Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Report
Chandana S -2337411 (2MPCLA)
Department of Psychology, CHRIST (Deemed-to-be University)
Psychodiagnostic Lab - I (MPS251)
Dr. Deepakkumar S
April 05, 2024
Contents
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)............................................................................................. 3
Extraversion versus Introversion............................................................................................... 3
Sensing versus Intuition.............................................................................................................3
Thinking versus Feelings........................................................................................................... 3
Judging versus Perceiving..........................................................................................................4
Diagnostic Report............................................................................................................................ 4
Proforma of the Client............................................................................................................... 5
Test results....................................................................................................................................... 6
Test Result Interpretation........................................................................................................... 6
Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 7
Impressions and Recommendations...........................................................................................8
Summary.................................................................................................................................... 9
References......................................................................................................................................10
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI for short, is a famous personality evaluation
instrument that draws from the theories of Carl Jung. According to the MBTI, a person's
personality is determined by four distinct cognitive functions: extraversion versus introversion,
sensing versus intuition, thinking versus feelings, and perceiving versus judging. It provides
insights into an individual's preferences in these four areas by assigning them to one of 16
personality types. According to the MBTI, your personality type is determined by combining
your preferences. And acronym consisting of the first letter of each of the four preferred
categories for each cognitive function refers to the 16 types (Boyle, 1995). The four distinct
cognitive functions focused on MBTI are as follows:
Extraversion versus Introversion
People who prefer extraversion are likely to focus on the outer world and activity. They
direct their energy outward and receive energy from interacting with people. On the other hand,
people who prefer introversion focus on the inner world and experiences. They direct their
energy inward and receive energy from reflecting on their thoughts (Simkus, 2024).
Sensing versus Intuition
People who are sensing dominance typically want to pay attention to specifics and facts
and use their five senses to take in their surroundings. More intuitive people tend to think more
abstractly, emphasising patterns, impressions, and potential outcomes (Simkus, 2024).
Thinking versus Feelings
Thinking types tend to appraise the world based on facts and logic, whereas feeling types
tend to consider emotions (Simkus, 2024).
Judging versus Perceiving
Judging dominant people value structure and decision-making and are typically more
analytical and results-driven. People who perceive themselves as dominating are typically more
flexible, adaptive, and adept at multitasking (Simkus, 2024).
MBTI is most frequently employed by educators, career counsellors, coaches, and
consultants in organisational development. Developing and enhancing self-awareness is a vital
first step in any process of change. This awareness relates to one's own and other people's
inclinations to behave in particular ways as it relates to the MBTI assessment (Van, 1992).
The Thinking Feeling subscale has a reliability of .61, whereas the Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-
Intuition and Judging-Perceiving subscales have satisfactory reliabilities of.75 or above. Since
most research on this topic was done on college-age students, the data supporting the tool's
usefulness is more relevant to this population, and using it on other people should be done with
caution (Randall et al., 2017).
Diagnostic Report
Proforma of the Client
Name: CS
Age: 24
D.O.B: 26-04-2000
Gender: Female
Education: B.Sc
Referred by: Nil
Presenting Concerns: Nil
Test Administered: The subject CS was administered the MBTI Questionnaire.
Purpose of Testing: Personality Testing
Behavioural Observations: The subject was excited to do the test. She was attentive while the
experimenter briefed her about the study and the procedure. The participant was interested in
taking the test and was initially moving at a fast pace. However, towards the end, she seemed
quite tired, as were 93 questions to be answered. The participant completed the test in 40
minutes.
Test results
Table 1
Indicating the score on the MBTI of Participant C
Sl No: Dimensions Raw Scores Reported Type Preference
Category
1 Extraversion 0 Introversion Very Clear
2 Introversion 20
3 Sensing 13 Sensing Slight
4 Intuition 12
5 Thinking 3 Feeling Very Clear
6 Feeling 21
7 Judging 20 Judging Clear
8 Perceiving 1
Test Result Interpretation
According to the table, Participant's highest scores are for Introversion (20), Feeling (21),
and Judging (20), while their lowest score is for Extroversion (0). This suggests that Participant
C's personality type is likely to be ISFJ (Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, Judging).
ISFJs, sometimes known as "The Protectors," are trustworthy carers who value following
customs and assisting others. Their drive for harmony might make them shy, conflict-averse, and
prone to taking on too much, but they are also precise and supportive (Schweda Nicholson,
2005).
Discussion
The MBTI is a self-report questionnaire that aims to assess an individual's personality
type based on Carl Jung's theories of psychological types. It categorises people into 16 different
personality types by evaluating their preferences across four dichotomies: Extraversion vs.
Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Judging vs. Perceiving (Moyle &
Hackston, 2018).
The test was conducted by distributing the MBTI questionnaire to the participant.
Afterwards, the questionnaire was scored and results were obtained following the MBTI manual.
The personality type of the participant was found to be ISFJ. The ISFJ personality type, stands
for Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, and Judging, is part of the "Protector" group in the MBTI
manual. Despite their quiet and restrained exterior, ISFJs are warm, friendly people who create
enduring relationships with the people they love.
They prefer to be alone by themselves or in small gatherings with their close friends and
family, and are inclined to be reserved and reflective. Despite the fact that they have a friendly
disposition, ISFJs need some time alone to recope from social interactions or overstimulating
environments. Their introverted nature enhances their ability to concentrate deeply on things and
pay attention to details (King & Mason, 2020).
ISFJs are sensing types, they have a strong sense of reality, and they focus on details that
are tangible in the present time. They value practicality and concrete matters which is why they
will be more than happy to trust their five senses rather than concepts or abstract theories. These
individuals also excel in recalling facts as well as other people’s names and addresses, thus
making them reliable employees who work with precision (Carlyn, 1977).
The feeling preference means that ISFJs prioritize values, empathy, and consideration for
others' feelings when making decisions. They excel at creating a supportive atmosphere,
understanding emotional needs, and aiding others as caregivers, teachers, and counselors
(Quenk, 2009).
ISFJs are judgmental types who value closure, structure, and order in their lives. They do
best when they are well-organized and adhere to set practices and guidelines. ISFJs are
accountable, well-organized, and excellent at sticking to commitments and deadlines. Their
inclination for judgement plays a role in their dependability and dedication to finishing
assignments completely and on schedule (Quenk, 2009).
Impressions and Recommendations
According to a study by Furnham et al. (2003), ISFJs' judging and sensing preferences
matched their high scores on organisational, dutifulness, and self-discipline criteria. Furthermore,
ISFJs are devoted to preserving harmony in their relationships and are sympathetic and obedient
(Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). However, because they favour the needs of others over their own,
research indicates that ISFJs may find it difficult to be assertive and communicate their own
demands (Harrington & Loffredo, 2001).
It can be advantageous to provide ISFJs with an organised work environment where they
can specialise. ISFJs excelled in jobs requiring organisation, attention to detail, and practical
support. These responsibilities matched their sensing and judging preferences. fostering a
supportive team culture that values open communication and encourages regular check-ins can
help ISFJs feel comfortable expressing their needs and concerns (Quenk, 2009).
Summary
On the MBTI personality test the participant scored highest on Introversion, Feeling, and
Judging, indicating an ISFJ (Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging) personality type. It provides
an overview of the key characteristics of ISFJs, describing the participant as trustworthy
caregivers who value traditions, helping others, and maintaining harmony. However, the
participant can be shy, conflict-averse, and prone to taking on too much.
References
Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations.
Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71–74.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.1995.tb01750.x
Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 41(5), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4105_2
Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P., & Chamorro‐Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and
intelligence in Business People: A study of two personality and two intelligence
measures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(1), 99–109.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9051-z
Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2001). The relationship between life satisfaction,
Self-Consciousness, and the Myers-Briggs type inventory dimensions. The Journal of
Psychology, 135(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980109603710
King, S. P., & Mason, B. A. (2020). Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator. The Wiley Encyclopedia of
Personality and Individual Differences, 315–319.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547167.ch123
Moyle, P., & Hackston, J. (2018). Personality assessment for employee Development: Ivory
tower or real world? Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(5), 507–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1481078
Quenk, N. L. (2009). Essentials of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
Randall, K., Isaacson, M., & Ciro, C. (2017). Validity and Reliability of the Myers-Briggs
Personality Type Indicator: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Best
Practices in Health Professions Diversity, 10(1), 1–27.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554264
Rothmann, S., & Coetzer, E. P. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance.
Sa Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88
Schweda Nicholson, N. (2005). Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees: The
Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI).
Simkus, J. (2024). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): 16 personality types. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/the-myers-briggs-type-indicator.html
Van, B. (1992). The MBTI: Implications for retention. Journal of Developmental Education,
16(1), 20.
