What Psychological Models Underpin The JTI?

The JTI questionnaire provides a comprehensive assessment of a person’s psychological type. It uses categories first proposed by C.G. Jung (1921) and builds upon the work of Isabel Myers and Catherine Briggs (1962) to provide a modern measure of Jungian type. Listed below are some of the many studies demonstrating the relevance of the JTI to the workplace.

McCaulley (2000): Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge between Counselling and Consulting.

The business world may accept that it needs the insights of psychology, however there is often a gap between the understanding and thinking behind psychological and business interventions. McCaulley argues that psychological type “can be a powerful tool for bridging the gap, because it is based on basic differences in the ways human beings take in information and make decisions”. This article evaluates Jung‟s theory of psychological types discusses where communication difficulties between psychology and business are likely to likely to occur and how to overcome this by developing understanding of our respective styles of communication.

Steele & Kelly (1976): Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Correlation of Extraversion-Introversion.

This study investigated the extraversion-introversion correlation of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). Steele & Kelly argue that “despite the difference in the theoretical orientations of Jung and Eysenck, the high correlation of the MBTI and EPQ Extraversion-Introversion scales demonstrates an area of equivalency at the self-report questionnaire level in dealing with extraversion-introversion”.

Furnham, Moutafi & Paltiel (2005): Intelligence in Relation to Jung‟s Personality Types.

This study explored the relationship between Jung‟s personality types and psychometric intelligence. Participants completed the Critical Reasoning Test Battery (CRTB2) and the JTI. General intelligence was correlated with Extraversion-Introversion (EI), Sensing-Intuition (SN), Thinking-Felling (TF) and Judging-Perception (JP). Furnham et al found that EI, TF and JP were correlated with scores on numerical, verbal and abstract reasoning, whereas SN correlated with verbal reasoning.

A Solution To The Validity of Unsupervised Tests

iSupervise is the first online testing platform to allow remote supervised assessment. iSupervise uses the latest in internet technology to protect against the risks of cheating, prevent security breaches, and to offer users confidence in the validity of their assessment.

The Challenge: The internet allows psychometric tests to be administered to applicants anywhere in the world. However up till now users have lacked confidence in results obtained from unsupervised test sessions. While one possible solution has been to verify the results by retesting short-listed candidates, this takes more time and adds significant costs. GeneSys iSupervise is the first internet testing system that avoids these problems by allowing you to supervise remote internet based tests.

How iSupervise works: iSupervise uses webcam technology and an integrated instant messenger to allow supervisors to communicate with applicants in real-time. With iSupervise administrators always retain full control of each applicant’s test session as if they were in the room with them.

Tests supported by iSupervise: iSupervise fully supports over 40 psychometric tests covering personality, aptitude & ability, interests & values, and advanced computer adaptive questionnaires.

The advantages of iSupervise:

  • Confidence in the validity of your test results
  • No need to re-test applicants to verify the authenticity of results
  • Real time interaction with the candidates through an integrated instant messenger system
  • Full control over the testing session, including pausing or cancelling a remote delivery
  • No need to transport applicants to test location, so saving costs
  • The ability to test one or more applicants at the same time

The cost of iSupervise: iSupervise is an integral part of GeneSys Online. There are no additional costs to administer when administering tests via iSupervise or generating reports.

Person-Target Profiling

What is it?
A target profile is typically a set of scores on psychological attributes deemed representative of an individual likely to succeed in training and/or job performance. These attributes are usually comprised of competencies, knowledge, skills, abilities, personality, interests, and values. Having created a target profile, any individual may be compared to the target profile and their closeness assessed using some form of objective comparison procedure. Those who are deemed sufficiently close to the profile are normally selected in preference to those who are less close. The underlying logic is that those who are close to the target profile will be more likely to succeed in whatever outcome the target profile is designed to optimize.

Why would you use it?
If the probability of succeeding in a role is a function of a particular profile of attributes, and you need to select a subset of candidates for such a role, then it would seem to make a great deal of sense to try and select those who share much in-common with the profile of desired attributes. This is especially useful when the number of applicants is large relative to the number advertised positions or promotions.

How do you create a Target Profile?

The Ideal Profile
You can ask Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) to create one; SME’s who are experienced in a particular role and who are rated or judged as successful performers in that role. They could be given or required to identify a set of attributes from which they select those they judge most relevant to the role, then decide upon the required “amount” or score on each attribute which optimizes the likelihood of occurrence of the desired outcome. This is what might be referred to as an “ideal profile”.

The Benchmark Profile
The scores on a set of attributes are acquired from a group of identified good performers in a role; these scores are then averaged for every attribute, with the mean scores forming the target profile. The profile is used as a benchmark for high performance, with candidate values on the same attributes compared for “closeness” to the target profile. A more discriminating approach may be taken by some, which is to create a profile of a group of poor performers in a role, as well as high performers. Then the “differential benchmark” target profile is constructed from those attributes which are shown to clearly discriminate between low and high performers.

How do you compare candidates against a target profile?
The most common methods are correlational and discrepancy-based indices. The correlational approach provides a comparison result in terms of an index of correlation, which varies between +1 (maximum positive relationship between a candidate’s profile scores and the target scores), and -1 (maximum inverse relationship between a candidate’s profile scores and the target scores; by ‘inverse’ I mean that as target scores increase, so do candidate scores decrease). A value of 0 for these kinds of coefficient is indicative of no relationship between scores. The discrepancy-based coefficients are usually expressed as measures of agreement between the candidate and target attribute scores. Instead of indexing a relationship between the two sets of scores, they index the degree to which the two sets of scores are identical to one another. Measures of agreement vary between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating maximum possible discrepancy, and 1 indicating identical scores shared by both candidate and target profile. GeneSys Profiler uses a discrepancy-based index expressed as a measure of agreement as described above.

 

What Research Underpins The GRT Series?

The GRT series measures the psychological construct of general mental ability (GMA), introduced by Spearman in 1904. Reasoning tests provide a reliable, standardised way to assess an applicant’s general mental ability (GMA). Listed below are some of the many studies demonstrating the relevance of GMA measures, such as the GRT series, to the workplace.

Schmidt & Hunter (1998):
The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings.
On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and the 18 other selection procedures. Schmidt and Hunter concluded that reasoning tests have consistently been found to be the one of the best predictors of job performance, with an average validity coefficient of 0.51. Furthermore, they found that reasoning tests have consistently been found to predict the effectiveness of staff training programmes, with an average validity coefficient of 0.56 for predicting trainability.

Bertua, Anderson & Salgado (2005): The Predictive Validity of Cognitive Ability Tests: A UK Meta-analysis.
This study conducted a meta-analysis on the validity of tests of general mental ability (GMA) and specific cognitive abilities for predicting job performance and training success in the UK. It was found that both GMA and specific ability tests were valid predictors of both job performance and training success, with validity coefficients in the range of .50 – .60.

Schmidt & Hunter (2004): General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance.
Schmidt and Hunter present evidence that general mental ability tests predicts both occupation level attained and performance within one’s chosen occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait or disposition and better than job experience. Furthermore evidence is presented that weighted combinations of specific aptitudes tailored to individual jobs do not predict job performance better than GMA alone.

The 15FQ+ Predicts Emotional Intelligence

The table below presents correlations between a widely used measure of Emotional Intelligence (the Emotional Competencies Inventory – ECI) and the 15FQ+ primary factors, on a sample of 35 job applicants. (Only those correlations that are significant at the 5% level or less are reported.) Inspection of this table demonstrates the ability of the 15FQ+ to predict emotional intelligence, as well as providing further evidence of its construct validity.

Correlations between the 15FQ+ and the ECI (Emotional Intelligence Scales).

ECI Scale 15FQ+ Primary
Self Awareness ƒF (.38) ƒO (-.35) ƒA (.34)
Self Reliance ƒF (.42) ƒH (.44) ƒQ2 (-.34) ƒQ3 (.35)
Assertiveness ƒQ3 (.35)
Relationship Skills ƒA (.42) ƒC (.35) ƒF (.60) ƒH (.67) ƒQ2 (-.42)
Empathy ƒA (.56) ƒC (.35) ƒF (.60) ƒH (.67) ƒQ4 (-.44)
Self Control ƒL (-.37) ƒN (.47) ƒO (-.55) ƒQ4 (-.44)
Flexibility ƒA (.37) ƒL (-.36) ƒQ4 (-.50)
Optimism ƒF (.38) ƒO (-.39)

Most notable are the large correlations between the ECI scale Relationship Skills and the 15FQ+ primaries ƒF (Enthusiastic) and ƒH (Socially Bold). This demonstrates that social confidence and interpersonal enthusiasm are core components of good relationship skills. Similarly the substantial correlation between the ECI scale Empathy and the 15FQ+ primary ƒA (Empathic), demonstrates the ability of the 15FQ+ to predict this core EI construct. That the 15FQ+ primaries ƒF and ƒH are also strongly correlated with Empathy, indicates that higher levels of empathy are also associated with higher levels of social skills, as would be expected.

 

The large negative correlation between the ECI scale Self Control and the 15FQ+ primary ƒO (Self doubting) indicates that those individuals who have greater control over their emotions have higher levels of self-confidence, as would be expected. Similarly the substantial correlation between this ECI scale and the 15FQ+ primary ƒN (Restrained) indicates that Self Control is, not surprisingly, associated with interpersonal restraint.

 

That the ECI scale Assertiveness does not correlate with the 15FQ+ primary Dominant (ƒE) is to be expected, as this ECI dimension assesses appropriate assertion whereas ƒE assesses the tendency for someone to dominate social situations. We would therefore expect there to be a curvilinear relationship between appropriate assertion and the 15FQ+ primaryƒE (Dominant). That is to say, average scores on this primary will be associated with appropriately assertive behaviours, with high and low scores being associated with passivity and aggression respectively. The substantial correlations between the 15FQ+ primaries ƒF and fH with the ECI scale Assertiveness, supports this idea; indicating that appropriate assertion is associated with a higher level of social skill.

 

The moderate, but nonetheless significant correlations between the ECI dimension Optimism and the 15FQ+ primaries ƒF (Enthusiastic) and ƒO (Self-doubting), indicate that optimism is associated with a fun-loving interpersonal style and with self-confidence, as would be expected. Finally the moderate correlation between the ECI scale Flexibility, and the 15FQ+ primaries ƒA (Empathic), ƒL  Suspicious) and ƒQ4 (Tense-driven) reflect the fact that this ECI dimension is assessing interpersonal flexibility, rather than a flexible thinking style. Therefore it is unsurprising to discover that interpersonal flexibility is associated with a tendency to relate to others in a trusting, empathic and composed way.

 

In summary, the substantial correlations between the ECI and the 15FQ+ demonstrates the ability of the 15FQ+ to predict Emotional Intelligence. This is consistent with previous research, which construes Emotional Intelligence as a set of interpersonal competencies that can be predicted from personality measures. (Further evidence of this can be found on pages 51-52 of the 15FQ+ manual, which presents data on the relationship between the Bar-on Emotional Quotient Inventory.

 


3.0 – GeneSys 360 New Features

The 360 is undergoing a major overhaul. This is a list of the potential features (most to be included in the initial release) to be included in GeneSys 360:

Advanced SELF management – SELF’s will be able to monitor their own appraisal, add their own raters and send out the invitations; removing the management burden from the administrator.

Improved Project Management – Large 360 projects will be easy to create and monitor.

Import 360 Respondents – Import respondents from excel documents.

Grouped Invitations – In large 360 projects raters may need to complete more than one questionnaire. This will allow a rater to view the outstanding questionnaires they have left to complete.

SMS Alerts – Administrators can send SMS alerts to Raters.

Auto Reminders – Set a reminder schedule. Reminder invitations are then sent automatically.

Summary Views – View project progress in various summary views.

Unlimited Roles – Add new roles to the 360 system that replace or add to the existing roles offered in the system.

Preview 360 Questionnaires – Preview the questionnaire that will be sent to raters.

Questionnaire Order – Rearrange the order of items in questionnaires that are sent to raters.

Copy & Paste – Copy items or competencies to other custom competencies.

Competency Rating – Add importance ratings to competencies to indicate that competencies have a higher importance over others.

Excel Reports – 360 reports are available in Excel format.

720 Degree – Compare old and new projects in a 720 Degree appraisal.

User Control – Have more than one administrator can control a 360 appraisal.

Competency Defaults – Pre-Defined competency defaults.