problems with test administration training (DISC, MBTI)
The recent exchange with Gary Lear about reliability and validity really highlights one of the major problems with these instruments and their usage. THIS IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO COMMENT ON GARY, BUT ON THE GENERAL SITUATION.
Even the companies that train and certify people to administer these tests are turning out people with a very poor grasp or understanding of the research, the theories IN CONTEXT, or the statistical aspects of the tests. This may not be an issue for some.
I don’t believe you can take a short certification course, and understand statistics, and clearly there are some that can’t make a distinction between reliability, validity (and all the different kinds). That’s not a fault of theirs so much as the impossibility of properly educating lay people in these things in a short time.
I don’t believe that people who know or understand ONE model of personality or one model of styles are in a position to place the instrument in a historical context. (After all there are hundreds of different style models, most of which the supposed test administrator have never heard of).
I think we need to look at the kinds of claims made and realize several things. Testing is a HUGE industry, and testing companies are in the business of making money. It’s not that they lie, but they have constraints on what they do, and are not a good source of unbiased information about tests.
Secondly, the fact one is certified in the DISC or the MBTI means very little in terms of a person’s grasp of testing, validities, reliabilities and testing principles UNLESS they have a further background in much more theory than the companies provide.
I would be far more supportive of these instruments if, as part of the training process, certified administrators learned how much they DO NOT KNOW about the fields of testing, psychology, and so forth.
Until that happens I will continue to critique their use.