They did this by giving their participants a SII test as well as a MBTI test, then they collected data about their majors after their fourth semester, finally they analyzed their data (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). They first compared the results of the MBTI with that of the SII to test the MBTI’s internal validity; in other words, they compared the results of the two personality test to determine whether the MBTI accurately tested and determined the dominate components of a person’s personality (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). Next they tested the SII to see if, using its results, they could predict a person’s selected academic major (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). Finally, they used the combined results of the SII and the MBTI to try and predict the students major (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). Testing the SII separately was important because the study’s intentions were determining the incremental validity not just its total validity, meaning the MBTI test’s ability to help predict not its lone ability to predict. The resulting data however, did not support the theory that the MBTI test would aid in the accurate prediction of a student’s major (Pulver, & Kelly,2008). Though in some categorizes the MBTI results did increase the accuracy of the prediction, the overall improvement was insignificant (Pulver, & Kelly,2008). Though I believe the study effectively tested the incremental validity, the results were unfavorable. Though more testing could help increase the MBTI’s predictive abilities, I believe the time and recourses expended to do more research would be wasted. I believe the tests value lies in other areas. The test can help pair compatible roommates or it could be used by business to construct more compatible and efficient work teams. Though I only mentioned two, the productive uses for this test are numerous and I believe that, because of its ability to
They did this by giving their participants a SII test as well as a MBTI test, then they collected data about their majors after their fourth semester, finally they analyzed their data (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). They first compared the results of the MBTI with that of the SII to test the MBTI’s internal validity; in other words, they compared the results of the two personality test to determine whether the MBTI accurately tested and determined the dominate components of a person’s personality (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). Next they tested the SII to see if, using its results, they could predict a person’s selected academic major (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). Finally, they used the combined results of the SII and the MBTI to try and predict the students major (Pulver, & Kelly, 2008). Testing the SII separately was important because the study’s intentions were determining the incremental validity not just its total validity, meaning the MBTI test’s ability to help predict not its lone ability to predict. The resulting data however, did not support the theory that the MBTI test would aid in the accurate prediction of a student’s major (Pulver, & Kelly,2008). Though in some categorizes the MBTI results did increase the accuracy of the prediction, the overall improvement was insignificant (Pulver, & Kelly,2008). Though I believe the study effectively tested the incremental validity, the results were unfavorable. Though more testing could help increase the MBTI’s predictive abilities, I believe the time and recourses expended to do more research would be wasted. I believe the tests value lies in other areas. The test can help pair compatible roommates or it could be used by business to construct more compatible and efficient work teams. Though I only mentioned two, the productive uses for this test are numerous and I believe that, because of its ability to