Comments on: Myers-Briggs in Healthcare: Part 2 of X http://georgevanantwerp.com/2008/02/10/myers-briggs-in-healthcare-part-2-of-x/ Topics Of Interest In Healthcare & Communications Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:26:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Frederick Navarro http://georgevanantwerp.com/2008/02/10/myers-briggs-in-healthcare-part-2-of-x/#comment-2131 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:55:20 +0000 http://patientadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/myers-briggs-in-healthcare-part-2-of-x/#comment-2131 The Myers-Briggs model, while interesting, does not address what’s needed in health care. First, MB is a contrived model. It describes 16 “personality types” because it has 4 basic dimensions with 2 levels each. The possible combinations are 16. That’s why there are 16 types. Research did not identify 16 types. In fact, studies describing the prevalence of each of the 16 types in the population show that each of the four in the Intuitive/Introvert quandrant barely account for 1% of the population. So I question whether the MB really identifies naturally occuring personality types or just creates them. I would bet that if we collected MB data on 2,000 subjects then subjected the date to split-half validated cluster analysis, the resulting groups would not show 16 types and many of the categories (ISTJ, ESTJ, etc.) would not be validated. That’s because the MB does not address shades of grey. A person is either extrovert or introvert in the MB world, but we all know it is not that black or white.

While MB can function as an enhancement to communications, it has never been shown to discriminate satisfaction with health care communications, adherence, compliance, or predict any kind of health state, health risk, or disease prevalence. If we’re going to spend time asking people questions, let’s make sure they describe something real with as broad a base of applications as possible.

]]>