Assessing Adult Temperament: Evaluating Measurement Validity using Item Response TheoryABSTRACT:
Assessing temperament is important to understand individual differences. The goal of this study was to construct a measure focusing on temperament dimensions rather than personality types, such as MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). The sample was composed of 1,504 Brazilian individuals (52% female) from different regions of the country. Participants were administered the Inventory of Adult Temperament Styles (IATS), which is comprised of 79 items to assess four temperament dimensions (Extroversion - Introversion, Organized - Flexible, Practical - Imaginative, and Thinking - Feeling). Responses analyzed by the Item Response Theory supported correspondence between IATS items and respective unidimensional temperament dimensions. Some problematic items were identified in the Thinking - Feeling dimension. Results suggest that self-report measures of temperament measure dimensional constructs rather than discrete types.
KEYWORDS:
personality types; styles; temperament; psychometry; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
RESUMO:
Avaliar o temperamento é essencial para entender as diferenças individuais. O objetivo deste estudo foi construir uma medida para avaliar dimensões do temperamento, e não tipos psicológicos, como o MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). Os participantes foram 1.504 brasileiros (52% F) de diferentes regiões do país (64% do Sudeste). Os participantes receberam o Inventário de Estilos de Temperamento Adulto (IATS), composto por 79 itens que avaliam quatro dimensões do temperamento (Extroversão-Introversão; Organizado-Flexível; Prático-Imaginativo; Pensamento-Sentimento). As respostas analisadas pela Teoria de Resposta ao Item (TRI), demonstraram correspondência entre os itens da IATS e suas respectivas dimensões de temperamento. Foram identificados cinco itens problemáticos na dimensão Pensamento-Sentimento. Os resultados indicam que itens do IATS medem construtos unidimensionais do temperamento e não tipos psicológicos.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
tipos psicológicos; estilos; psicometria; temperamento; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Temperament refers to relatively stable traits that reflect innate individual differences to act and respond to emotional stimuli in the environment (Moreira et al., 2020). Temperament impacts cognition, motivation, and behavior, and heritability studies suggest that it accounts for approximately 35-53% of the observed variance in personality (Cloninger et al., 2019). The distinction between temperament and personality is not always clear, as these terms have often been used synonymously. Temperament is conceptualized as the biological foundation of personality (Buss & Plomin,1984; Finch & Graziano, 2001), as temperament traits are generally stable during lifespan, whereas personality characteristics are formed through life experiences, combining cognitions, beliefs, and values (Goldsmith et al., 2000, Yeh & Li, 2008). More than 700 genes that modulate associative conditioning related to temperament traits have been identified (Zwir et al., 2020). Some authors (e.g., Wachs & Kohnstamm, 2001) consider traits in the five-factor model of personality (McCrae et al., 2000) to be temperament traits, as they provide different ways of describing the same basic behaviors (Kozlova et al., 2020).
Temperament variables have been found to be useful predictors of behaviors and feelings. For example, temperament has been found to be predictive of well-being and post-traumatic stress (Standera et al., 2023). Temperament dimensions also have been found to be predictive of creativity (Mammadov et al., 2019).
Historical Review of Efforts to Assess Temperament Via Self-Reports
Interest in classifying and understanding temperament in adults can be dated as early as 1921, through Carl Jung’s psychoanalytic work. Jung developed a theory of temperament types that considered unconscious tendencies and innate dispositions as influencing behavior (Jung, 1971/1921). According to Jung’s temperament concepts (Jung, 1967/1954), there are two main attitudes (extraversion vs introversion) and four psychological functions (thinking vs feeling, sensation vs intuition) that command our behaviors. Jung did not characterize each attitude and functions as a pure type. Rather, he viewed the opposing attitudes (extraversion vs introversion) and the two groups of opposing functions (thinking vs feeling, sensation vs intuition) as representing poles along continuous dimensions (Joyce, 2010). Like other psychoanalysts of his era, Jung’s theory was not grounded in empirical data (McGowan,1994). Rather, his theory focuses on unconscious preferences, which raises concerns about measures designed to access something beyond conscious awareness using self-report measures (McCrae & Costa, 1989).
The theoretical model proposed by Jung (1971/1927) was extended by Myers and Briggs, who added a fourth set of opposing functions (judging vs perceiving) and designed a self-report instrument to measure psychological types, namely the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers, 1985). The MBTI is utilized extensively to assess adults’ personality qualities and classify them into one of 16 types based on where their responses place them along the four bipolar dimensions: Introversion - Extraversion, Sensation - Intuition, Thinking - Feeling, and Judging - Perceiving (Myers et al., 1998). The MBTI continues to be used frequently in many countries to identify psychological types and provide information used in clinical practice, vocational guidance, and personnel assessment. McCrae and Costa (1989) found that the big five personality factors correlate substantially with corresponding temperament traits measured by the MBTI. In Brazil, there is a type indicator that is similar to the MBTI, the Questionário de Avaliação Tipológica (QUATI; Zacharias, 1999).
While the MBTI is widely used, there have been questions regarding its scientific status. The MBTI is not grounded in traditional psychometric research. Rather, validity is assumed based on self-verification of types and circular reasoning (Stein & Swan, 2019). In addition, the interpretation of these types as mutually exclusive is not based on evidence, as people are not pure types, that is, completely extroverted or introverted (Stricker & Ross, 1964). Furthermore, the distinction between dominant and auxiliary functions, a central assumption of Jung’s theory, has not been supported by empirical research (McCrae & Costa, 1989). High correlations among the four MBTI dimensions were also observed by Pittenger (2005) , thus demonstrating that the MBTI does not measure four independent personality types. A meta-analytic study (Capraro & Capraro, 2002) indicated that only 14 of 210 MBTI studies reported estimates of score reliability, thus indicating a need for further empirical research (Stein & Swan, 2019). Therefore, the high use of MBTI among professionals, mainly from the organizational area working with consultation or personnel assessment, is questionable given the lack of evidence supporting the interpretation and use of scores derived from the MBTI (Stromberg, & Caswell, 2015).
Criticisms of the MBTI influenced the work of Oakland et al. (1996) , who proposed that there are tendencies or styles of temperament rather than types expressed by rigid behaviors. Indeed, the MBTI is listed among the available measures of temperament, although they may be named as personality instruments (Joyce, 2010). The Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ) was developed to measure children’s temperament styles of children and adolescents (Oakland et al., 2001), ranking the children’s preferences or styles to react with a scale as mild, moderate, strong, and very strong (Callueng & Oakland, 2014). Research supports measurement invariance of the SSQ across multiple nations, including Australia, Brazil, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, the State of Palestine, the United States of America, and Venezuela (Benson et al., 2009; Leon et al., 2009; Mpofu et al., 2010; Oakland et al., 2004, 2006, 2007; Primi et al., 2014; Rowinski et al., 2013). A temperament measure for adults, the Inventory of Adult Temperament Styles (IATS), was subsequently developed by Oakland and Wechsler (2012).
Previous studies with the IATS with Brazilian sample confirmed its internal structure as measuring four temperament styles, with similar findings for men and women (Wechsler et al., 2014). Another study (Wechsler et al., 2018) found that IATS temperament styles formed networks with personality factors measured by the Personality Factor Battery (Nunes et al., 2010). While these studies are supportive, further research is needed to meet the Brazilian Federal Council of Psychologists (Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2022) requirements for evidence of reliability and validity to support the interpretation and use of test scores. Therefore, this study was designed to further investigate the psychometric properties of the IATS and the individual items it is comprised of using item response theory (IRT). Four research questions were addressed: We hypothesized that (a) IATS dimensions are unidimensional, (b) most IATS items have adequate discrimination power, (c) collective items in each dimension provide sufficient information across the score distribution, and (d) most IATS items will not display problematic item extremity or non-symmetric content.
Method
Participants
The sample for this study was composed by 1,504 individuals (52% F) who lived in different cities of five Brazilian regions (64% from Southeast), ages ranging from 14-75 (M = 29.4, SD = 10.92). Participants were invited by collaborators at their convenience and were recruited at private and public universities, personnel assessment agencies and research institutions. Selection criteria was age limit (14 years old) and exclusion of apparent physical or mental deficiencies. There were no restrictions on socioeconomic classes or races.
Instrument
Inventory of Adult Temperament Styles (IATS; Oakland & Wechsler, 2012). The IATS was originally created with one hundred forced-choice items. The theoretical basis for the IATS was based on the temperament model proposed by Oakland et al. (1996), which conceptualizes four temperament styles: Extroversion - Introversion, Organized - Flexible, Practical - Imaginative, and Thinking - Feeling.
A CFA study demonstrated that a four-factor structure provides adequate fit to data representing adults’ responses to the 79 IATS items (Wechsler et al., 2014). A network analysis study demonstrated that the four temperament styles measured by the IATS formed networks with big five personality traits and had test-retest reliability indexes of .74, .55, .55, and .57 for Extroversion - Introversion, Organized - Flexible, Practical - Imaginative, and Thinking - Feeling, respectively. (Wechsler et al., 2018).
Procedure
The project was approved by the Brazilian Ethics Research Committee (N.277/07). Participants over 18 years old gave their written consent before answering the IATS, and those under this age had to obtain their parents’ permission. The IATS was administered to groups of participants in either their educational or employment setting.
Data Analysis
We analyzed data for 79 dichotomous items developed to measure four temperament dimensions. Each item was written with the intention of creating an indicator of a single temperament dimension. Accordingly, our study examines item-level data using item response theory (IRT). An advantage of IRT is its usefulness for evaluating the measurement precision of both items and scales (Embretson, 1996; Hambleton et al., 2000). IRT associates the probability of responses to an item response category to both people, which in this case is the extent to which people possess a temperament style, and items. When the assumptions of a model a model are met, item parameter estimates are viewed as sample independent.
All analyses were conducted using Mplus Version 8.10 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). The full sample was used during IRT analyses. Raw scores were used for data analysis to preserve statistical properties of the observed score distributions. A unidimensional IRT model was fit for each of the four temperament dimensions. The 4-parameter logistic [4PL] IRT model was used in this study, which includes a, b, c, and d parameters. The discrimination (a) parameter provides the most useful index of how well items assess traits like temperament (Revelle, 2013). Items that discriminate well have steeper slopes, which represents correspondence between individual differences in the measured trait. As an interpretive frame of reference, an a parameter value of .65 can be interpreted as a lower bound of the moderate range of discrimination (Baker, 2001). The item location (b) parameter represents the location at which 50% of people endorse a response option keyed to indicate possession of a temperament style at one pole of the dimension.
According to Waller and Reise (2010) , 4PL models are often required when examining measures of psychopathology or aspects of personality (e.g., temperament) due to the likelihoods that (a) one or more items refer to behaviors with low base rates and (b) the content of one or more items could be interpreted differently by those at different extremes of a score distribution. These authors refer to the former issue as item extremity and the latter issue as non-symmetric content ambiguity. These issues are addressed by modeling c and d parameters in addition to a and b parameters. The further that the c (i.e., lower asymptote) and d (i.e., upper asymptote) parameters deviate from zero and one, respectively, the greater the impact of factors irrelevant to temperament on response probability.
Results
Unidimensionality assumptions were tested using exploratory factor analysis with the weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted estimator. The dominant factor criterion was used (Embretson & Reise, 2000), and the first factor accounted for more than 20% of the variance in each of the temperament dimensions. The amount of variance accounted for was 27% for Extroversion - Introversion, 31% for Organized - Flexible, 24% for Practical - Imaginative, and 21% for Thinking - Feeling. Notably, Item 5 had a negative loading on Thinking - Feeling and thus was not included in subsequent analyses.
IRT parameter estimates for Extroversion - Introversion items are presented in Table 1. Results indicate that most items have high to moderate discriminative power, although a parameter estimates for a few items fall below the lower bound of the moderate range of discrimination. Estimates for the b parameter are well distributed with a range from -2.33 to 3.88, indicating that items discriminate well across the score distribution. Most c parameter estimates are close to zero and most d parameter estimates values are close to one. It is possible to visualize in Appendix A (see Figure A1) there is a conglomeration of Extroversion - Introversion items that can indicate this temperament dimension. The amount of information peeks at about 8.5 near the center of the distribution, although items provide good coverage across the distribution. Information remains above 1.5 at even the extremes of the distribution. The item characteristic curves indicate that items are discriminative across the dimension, as the probability of endorsing a response keyed in the direction of extroversion varies markedly across items.
IRT parameter estimates for Organized - Flexible items are presented in Table 2 and also in Appendix A (See Figure A2). Results indicate that most items have high to moderate discriminative power, although a parameter estimates for a few items fall below the lower bound of the moderate range of discrimination. Estimates for the b parameter are well distributed across the dimension, ranging from -1.58 to 4.35. Parameter estimates are close to zero for c and close to one for d. As shown in Figure A2, the Organized - Flexible items provide ample information about this temperament dimension. The amount of information peeks at 9 about one-half standard deviation unit below the mean of the distribution. Items provide good coverage across the distribution. Information remains above 1.5 at even the extremes of the distribution. The item characteristic curves indicate that items are discriminative across the dimension, as the probability of endorsing a response keyed in the direction of an organized style varies markedly across items.
IRT parameter estimates for Practical - Imaginative items are presented in Table 3. Results indicate that while most items have high to moderate discriminative power. Estimates for the b parameter are well distributed across the dimension with a range of -6.04 to 2.34. Parameter estimates are close to zero for c and close to one for d. As shown in Appendix B (see Figure B1) the conglomeration of Practical - Imaginative items provide useful information about this temperament dimension. The amount of information peeks at about 5, near the means of the distribution. Items provide good coverage across the distribution. While the magnitude of this peak is considerably lower than values for the Extroversion - Introversion and Organized - Flexible dimensions, information at the extremes of the distribution is similar to what was observed for the other dimensions. The item characteristic curves indicate that items are discriminative across the dimension.
IRT parameter estimates for Thinking - Feeling items are presented in Table 3. Five items were sequentially excluded (i.e., 16, 34, 45, 48, and 77) due to negative a parameter estimates and thus are not included in the final model. Negative estimates are problematic because the probability of endorsing a response intended to be indicative of a thinking style should not decrease as the level of individuals’ thinking style increases. Of the remaining items, most were found to have high to moderate discriminative power. Estimates for the b parameter are well distributed across the dimension with a range from - .70 to 2.84. Problematic c parameter estimates are common, with an average estimate of .17. The most extreme estimates are for Item 73 (.38), Item 26 (.35), Item 52 (.22), and Item 20 (.21). Estimates indicate that for this subset of items a relatively high proportion of individuals located at the feeling pole of the dimension are unlikely to endorse responses that are indicative of a feeling style. In contrast to c parameter estimates, most d parameter estimates values are close to one. As shown in Appendix B (see Figure B2) the Thinking - Feeling items provide less information. The amount of information peeks at only about 3.5 near the means of the distribution, and this amount drops to 1 at the tails of the distribution. The item characteristic curves indicate that most items have moderate to less discriminative value and that the probability of endorsing a response keyed in the direction of a thinking-feeling style varies less across items.
Discussion
Assessment of temperament is extremely relevant to psychologists, considering its impact on cognition, motivation, and behavior (Cloninger et al., 2019; Campagna et al. 2023; Standera et al., 2023). Although MBTI is widely used as a measure of personality types, its measures are criticized for being rather temperament traits rather than types (Joyce, 2010; Oakland et al., 1976). MBTI scores are employed in many countries for providing information for vocational guidance and personnel assessment (Jarlstrom & Valkealahti, 2010; Kummerow & Maguire, 2010). Still, the MBTI is criticized due to weak scientific evidence (Stein & Swank, 2019; Stronberg & Caswell, 2016). Thus, there is a need for a measure with stronger evidence of validity to support score interpretation and use, as required by the Brazilian Federal Council of Psychologists (Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2022).
This study investigated the validity evidence of the IATS. Assumptions of unidimensionality were met, and most IATS items were found to have adequate discrimination power, indicating that the temperament dimensions can be assessed through different levels within a normal distribution and not classified as opposite types, thus confirming Oakland et al. (1996) proposal there are temperament styles rather than rigid behaviors. These results agree with previous observations by Stricker and Ross (1964) , when criticizing the MBTI for proposing that personality types were mutually exclusive. The same criticism could be applied to QUATI, which is a Brazilian measure based on MBTI (Zacharias, 1999). These findings reinforce the results from a previous CFA study which demonstrated that adult temperament could be assessed through a four-factor dimension using the IATS items (Wechsler et al., 2014). Moreover, as IATS temperament dimensions were found to be closely related to traits posited in the five-factor model of personality in a study of Brazilian adults (Wechsler et al., 2018), scores reflecting these dimensions may be useful when conducting psychological assessments with adults.
Items within each dimension generally provide sufficient information across the respective score distributions. According to the temperament dimensions, the Extrovert-Introverted temperament styles had items with higher discriminative indexes. However, results provide only modest support for the Thinking- Feeling dimension, with items with lower discrimination information, so support for scores reflecting the Thinking - Feeling dimension is considerably weaker than for the other four dimensions. Thus, this dimension should be interpreted with caution.
Implications and Limitations
Assessment of temperament is important for multiple reasons. Clinical professionals might also use individuals’ temperament information so to understand why clients react in specific ways to various situations. In personnel assessment, there are facilitative or hindering traits for many positions. Moreover, the use of IATS can complement other measures of psychological assessment, as understanding temperament can be helpful to predict negative emotions, depression feelings and socialization problems during adolescence and adulthood (Campagna et al., 2023) as well as positive behaviors leading to creative productivity (Mammadov et al., 2019). Although future studies are needed to determine its utility for these purposes, the present study provides psychometric evidence that generally supports interpreting the IATS as a measure of four temperament styles.
One limitation of this study is that additional items relating to thinking and feeling styles were needed in the initial item pool, as only five items with salient loadings were retained. A second limitation relates to sampling, as this study was conducted exclusively with Brazilians. Additionally, research is needed to determine if IATS scores are related to important outcomes (e.g., educational outcomes, professional outcomes, success, or failure with specific job tasks), as research is needed to examine the incremental validity of IATS (Hayes et al., 1987). scores and how this self-report information can be combined with information from other sources to make accurate psychological diagnoses.
References
-
Baker, F. B. (2001). The Basics of Item Response Theory Second Edition ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Retrieved October 15, 2023, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458219
» https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458219 -
Benson, N., Oakland, T., & Shermis, N. (2009). Cross-national invariance of children’s temperament. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(1), 3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908318563
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908318563 -
Callueng, C., & Oakland, T. (2014). If you don’t know the child’s temperament you don’t know the child. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas ), 31(1), 3-13. https://doi:10.1590/0103- 166X2014000100001
» https://doi:10.1590/0103- 166X2014000100001 -
Capraro, R.M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-Briggs indicator score reliability across studies: a meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 590-602. https://doi:10.1177/0013164402062004004
» https://doi:10.1177/0013164402062004004 -
Cloninger, C.R., Cloninger, K.M., Zwir, I. et al. (2019). The complex genetics and biology of human temperament: a review of traditional concepts in relation to new molecular findings.Translacional Psychiatry, 9, 290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0621-4
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0621-4 -
Conselho Federal de Psicologia (2022). Notícias. Nova Resolução do CFP destaca diretrizes para a avaliação psicológica [News. New Resolution from CFP highlights guidelines for psychological assessment]. Retrieved October 15, 2023, from Retrieved October 15, 2023, from https://site.cfp.org.br/nova-resolucao-do-cfp-destaca-diretrizes-para-a-avaliacao-psicologica/
» https://site.cfp.org.br/nova-resolucao-do-cfp-destaca-diretrizes-para-a-avaliacao-psicologica/ - Cramer, A.O.J., van der Sluis, S., Noordhof, A., Wicherts, M., Geschwind, N., Aggen, S.H., Kendler, K.S., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can’t like parties if you don’t like people. European Journal of Personality, 26(4), 414-431.
-
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement.Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 341-349.https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341
» https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341 - Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000).Item response theory for psychologists Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
-
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament, personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 27-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00135
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00135 - Goldsmith, H. H., Lemery, K. S., Aksan, N., & Buss, K. A. (2000). Temperament substrates of personality development In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament and personality development across the life span (pp. 1-32). Erlbaum.
-
Hambleton, R. K, Robin F., & Xing D. (2000). Item response models for the analysis of educational and psychological test data. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.),Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 553-581). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50020-3
» https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50020-3 -
Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1987). The treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach to evaluating assessment quality.American Psychologist, 42(11), 963-974.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.963
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.963 - Jarlstrom, M., & Valkealahti, K. (2010). Person-job fit related to psychological type of finish business students and managers. Journal of Psychological Type, 4, 41-52.
- Joyce, D. (2010). Essentials of temperament assessment Wiley & Sons.
- Jung, C. G. (1967). Psychological aspects of the mother archetype (H. G. Baynes & C. F. Baynes, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1954).
- Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (Trans. by H. G. Baynes). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921).
-
Kozlova, E. A., Slobodskaya, H. R., & Gartstein, M. A. (2020). Early Temperament as a Predictor of Child Mental Health. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 18, 1493-1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00181-3
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00181-3 - Kummerow, J. M., & Maguire, M. J. (2010). Using the Myers-Briggs indicator framework with an Adlerian perspective to increase collaborative problem solving in an organization. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(2), 189-199.
- Leon, C., Oakland, T., Wei, Y., & Berrios, M. (2009). Venezuelan Children Temperament Styles and Comparison with their United States Peers. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 125-133.
-
Mpofu, E., Oakland, T., Mhaka, M., & Gwirayi, P. (2010). Temperament styles in Zimbabwean early adolescents: A Rasch measurement model analysis. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 44-53. https://doi:10.1177/008124631004000105
» https://doi:10.1177/008124631004000105 -
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality.Journal of Personality , 57(1), 17-40.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x -
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature versus nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173-186. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173
» https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173 - McGowan, D. (1994). What is wrong with Jung Prometheus Books.
- Myers, I. (1985). Manual. A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator Consulting Psychologists Press
- Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI: Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator Consulting Psychologists Press.
-
Mammadov, S., Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2019) In Search of Temperament and Personality Predictors of Creativity: A Test of a Mediation Model. Creativity Research Journal , 31(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577085
» https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577085 -
Moreira, P. A. S., Inman, R. A., Rosa, I., Cloninger, K., Duarte, A., Cloninger, R. (2020). The Psychobiological Model of Personality and its Association with Student Approaches to Learning: Integrating Temperament and Character. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(4), 693-709. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1739137
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1739137 - Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
- Myers, I. B., Mccaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Consulting Psychologists Press.
- Nunes, C.H.S.S., Hutz, C.S., & Nunes, M.F.O. (2010). Bateria Fatorial de Personalidade-BFP [Personality Factor Battery-BFP]. Casa do Psicólogo.
-
Oakland, T., Alghorani, M. A., & Lee, D. H. (2007). Temperament-Based learning styles of Palestinian and US Children. School Psychology International, 28(1), 110-128. https://doi:10.1177/0143034307075684
» https://doi:10.1177/0143034307075684 - Oakland, T., Glutting, J.J., & Horton, C.B. (1996). Student Styles Questionnaire Psychological Corporation.
-
Oakland, T., Faulkner, M., & Bassett, K. (2004). Temperament styles of children from Australia and the United States.The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist,19(2), 35-51. https://doi.10.1017/S081651220002928X
» https://doi.10.1017/S081651220002928X -
Oakland, T., Mogaji, A., & Dempsey, J. (2006) Temperament styles of Nigerian and U.S. children.Journal of Psychology in Africa , 16 (1), 27-34.https://doi.10.1080/14330237.2006.10820101
» https://doi.10.1080/14330237.2006.10820101 -
Oakland, T., Stafford, M., Horton, C., & Glutting, J. (2001). Temperament and vocational preferences: Age, gender, and racial-ethnic comparisons using the Student Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(3), 297-314. https://doi:10.1177/106907270100900306
» https://doi:10.1177/106907270100900306 -
Oakland, T., & Wechsler, S.M. (2012). Inventário de estilos de temperamento para adultos [Inventory of adult temperament]. [ Unpublished manuscript] https://doi:10.1177/106907270100900306]. Laboratório de Avaliação e Medidas Psicológicas, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas.
» https://doi:10.1177/106907270100900306 -
Pittenger, D.J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210-221. https://doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
» https://doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210 -
Primi, R., Wechsler, S.M., Nakano, T.C., Oakland, T., & Guzzo, R.S.L. (2014). Using item-response theory methods with the Brazilian Temperament Scale for Students. Journal of Psycho-educational assessment, 32(7), 651-662. https://doi:10.1177/0734282914528613
» https://doi:10.1177/0734282914528613 -
Revelle, W. (2013). The “new psychometrics”-Item response theory. In W. Revelle (Ed.), The personality project (pp. 235-238). Retrieved October 15, 2023, from Retrieved October 15, 2023, from http://www.personality-project.org/r/book/Chapter8.pdf
» http://www.personality-project.org/r/book/Chapter8.pdf -
Rothbart, M.K., Sheese, B.D., Rueda, M.R., & Posner, M.I. (2011). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation in early life. Emotional Review, 3(2), 207-213. https://doi:10.1177/1754073910387943
» https://doi:10.1177/1754073910387943 -
Rowinski, T., Cieciuch, J., & Oakland, T. (2013). The factorial structure of four temperament styles and measuring invariance across gender and age groups. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment , 32(1), 77-82. https://doi:10.1177/0734282913487045
» https://doi:10.1177/0734282913487045 -
Standera, B., Ponikiewska, K., & Cieciuch, J. (2023). Predictive validity of two conceptualizations of basic temperament dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 215, Article e112358. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886923002817
» https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886923002817 -
Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology 13(2), Article e12434. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434
» https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434 -
Stricker, L. J., & Ross, J. (1964). An assessment of some structural properties of the Jungian personality typology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(1), 62-71. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0043580
» https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0043580 -
Stromberg, J., & Caswell, E. (2015, October 8). Why the Myers‐Briggs test is totally meaningless VOX. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers‐briggs‐personality‐test‐meaningless
» http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers‐briggs‐personality‐test‐meaningless - Wachs, T. D., & Kohnstamm, G.A. (2001). (Eds.), Temperament in context Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
-
Waller, N. G., & Reise, S. P. (2010). Measuring psychopathology with nonstandard item response theory models: Fitting the four-parameter model to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. In S. E. Embretson (Ed.),Measuring psychological constructs: Advances in model-based approaches(pp. 147-173). American Psychological Association. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chs4cw
» https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chs4cw -
Wechsler, S.M., Benson, N., Oakland, T., & Lourençoni, M.A. (2014). Factor structure of the adult temperament styles. Psicologia, Reflexão e Critica, 27(4), 720-727. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201427412
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201427412 -
Wechsler, S. M. Benson, N., Machado, W. L., Bachert, C. M. A., & Gums, E. F. (2018). Adult temperament styles: a network analysis of their relationships with the Big Five Personality Model. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 11(1), 61-75. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-04358-005
» https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-04358-005 -
Yeh, Y., & Li, M. (2008). Age, emotion regulation strategies, temperament, creative drama, and preschoolers’ creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01291.x
» https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01291.x - Zacharias, J. J. (1999). QUATI - Questionário de Avaliação Tipológica: Versão II - Manual [QUATI. Inventory of Psychological Type- Version II]. Vetor Editora.
-
Zwir, I., Arnedo, J., Del-Val, C., Pulkki-Råback,L., Konte, B., Yang,S. S., ... Cloninger, C. R. (2020). Uncovering the complex genetics of human temperament.Molecular Psychiatry, 25, 2275-2294. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0264-5
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0264-5
Data Availability Statement
Appendix A
Appendix B
