Technical

Manual

INSIGHT
Inventory®

99.72%

95.44 %
68.26 %
Percentage of cases

-3 SD -2 SD -1 SD +1 SD +2 SD +3 SD
Mean
Percentage Distribution of Cases in a Normal Curve
 INSIGHT Inventory TECHNICAL MANUAL

CONTENTS

I. Description .............................................................1-8

II. Administration and Scoring................................ 9-14

III. Theoretical Background ....................................15-22

IV. Test Development ..............................................23-28

V. Reliability...........................................................29-32

VI. Validity...............................................................33-52

VII. Norming ............................................................. 53-64

VIII. Future Research ................................................65-66

IX. Reference List ....................................................67-70

RESEARCH AUTHORS

Patrick Handley, Ph.D., created and authored the INSIGHT Inventory®. Dr.
Handley is a licensed psychologist and is professionally active as a manage-
ment consultant to business and industry. In his organizational work, he
specializes in team building, conflict management, and the testing and screen-
ing of employees. Dr. Handley has held faculty appointments at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and the University of Missouri and taught graduate
level courses in psychological testing, career development, and organizational
behavior. In business settings he has worked as a corporate trainer, career
development manager, and productivity improvement specialist. His primary
focus now is the research and development of testing inventories which help
improve communications among people.

Thomas Krieshok, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist and Professor in the

Department of Counseling Psychology at the University of Kansas. Dr.
Krieshok has chaired the department, teaches at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels, maintains an active research program in the field of
counseling psychology and serves on the dissertation committees of numer-
ous doctoral students. Dr. Krieshok directed the statistical analyses and
many of the independent studies cited in this manual. His supervision was
sought to insure that the most up-to-date research methods would be used
and to maintain strict adherence to APA (American Psychological Associa-
tion) guidelines for testing and research.

©1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.

 Description

I. DESCRIPTION

The Insight Inventory® is a self-report personality inventory and interpreta-

tion booklet. Two versions are currently available, one for adults and one
for students age 16-21. Both are self-scorable, self-interpreting and are
published with both comprehensive and condensed interpretive booklets.
The Insight Inventory provides users with a quick and relatively easy way of
learning about their personalities. The information obtained helps individu-
als improve their communication with others, thereby enhancing teamwork
and interpersonal relationships with co-workers, family, and friends.

The INSIGHT Inventory contains two identical lists of thirty-two descrip-

tive adjectives yielding two style profiles. One of the profiles describes the
person at work or school and the other profile describes the person at home
in his/her personal world.

INSIGHT is unique among inventories in that it measures and interprets the

style shift people make from one environment to another. This helps people
1) learn what shifts, if any, they make from one environment to another,
2) assess how well the style they are using in a particular environment is
working for them, and 3) learn how to flex their style when doing so would
improve relationships and/or reduce stress.

The development of environment-specific profiles, Work/Personal or School/

Personal, results in an additional very positive outcome. Having two profiles
reduce the defensiveness that some people feel upon seeing and sharing their
personality profile results. It removes the disclaimer people often use, “I’m
not like this all the time” and supports the possibility that they indeed may
not be. For this reason, people using the INSIGHT Inventory more readily
accept and invest effort in understanding their profiles.

Since the INSIGHT Inventory was designed to help people understand oth-
ers better and appreciate other personality strengths, no negative phrases or
terms were used in writing the descriptions of the different style extremes.
Also no codes, colors, types, or quotients are used. The intent is to build an
open, immediately understandable language that can even be understood
by people who haven't taken the INSIGHT Inventory. Likewise, no labels
such as “entrepreneur,” “manager,” “counselor,” “salesperson,” etc., were
used in referring to the profile configurations. Such labels can create a
problem in team building. Sometimes only the label, which may or may
not be appropriate, is remembered and not the personality strengths. Ev-
ery possible attempt was made during the development of the INSIGHT
to emphasize that each profile shape has special strengths and desirable
characteristics.

The INSIGHT Inventory is essentially a self-report program until the online

feedback version, e-INSIGHT Observer assessment, is used. This report
adds an extra dimension, “how others see you,” The e-INSIGHT Observer
provides the same basic assessment with the same 32 descriptive adjectives
and is completed by individuals invited by the user. In work environments, it
is recommended that at least five others complete the Observer assessment.
The customized report compares the user's self rating to the observer's self
rating and provides suggestions.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (2)

 Description

The INSIGHT Inventory was developed for use with normal populations of
adults and students, therefore, the norms, reliability and validity are based
on these population samples. The Inventory is written to encourage open
communication and sharing of results, consequently, academic and techni-
cal language has intentionally been avoided.

The INSIGHT Inventory measures four ways a person expresses his/her

personality. Each of the ways, or styles, has two opposite extremes. A score
in either direction is okay, just as being either right- or left-handed is fine.
The score indicates a way of behaving and interacting that the person has
learned to use, probably is skillful at, and prefers to use most of the time. The
following is the way the styles are defined in the participants booklets.

Your personality is expressed in your style of:

Scale A. Influencing - (How you express your thoughts and opinions
and influence others. The opposite preferences are: DIRECT
and INDIRECT.)
Scale B. Responding - (How you approach and respond to people,
particularly groups. The opposite preferences are: OUTGO-
ING and RESERVED.)
Scale C. Pacing - (How you make decisions and burn energy. The
speed or rhythm with which you act. The opposite preferences
are: STEADY and URGENT.)
Scale D. Organizing - (How you structure and order your life and
handle details. The opposite preferences are: UNSTRUC-
TURED and PRECISE.)

The participants’ booklet is designed to help users self-interpret their re-

sults. An emphasis is put on teaching participants how to flex (temporarily
change) one’s style when doing so would help improve communications with
others. Users are guided through a process of looking at ways to flex on
each of the four preferences when dealing with people who have opposite
characteristics and when communicating with people who have the same
preference.

The INSIGHT program is also designed to help participants understand

what it may mean if their work style scores are different from their personal
style scores. This is the feature of the INSIGHT Inventory that ties it to
the field theory origins of its development. The underlying premise is that
behavior is a function of the interaction between a person’s personality and
the environment the person is in at the time. Throughout the INSIGHT
program, participants are asked to reflect on the impact their work and per-
sonal worlds has on their behavior. As participants discuss their behaviors
in group exercises, they learn to understand each other, their responses to
stress and their work environment better.

A more thorough description of each of the four scales and their opposite
extremes is given on the following pages.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (3)

 Description

SCALE A

INFLUENCING

This scale is a measure of assertiveness and forcefulness. It identifies how

people get their way and achieve results. Opposite preferences can both be
successful achievers, but they get things done in quite different ways.

DIRECT people influence others by taking charge and pushing for ac-
tion.
They:
• Will openly argue or debate their point of view or opinion

• Are: - Strong willed

- Decisive – will make decisions quickly
- Self-confident – believe in their decisions
- Assertive (sometimes aggressive)

• Often convey a sense of being more confident in what they can do rather
than what others can do

• Like to use power and authority to get things done

• Enjoy being the leader in groups

• Say what is on their mind, and are frank

• Are forceful and often not quite aware of how strong they come across

• Can take a tough-minded uncompromising position when necessary

• Will state their wishes in a telling straight forward manner

INDIRECT people influence others with strategy and careful planning.

They:
• Lead through quiet, behind the scenes example

• Are: - Modest
- Non-intimidating
- Agreeable
- Supportive of others

• Don’t like to confront others or get into arguments

• Are very approachable and non-demanding

• Will tend to avoid conflict if possible and are usually willing to compromise
and negotiate

• Are very diplomatic and tend to under use their power

• Get ahead by tact and diplomacy

• Get irritated and put off by aggressive behavior in others

• Will state their wishes in a requesting or asking manner

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (4)

 Description

SCALE B

RESPONDING

The second scale is a measure of extroversion and introversion. It identifies

whether people channel their attention toward others and activity or turn
their attention inward in a reflective, self-contained manner.

OUTGOING people focus their energy outward toward people and activi-
ties.
They:

• Are: - Talkative
- Openly friendly
- Verbal
- Enthusiastic

• Enjoy being the center of attention

• Have a cheerful, vibrant laugh which they openly express

• Like to talk things out - actually talk as a way of thinking through their
thoughts

• Are playful and at ease with others and often are the “life of the party”

• Like to be liked by others, are comfortable behaving in ways that attract

attention (wearing noticeable, stylish clothes; being in the center of a
group; having a bright car, etc.)

• Are energized by other people and lots of stimulus

RESERVED people focus their energy inward to the world of ideas and
thought.
They:
• Prefer to interact with others one-to-one or in small groups

• Are: - Quiet
- Self-contained
- Private

• Identify their favorite place as the world inside their head, their dreams
and creative thoughts

• Tend to build a few close friends rather than have a large circle of ac-
quaintances

• Need to have some quiet time alone each day to energize – they recharge
their batteries by being away from noise and people

• Tend to choose careers that allow them to think, create, and work alone
and in small groups

• Can get labeled “shy” when perhaps they weren’t comfortable talking at
the time

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (5)

 Description

SCALE C

PACING

The third scale measures how people burn their energy and the speed and
rhythm with which they act.

STEADY people burn energy in an even-paced, very consistent manner.

They:
• Focus on maintaining harmony in relationships with others

• Are: - Even-tempered
- Patient

• Get things done by “hanging in there” being persistent and determined

• Will wait for the right time for their move … “Timing is everything”

• Have a long fuse – don’t get angry easily, but when that fuse burns out
… look out

• Take time to patiently listen to others

• Can adjust their pace to projects that require working for a long time in
a steady fashion

• Will consider all options when deciding

URGENT people burn energy in a fast-paced and restless manner.

They:
• Like change, variety, action and are quick to decide

• Appear to always be in a hurry and like to do things fast

• Dislike routines and seek variety

• Can be poor listeners, especially when rushed. They will put words in a
slow speaker’s mouth

• Are instantaneous and can be impulsive

• Often work best under the pressure of time

• Display a surging “crash and burn” manner of working at things – will

go hard at it for a while then come to a near stop to recharge – they can
accomplish a lot in a short time

• Hate to wait – example: stoplights, lines, traffic, etc.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (6)

 Description

SCALE D

ORGANIZING

The fourth scale measures the degree of structure one prefers to have and/or
is willing to adhere to.

PRECISE people strive to have their world very planned and predictable.
They:
• Focus on being right and want to perform as correctly and flawlessly as
possible

• Are: - Systematic
- Perfectionistic
- Structured
- Meticulous

• Like to make lists and will follow the list

• Don’t like unexpected problems or changes

• Are not easily persuaded or talked into new ways of doing things – are
cautious and want to see the facts and logical reasons for change

• Can be “worriers” or a bit compulsive at times

• Are likely to read directions and follow rules

• Get satisfaction and feel pride in having things organized

UNSTRUCTURED people prefer to act first and attend to detail later (if
necessary).
They:
• Are not detail oriented and will delegate detail if at all possible

• Are: - Nonconforming
- Unstructured

• Have difficulty accepting close supervision or someone looking over their

shoulder

• Will proceed on projects before carefully reading directions – enjoy just

“figuring it out”

• Will try new things readily

• Have a strong desire to be on their own – independent

• Are able to tolerate ambiguity – sometimes even prefer it

• Are open and non judgmental – see things in shades of gray, options, pos-
sibilities, etc.

• Will accept the risk of action without approval

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (7)

 Description

The four scales are relatively independent, therefore, the profile configura-
tion or shape is very important. For example, an individual who is DIRECT,
OUTGOING, URGENT and PRECISE is quite different from a person who
is different even on two scales, i.e., INDIRECT, RESERVED, URGENT
and PRECISE. The first individual would be characterized as very forceful,
assertive, talkative and animated as well as urgent, restless, detailed and
perfectionistic. The second person would be less forceful, non-assertive,
quiet and unexpressive, yet similar to the first person in being urgent, rest-
less, detailed and perfectionistic. For this reason, profile shapes and score
intensity need to be considered when interpreting an individual’s scores.

Some people also score differently on their Personal Style when this profile
is compared to their Work Style (or School Style) profile. The assessment
of people in two different environments is a unique feature of the INSIGHT
Inventory. This allows for the processing of how different environmental
pressures or stresses affect an individual. The example below shows how
a person’s scores in the two environments might be plotted on the profile
charts.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (8)

 Description

When interpreting the results, watch for any differences between profiles.
Should differences appear, and they do for over 80% of users, ask the user to
discuss the reasons for the changes. Often times the change is understood
and explained as a response to some pressure, stress or expectation. The
richness and depth of the user's response will tell you a lot about his/her
self awareness and self understanding.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (9)

 Administration and Scoring

II. ADMINISTRATION & SCORING

The INSIGHT Inventory is self-administering both in paper-pencil and on-

line versions. Instructions on the first page of the paper version tell users
how to proceed. Slides explaining how to complete and score the inventory
are available. These slides are particularly useful for helping large groups
stay together when taking the paper version in a seminar.

Most people complete the paper assessment in 10 to 15 minutes or less

and score it in approximately 10 minutes. A good rule of thumb is to allow
approximately 20 minutes for the first three tasks: completing, scoring,
and charting the profiles. The e-INSIGHT online version scores, plots, and
generates the report instantly.

The e-INSIGHT online version provides extended descriptions when the

curser is hovered over any term. In the paper version extended descrip-
tions appear on the back of the carbonless form. Remind subjects that it is
important that they not skip any items.

(the following content applies to the paper self-scoreable version only)

Participants should fill in or check one of the boxes to the right of each item
according to how descriptive it is of them. The numbers 1,2,3,4 are provided
to give participants a sense of scale but these are not the values that are
used when scoring the results.

SAMPLE ITEMS:

not very very

descriptive descriptive
1 2 3 4
1. Competitive
2. Talkative
3. Patient
4. Accurate

A copy of the INSIGHT Inventory is on the following page.

(10)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Administration and Scoring

INSIGHT
Inventory ®

Name Date

Instructions: Shade in one of the blanks immediately to the right of each term as it best describes you.
not very very
descriptive descriptive
1 2 3 4
Example: 2. Talkative . . . . . . . . .
3. Patient . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions: If you are unsure about the meaning of any term, read the definitions on the back of the scoring sheet.

WORK STYLE PERSONAL STYLE

Check the degree to which the words in the column below are de- Some people (not all) behave differently away from work. Check the de-
scriptive of how you believe you are most of the time at work. gree to which the words below describe the “at home” or personal you.
not very very not very very
descriptive descriptive descriptive descriptive
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1. Competitive............ 1. Decisive.................
2. Talkative................. 2. Enthusiastic ...........
3. Patient ................... 3. Restrained .............
4. Accurate................. 4. Particular ...............
5. Demanding ............ 5. Intense...................
6. Serene ................... 6. Detailed .................
7. Animated................ 7. Good mixer............
8. Perfectionist........... 8. Serene...................
9. Domineering .......... 9. Accurate ................
10. Easygoing.............. 10. Competitive ...........
11. High-spirited .......... 11. Animated................
12. Structured .............. 12. Organized ..............
13. Forceful ................. 13. High-spirited ..........
14. Mild ........................ 14. Exacting.................
15. Systematic ............. 15. Patient ...................
16. Convincing............. 16. Talkative.................
17. Good mixer ............ 17. Easygoing..............
18. Strong-willed.......... 18. Forceful .................
19. Exacting................. 19. Structured ..............
20. Even-tempered ...... 20. Life of the party......
21. Enthusiastic ........... 21. Mild ........................
22. Decisive ................. 22. Domineering ..........
23. Detailed ................. 23. Systematic .............
24. Tolerant.................. 24. Charming ...............
25. Intense................... 25. Even-tempered ......
26. Life of the party...... 26. Strong-willed..........
27. Daring .................... 27. Perfectionist...........
28. Restrained ............. 28. Convincing.............
29. Particular ............... 29. Laid-back ...............
30. Charming ............... 30. Demanding ............
31. Laid-back ............... 31. Tolerant..................
32. Organized .............. 32. Daring ....................

When finished, tear off this cover sheet and follow scoring instructions.

© 1988—revised 2004, Patrick G. Handley, Ph.D.

(11)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Administration and Scoring

The scoring instructions are included on the second NCR page. Remind
subjects to follow these. A common error is for participants to try to total
the scores by adding vertically before transferring the scores to the respec-
tive column on the right.

SCORING INSTRUCTIONS: Follow the two steps below to score your INSIGHT Inventory results.

1 First, transfer the point value under each mark to the box on the right. Follow the horizontal lines to locate the
correct box on the right. point
value
Example: 2. 1 3 4 6
3. 1 3 4 6

2 Second, add up all the points in each of the four vertical columns. Enter these sums in the large blocks—labled
A, B, C, and D—located at the bottom of the page. Follow the vertical arrows.

Use the same process for scoring both your WORK STYLE and PERSONAL STYLE responses.

Note that the point values which appear on the scoring sheet (1, 3, 4, 6)
are different from the scale numbers (1, 2, 3, 4) on the first sheet of the
inventory.

When statistically norming the inventory, it was discovered that a more

representative, bell-shaped curve resulted from the 1, 3, 4, 6 point values.
Apparently, when a person makes a selection of how descriptive an adjective
is, the decision between the middle two boxes represents only one unit of
perceived difference. The more extreme choice of selecting the box on either
end represents a more significant statement, thus a two unit difference.

A copy of the NCR scoring sheet is included on the following page.

After the totals of each of the four scales are computed, the participants
should plot their profile on the inside cover of the INSIGHT booklet. On
that cover are two charts. The upper chart is used to plot the Work Style
(or School Style) profile and the lower chart is used to plot the Personal
Style profile.

A copy of the graphs also follows.

Note: The point distribution on the graphs in the participant's booklets may
change slightly as new normative data is collected. The student version has
some noticeable differences in the location of percentile scores, particularly
on Scale B. Treat the enclosed version as an example of how the graphs
are designed but refer to the actual inventory (adult or student version) for
the most up-to-date normative data.

(12)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Administration and Scoring

INSIGHT Inventory Scoring Sheet

Copyright © 1988—revised 2004, Patrick G. Handley, Ph.D.

OPTIONAL The Insight Institute, Inc. retains scores (without names) for further research. To assist us please complete
the following questions. Return this sheet to your instructor or mail. All information is kept confidential.
Mail to: Insight Institute, Inc., Research and Development, 7205 N.W. Waukomis Dr., Kansas City, MO 64151 USA

Organization ___________________________ Date ________ Sex ________ State (Prov) _________________

Job title ________________________________ Age _________ Race _______ Country/Nation _______________

SCORING INSTRUCTIONS: Follow the steps below to score your results.

1 First, transfer the point value under each mark to the box on the right. Follow the horizontal lines to locate the
correct box. point
value
Example: 2. 1 3 4 6
3. 1 3 4 6

2 Second, add up all the points in each of the four vertical columns. Enter these sums in the large blocks—labled
A, B, C, and D—located at the bottom of the page. Follow the vertical arrows.

Use the same process for scoring both your WORK STYLE and PERSONAL STYLE responses.

WORK STYLE PERSONAL STYLE

1. 1 3 4 6 1. 1 3 4 6
2. 1 3 4 6 2. 1 3 4 6
3. 1 3 4 6 3. 1 3 4 6
4. 1 3 4 6 4. 1 3 4 6
5. 1 3 4 6 5. 1 3 4 6
6. 1 3 4 6 6. 1 3 4 6
7. 1 3 4 6 7. 1 3 4 6
8. 1 3 4 6 8. 1 3 4 6
9. 1 3 4 6 9. 1 3 4 6
10. 1 3 4 6 10. 1 3 4 6
11. 1 3 4 6 11. 1 3 4 6
12. 1 3 4 6 12. 1 3 4 6
13. 1 3 4 6 13. 1 3 4 6
14. 1 3 4 6 14. 1 3 4 6
15. 1 3 4 6 15. 1 3 4 6
Note: 16. 1 3 4 6 16. 1 3 4 6
When finished, 17. 1 3 4 6 17. 1 3 4 6
18. 1 3 4 6 18. 1 3 4 6
transfer your
19. 1 3 4 6 19. 1 3 4 6
totals to the 20. 1 3 4 6 20. 1 3 4 6
profile charts 21. 1 3 4 6 21. 1 3 4 6
on the inside 22. 1 3 4 6 22. 1 3 4 6
cover of this 23. 1 3 4 6 23. 1 3 4 6
booklet. 24. 1 3 4 6 24. 1 3 4 6
25. 1 3 4 6 25. 1 3 4 6
26. 1 3 4 6 26. 1 3 4 6
27. 1 3 4 6 27. 1 3 4 6
28. 1 3 4 6 28. 1 3 4 6
29. 1 3 4 6 29. 1 3 4 6
30. 1 3 4 6 30. 1 3 4 6
31. 1 3 4 6 31. 1 3 4 6
32. 1 3 4 6 32. 1 3 4 6

WORK STYLE TOTALS

T
TALS PERSONAL STYLE TOTALS
(sum of numbers in each column) (sum of numbers in each column)
A B C D A B C D

(13)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Administration and Scoring

(14)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Administration and Scoring

Score interpretation

Shaded areas have been overlaid on the graph to provide a simple way to
understand the score intensity.

dark light no shade light dark

No shade Light shade Dark shade

If your score falls in If your score falls in the If your score falls in the
the middle area with light shaded area, many dark shaded area, most of
no shade, some of the characteristics of that the characteristics of the
character-istics from preference may describe preference on that side
both sides of the center you. A few characteristics will describe you.
line on that scale may from the preference on the
describe you. other side may also fit.

Percentile scores increase from left to right because each scale is a measure
of the strength of preference for a particular use of one's personality. For
example the first scale, Influencing, measures the degree of assertiveness,
directness, and frankness. Low scores indicate a description of oneself
as less direct and less forceful than the general population. High scores
indicate a description of oneself as more forceful and assertive than the
average person.

Percentile Rankings

0%tile 15%tile 40%tile 60%tile 85%tile 100%tile

These norms are further explained in the chapter on norming statis-

tics.

(15)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

III. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND INSIGHT

Inventory

Field Theory Trait Theory

Factor Analysis

The INSIGHT Inventory owes its theoretical heritage to three primary

sources: the work done by Kurt Lewin on field theory, Gordon Allport's use
of adjectives in the measure of personality traits and his writings on insight
as the cornerstone of mature personality, and Raymond Cattell's application
of factor analysis for identifying personality traits and determining the
relatedness of test items.

Field Theory Field Theory, developed and popularized by Dr. Kurt Lewin (1890-1947)
emphasized that behavior (B) can best be understood in the context of the
personality of the individual (P) and the environment the behavior occurs in
(E), or B = ƒ(P , E). The INSIGHT Inventory asks participants to describe
how they are in two important environments, their world at work (or school)
and their personal world. The two profiles obtained are used to help people
assess how these different environments affect their behavior and helps
them better understand why they behave the way they do.

Trait Theory The use of adjectives as test items for the measure of personality traits was
first formally studied and given scientific credence by Dr. Gordon Allport
(1897-1967). Allport and Odbert (1936) identified over 4500 words in the
English language which they felt described personality characteristics.
These were divided into what was believed to represent various types of
traits, dispositions, habits, attitudes, intentions, and motives. As a trait
theorist, Allport wrote extensively about insight which he felt represented
the mature personality, one characterized by self-awareness, acceptance,
and good humor. The INSIGHT Inventory credits its name to Allport's em-
phasis on insight, which he called the most desirable of all traits.

Factor Analysis Dr. Raymond Cattell (1905-present) pioneered the technique of using factor
analysis to identify the most powerful factors of a personality test. Items
(adjectives) on the INSIGHT Inventory were selected based on statistical
analysis of their factor loadings. This resulted in the creation of personality
scales that give people a meaningful and scientific way to compare them-
selves with others.

(16)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

Field Theory

Kurt Lewin is credited with formalizing and popularizing Field Theory. He

was a member of the Berlin Gestalt group and was influenced by Gestalt
The Field Theory psychology's emphasis on looking at the whole as a composite of its parts,
of Kurt Lewin not analyzing the parts in isolation. Lewin expanded the nature of Gestalt
to include the environment or field of forces a person was in at the time of
any behavior. He had little confidence in explanations of behavior based
merely on conditioning or past experiences. Lewin’s “field theory,” as it
INSIGHT
Inventory
grew to be known, advocated that behavior was a mathematical function of
the interaction between a person’s personality and the environment: B =
ƒ (P,E). His quantitative methods of research into the social psychology of
behavior helped restore the analysis of subjective experience of personality
to respectability in the 1920s.

Field Theory
To fully understand Lewin’s development of field theory one must look at
the fields or environments that influenced Lewin in his own professional
development. Lewin received his psychological training in Berlin prior to
the onset of WWII. Upon the rise of Nazi power Lewin fled to the United
States. His early work in social psychology revolved around examining the
influence of social culture on individual behavior. Lewin was particularly
interested in how Nazi ideology had influenced children in Germany, result-
ing in aggressive behavior. This work led to the study of group dynamics
and influences of the environment on personality and behavior.

Lewin called the psychological field of his theory the life space. A person’s
life space is the total set of facts that, at a given instant, affect a person’s
behavior. A person’s life space might include, for example, their perceptions
of others around them at the moment, their perception of whether they can
live up to the demands of the task that needs to be done, their needs, wishes,
memories of particular past events and their imaginings about future ones,
any emotions they might be feeling, and so forth.

Behavior then becomes a function of both the individual’s underlying per-

sonality and the environment they are in at the time, B = ƒ (P, E).

PERSON PSYCHOLOGICAL
(P) ENVIRONMENT
(E)

LIFE SPACE
(L)

(17)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

Consider for example the life space of a particular young woman, Lucy, a
supervisor in a production department of a large company, as she approaches
Andrew, one of the members of the work crew she is assigned to supervise.
Lucy is faced with the problem that Andrew is not doing his work according
to the procedures outlined in the policy manual. Characteristic of Lucy’s
underlying personality is her strong sense of self confidence and her asser-
tive manner of approaching others. She remembers from past experience
that she can stop problems by taking control and acting on them quickly.
Therefore, upon detecting Andrew’s manner of working, she approaches him
and tells him in a self-assured manner to do the work differently, and she
describes the consequence (being given a written reprimand) if he does not
follow these instructions. The incident takes only a matter of seconds. In
this situation Lucy’s behavior could easily have been predicted, because her
personality (P) and the environment (E) had been paired together before.

Now consider a second situation. Lucy goes on vacation and designates Mary
as the temporary supervisor. Andrew again starts working in a manner that
is inconsistent with agreed upon procedure. Mary notices it. Her underly-
ing personality is to be very non-assertive and avoid any confrontational
interactions with others. Andrew is probably counting on this. He again
breaks policy. Seeing Andrew break the rules while she is in charge triggers
a memory from the past of getting into trouble for not being forceful enough
when left in charge, and thus having failed to live up to Lucy’s expectations.
This also triggers a memory of how her father dealt with disobedience with
her and her siblings when growing up. She remembers him throwing a fit
of anger, yelling loudly, and threatening some extreme punishment. She
and her brothers and sisters would get scared and quickly obey whatever
his wish. This memory flashes through Mary’s mind as she encounters this
situation with Andrew where she feels her authority is being threatened.
So Mary walks up to Andrew, yells at him and tells him to do the work the
right way or else he will be fired. This behavior surprises Andrew because
it is so uncharacteristic of Mary.

Lewin’s field theory would explain Mary’s behavior as predictable but only
understandable if one knew all the components of the life space that came
into play at that moment. These included fear of failing as a supervisor,
memories of her father’s behavior, etc. At home, in her personal world when
unthreatened, Mary may consistently be her non-assertive, easygoing self.
Field theory emphasizes that personality alone does not predict behavior.

Lewin maintained that one does a disservice to the complexity of both per-
sonality and behavior by inferring that there is a direct link between the
two. The pressures of the environment, he said, must be entered into the
equation to fully understand the individual. The INSIGHT Inventory drew
heavily on field theory in its development and was constructed to provide
a measure of personality that allows for change between two important
environments, Work (or School) and Personal. INSIGHT emphasizes that
one must consider both the environment and personality to fully understand
behavior patterns.

(18)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

Trait Theory
The Trait Theory
of Gordon Allport Gordon Allport is characterized as a trait theorist, since much of his work
revolved around identifying and defining the underlying traits that make
up the personality of the individual. As such he represented, perhaps better
than most 20th century theorists, the synthesis of traditional psychology
INSIGHT
Inventory with the study of the individual personality. Allport’s work has even been
called individual psychology and was considered rather radical in the l930’s
when most of academic psychology was putting emphasis on quantitative
study of behavior. But Allport stuck with his convictions about considering
each person a unique organization of traits, dispositions, habits, attitudes,
intentions and motives. He felt one’s awareness of these dispositions within
oneself constitutes insight, the cornerstone of a mature personality.
Trait Theory

In many ways, Allport considered personality as more complex than previ-

ous trait psychologists. He broadened the conceptualization of personality to
include dispositions, habits, attitudes, intentions and motives and, in doing
so, allowed for overlap and fluid movement between the categories. Allport
technically defined traits as: neuropsychic structures having the capacity
to render many stimuli functionally equivalent and to initiate and guide
equivalent forms of expressive behavior. In contrast, a personal disposition
was defined as: generalized neuropsychic structure (peculiar to the indi-
vidual) with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent and
to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and stylistic
behavior (1961). The INSIGHT Inventory borrows from Allport’s definition
of personal disposition since INSIGHT emphasizes a person’s ability to
adapt or flex one’s style. INSIGHT also stresses, in accordance with Allport,
that there is no sharp boundary that delimits one trait from another.

Whether talking in terms of traits or various levels of personal dispositions,

Allport in the end wanted people to think in terms of a broader structure
that allowed for the dynamic changing aspect of personality as affected both
by growth and environment. His early work down played the role of envi-
ronment, but in his characteristic open-minded manner he acknowledged
in his paper, Traits Revisited (1966) that “my earlier views seemed to neglect
the variability induced by ecological, social and situational factors. This
oversight needs to be repaired through an adequate theory that will relate
the inside and outside systems more accurately.”

Allport did not, however, provide such a theory or mechanism. INSIGHT

attempts to present this concept by creating a way for people to rate their
behavior in two different environmental fields. Therefore, both Allport’s
and Lewin’s thinking were drawn upon in construction of INSIGHT. It is
noteworthy that Allport acknowledged the effect of environment but in-
vested his energy in breaking down the categories of personality and their
effect on behavior in contrast to Lewin who focused on the effects of different
categories of environment on the individuals’ behavior. INSIGHT suggests
a blending of the two approaches.

Allport’s writing on the meaning of insight also had a strong influence in

the development of the INSIGHT Inventory and the companion inventory,
the INSIGHT Style Feedback Set. As mentioned earlier, Allport felt insight
was the cornerstone of emotional maturity. “Good insight not only prevents
a person from being deceived by his own rationalizations, but forces him to
face objectively the weaknesses and strengths of his personal equipment

(19)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

(1937).” He cites the old adage,

“Every man has three characters:

(1) that which he has,
(2) that which he thinks he has,
(3) that which others think he has.”

Practically, according to Allport, the index of a person’s insight becomes

the ratio between the second and third items, the relation of what we think
we are to what others think we are. The INSIGHT Inventory produces a
measure of what a person thinks they are in relation to four personality
preferences while the Observer Feedback provides reflections of what others
think they are like on these four preferences.

The four preferences are one’s style of: Influencing, Responding, Pacing, and
Organizing. INSIGHT attends to Allport’s conceptualization of personality
dispositions as dynamic and acknowledges that some of these could be a
blend of what Allport labeled traits, dispositions, habits, attitudes, inten-
tions, and motives. Allport’s broadening of the many facets of personality
allowed for a creative way of looking at why people behave the way they
do and indicates that what may be important in using a style inventory is
that one must not deceive oneself in believing that any test results measure
rigid traits.

(20)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

Factor Analysis
The Factor Analysis
of Raymond Cattell Factor analysis provided the key to identification of the four style prefer-
ences measured by the INSIGHT Inventory. Raymond Cattell is credited
with pioneering the application of factor analysis for use in the identification
INSIGHT of psychological traits. He used the procedure to compare one person with
Inventory group averages as a means of identifying personality differences.

Cattell was a colleague of Allport’s at Harvard in the 1940’s and it was

reported that they were frequent lunch companions, openly debating the
merits of their differing approaches, yet respecting each other’s thinking. In
fact, Cattell did some of his early research with the 4500 or so trait names
that Allport and Odbert (1936) had selected as descriptive of personality
characteristics. To this list Cattell applied the sophisticated statistical
technique of factor analysis . He condensed the list to fewer than 200 items
Factor Analysis
and then intercorrelated and further reduced the resulting group of terms
to 35 traits. This work continued, resulting in the later development of the
Sixteen Personality Factors Test (16PF).

In applying the technique of factor analysis in his research, Cattell isolated

the fundamental factors that control variation of the surface variables and
computed an estimate of the extent to which each factor contributed to
each measure. This estimate is called the factor loading. Items with high
factor loadings on a particular factor determine the psychological meaning
of that factor.

Cattell cleverly describes this complex task with the following analogy:

Stalking the Alligators:

The Technique of Factor Analysis

Imagine that you are hacking your way through a dense, tropical
forest. Strange cries reach your ears from every side. The sun’s
brilliance is heavily shaded by the green mass above you, and you
can see only dimly. As you reach to cut through the next tangle of
lianas, your eyes focus on three dark blobs a few yards away. You
stop. What are they: Three rotting logs: You wait. Suddenly the
blobs move - together. As the alligator approaches, you also move.
(Adapted from Cattell 1966).

Cattell’s analogy serves to introduce the purpose and general approach of

factor analysis: in the jungle of human behavior, one needs to sort out what
is important. One way to reduce the numbers of things one must deal with
is to assign them to broad general categories, and to do this, one needs to
know what “moves” with what.

The factor analyst begins with a set of scores from many different items for a
large number of subjects. The INSIGHT Inventory began with an extensive
list of adjectives (items) responded to on Likert rating scales (scores) by a
large number of working adults (subjects). To make sense of all these scores,
to identify a small number of basic factors whose operation accounts for most
of the variation in them, the factor analyst tries to see which ones “move
together,” or are correlated with each other. After applying factor analysis
to the INSIGHT Inventory, eight adjectives were found to move with each

(21)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Theoretical Background

other resulting in the scale labeled “Influencing.” In similar fashion three

additional and independent sets (factors) of eight adjectives were selected.
These identify one’s style of “Responding,” “Pacing,” and “Organizing.”

One of the most significant attributes of Cattell’s theory was his continu-
ing effort to define terms in the simplest and clearest way possible. He
was concerned with making concepts operational and thus worked toward
clear and unambiguous empirical definitions. In a field long dominated by
the clinically based, subjective, inferential approach, Cattell’s insistence
on precision and testability introduced an aura of tough-mindedness. The
development of the INSIGHT Inventory has followed Cattell’s lead, proceed-
ing under the fundamental premise that the statistical relationships among
items must be determined prior to assigning psychological meaning to the
traits being measured.

Although a respected colleague of Allport’s, Cattell seems to have reversed

Allport’s approach: Allport maintained that one must have a clear theoreti-
cal outline before one starts collecting a mass of possibly meaningless data.
Cattell, on the other hand, believed that one must collect a mass of data
and subject it to empirical analysis before one can devise a theory. Blending
these two approaches was a challenge in the development of the INSIGHT
Inventory. A middle of the road approach was ultimately taken. A general
list of adjectives describing behavior that was noticeably different among
people was first constructed. This list was then subjected to factor analysis
to determine which test items were interrelated and therefore measured
the same personality characteristic. Finally, these factors were correlated
with other known inventories to help determine the appropriate label for
the factors.

This blending of trait theory and factor analysis and finally the adding two
specific environments in line with field theory resulted in the development
of the INSIGHT Inventory.

(22)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Test Development

IV. TEST DEVELOPMENT

Historical Use of Adjectives as Test Items

Adjective checklists can be traced to work done in 1930 by Hartshore and

May. These psychologists were the first to use the adjective checklist as a
measure of personality (or character, as they called it). They published a
book titled Studies in the Nature of Character and purported the use of 80
pairs of antonyms as a way to measure character.

Allport and Odbert (1936) expanded this theory and attempted to identify
all the English adjectives which would describe personal behavior. They
identified 17,953 words and stimulated a good deal of research in how
these could be reduced into a smaller list that would be manageable as a
personality measure.

Cattell, in the 1940's, used a newly-developed statistic, factor analysis, to

reduce Allport’s work to a smaller, more manageable list which resulted in
12 primary traits.

Gough followed with research in the 1940’s and then published the first
widely used adjective checklist in 1950. His inventory used a yes/no re-
sponse format.

INSIGHT Item Selection

Allport and Odbert's (1936) descriptive list of adjectives provided the base
for item selection. This was followed with a review of the literature on
personality differences to create a list of adjectives more commonly used
in today’s language. Added to this list were adjectives used by both pro-
fessionals and lay people in everyday language to describe the differences
between people. Descriptive reports of established and validated psychologi-
cal inventories such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
Sixteen Personality Factors, Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory, and My-
ers-Briggs Type Indicator were also reviewed. A master list was generated
from a combination of all of these.

The first master list of words was screened to select those words commonly
used by people when describing others and which were considered neither
latently positive nor negative. Also, words were chosen that had a clearly
bipolar nature in their everyday use. For example, the word "talkative" was
selected because a person can conceivably be either “talkative” or “not talk-
ative,” and both descriptions would fit into the flow of normal conversation.
After the master list was reduced by this criterion, the resulting list of words
was submitted to the formal statistical procedure of factor analysis.

(23)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Test Development

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is a technique used to reduce a set of items to a smaller

set of “factors” that explain the variance among the items. The statistical
result of this procedure is a list of correlations of each test item with each
factor (factor loadings). Essentially, this provides a way to define the smaller
number of underlying traits the adjectives measure and a way to eliminate
adjectives which do not contribute to a key trait.

Factors

Form F of the INSIGHT Inventory contained 36 items which were submitted

to principal components factor analysis, once each for the Work Style items
and for the Personal Style items. Using a sample of 1,540 adults, eight
factors were identified with eigenvalues greater than one for each solution.
Using an oblique rotation of the factors, the four theoretical factors (Get-
ting One’s Way, etc.) were each accounted for by two of the eight factors
found through the factor analysis. Six items from each of the Work Style
and Personal Style analyses failed to load well enough on any of the factors
and were discarded. At that time, two new items were added, leading to the
final 32 item version of the INSIGHT Inventory currently in use.

The 32 item inventory was then resubmitted to factor analysis using new
samples of 589 adults and 1,021 high school and college students. Sepa-
rate analyses were run on each sample, but those yielded identical factor
structures. Thus, the results which are reported are for a combined sample
of adults and students. That four factor solution is reported below, which
accounts for 42 and 43.6 percent of item variance respectively for the Work
and Personal Styles. An oblique rotation of the factors was performed, which
allows for factor intercorrelation.

Factor loadings of each item with each of the four primary factors are listed
below. Tables 1 and 2 list item loadings for the pattern matrices, giving
an indication of the relative importance each item carries for a particular
factor. Tables 3 and 4 show factor intercorrelations.

Subsequently, four scales were developed based on the factor loadings, with
eight separate items loading on each of the four scales. Loadings are given
for each item with each factor, but are sorted according to the scale with
which they are associated. As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, in nearly all
cases, the items load highest with the scale to which they were eventually
assigned, although there are some minimal differences between the Work/
School Style and Personal Style factor analyses. In the end, parsimony and
consistency of scoring were additional issues in arriving at each item’s as-
signment to its scale. Table 5 shows correlations of all 8 and students for
Adult and School Forms.

(24)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Test Development

Table 1

Work Style Factor Analysis

Pattern Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Adjective Getting One’s Way Responding to People Pacing Activity Dealing with Detail

Indirect-Direct Reserved-Outgoing Urgent-Steady Unstruc.-Precise

W5 – Demanding .65 -.04 -.16 .11

W13 – Forceful .64 -.06 -.17 -.02
W9 – Domineering .62 .09 -.19 -.03
W25 – Intense .49 -.02 -.01 .11
W1 – Competitive .49 .07 -.05 .10
W18 – Strong-Willed .46 .25 -.01 .09
W16 – Convincing .39 .25 .24 .08
W22 – Decisive .28 .13 .09 .31

W11 – High Spirited .01 .75 .02 .09

W21 – Enthusiastic -.07 .71 -.02 .22
W17 – Good Mixer .01 .70 .06 .02
W2 – Talkative .03 .68 -.12 -.05
W26 – Life of the Party .18 .63 .06 -.22
W7 – Animated .02 .50 -.09 -.06
W30 – Charming .21 .50 .32 -.06
W27 – Daring .34 .45 .12 -.18

W31 – Laid-Back -.12 .22 .63 -.16

W10 – Easygoing .07 -.04 .62 -.27
W6 – Serene .09 -.21 .58 -.02
W24 – Tolerant -.29 .10 .56 .16
W14 – Mild -.09 -.30 .55 .01
W20 – Even-Tempered -.25 .11 .52 .22
W3 – Patient -.23 .03 .49 .23
W28 – Restrained .07 -.47 .30 .12

W32 – Organized -.15 .06 -.08 .72

W15 – Systematic -.08 -.01 -.02 .71
W12 – Structured -.04 .04 -.05 .66
W23 – Detailed .13 -.03 .04 .66
W4 – Accurate .07 -.06 .04 .63
W8 – Perfectionistic .22 -.05 -.04 .59
W19 – Exacting .26 -.04 .03 .58
W29 – Particular .27 -.21 .08 .42
W19 – Exacting .26 -.04 .03 .58
W29 – Particular .27 -.21 .08 .42

General population sample: N = 1601 adults and students

(25)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Test Development

Table 2

Personal Style Factor Analysis

Pattern Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Adjective Getting One’s Way Responding to People Pacing Activity Dealing with Detail

Indirect-Direct Reserved-Outgoing Urgent-Steady Unstruc.-Precise

P30 – Demanding .71 -.03 -.11 .08

P18 – Forceful .70 -.02 -.05 .05
P22 – Domineering .69 -.06 -.10 .06
P26 – Strong Willed .47 .21 .06 .11
P5 – Intense .37 .06 -.01 .27
P10 – Competitive .35 .20 -.01 .09
P28 – Convincing .31 .30 .20 .11
P1 – Decisive .14 .16 .03 .32

P13 – High Spirited -.01 .75 -.02 .07

P2 – Enthusiastic -.01 .74 -.05 .01
P16 – Talkative -.12 .73 -.06 .17
P7 – Good Mixer .01 .70 .06 -.05
P20 – Life of the Party .16 .64 .02 -.15
P11 – Animated .08 .54 .30 .01
P24 – Charming .12 .49 -.01 -.05
P32 – Daring .30 .48 .08 -.11

P21 – Mild -.03 -.29 .65 -.01

P29 – Laid-Back .08 .10 .62 -.26
P8 – Serene .14 -.18 .60 .04
P25 – Even-Tempered -.10 .32 .60 -.09
P17 – Easygoing -.28 .05 .57 .16
P31 – Tolerant -.34 .15 .53 .13
P15 – Patient -.37 .09 .50 .16
P3 – Restrained .17 .49 .32 .05

P14 – Exacting .10 -.01 -.03 .72

P12 – Organized -.20 .04 -.06 .72
P19 – Structured .05 -.01 -.01 .71
P9 – Accurate -.02 -.11 .04 .71
P27 – Perfectionistic -.01 -.02 .02 .69
P23 – Systematic -.01 .01 .11 .66
P6 – Detailed .11 -.03 -.09 .66
P4 – Particular .18 -.08 -.03 .57

General population sample: N = 1601 adults and students

(26)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Test Development

Table 3

Work Style
Factor Correlation Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Getting One’s Way Responding to People Pacing Activity Dealing With Detail

Factor 1 1.00
Factor 2 -.09 1.00
Factor 3 .00 .09 1.00
Factor 4 .26 .18 -.13 1.00

Table 4
Personal Style
Factor Correlation Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Getting One’s Way Responding to People Pacing Activity Dealing With Detail

Factor 1 1.00
Factor 2 .01 1.00
Factor 3 .08 -.09 1.00
Factor 4 .21 .16 -.10 1.00

(27)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Reliability

V. RELIABILITY

Reliability is the degree of consistency with which a test measures what

it is said to measure. Error in test measurement can be caused by mood,
fatigue, misunderstanding of instructions, nervousness, or familiarity
with the same or similar tests. No test can measure psychological traits
so accurately that each time an individual takes it they score exactly the
same. However, some tests are more reliable than others, and this can be
determined by reviewing the reliability statistics.

Reliability coefficient is a generic term. Different reliability coefficients and

estimates of measurement error can be based on various types of evidence;
each suggests a different meaning.

Test - Retest

Test-retest reliability involves administering the same test on two separate

occasions, typically a few weeks apart, and computing a coefficient that
indicates how similar the scores were.

Alternate Forms

Alternate forms reliability is computed by creating two parallel forms of

the test and administering them both to the same people. (The INSIGHT
Inventory has no alternate form.)

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency can be measured by computing a coefficient alpha. This

compares the response to each item of a trait to the response on every other
item measuring that same trait. It answers the question as to how well the
items are measuring the same trait. This is a statistical computation and
does not require alternate forms or test-retest.

Reliability of test scores can vary by population make up, size of sample,
and form of reliability computed. Results should be interpreted specific to
this data.

Internal consistency reliabilities for all scales of the INSIGHT Inventory

are listed in Table 6. They range from .71 to .85 with an average of .77.
Test-retest reliability was examined on a group of 90 college students, with
six weeks between administrations. These are listed in Table 7 and range
from .54 to .82 with an average of .73.

Corrected item to scale correlations can be found in Table 8.

Nunnally (1978) states that reliability coefficients in the 70's and 80's are
acceptable for purposes for which the INSIGHT Inventory is used. All the
coefficient alphas are in that range, as are the test-retest reliabilities for
the School Scales. Several of the Personal Scales’ test-retest coefficients fall

(28)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Reliability

below .70. This could suggest less stability for those scales, but even those
results are based on a fairly small sample and should be viewed with this
in mind. The coefficient alphas are based on a much larger sample and, in
general, are quite high for this type of instrument.

Also listed in Table 6 are the standard errors of measurement. Based on

the scale’s standard deviation and its reliability, standard areas of measure-
ment can be used to define a range around a person’s score within which the
“true” score is likely to fall. This allows us to say, for example, that since
the S.E.M. for Work Scale D is 3.0, 19 times out of 20, when a person’s test
shows 32, their actual score would be between 29 and 35. We know that
there is some variation in the way people fill out such instruments, thus
the score on a particular day may not be their “True” score. The S.E.M.
gives us a way of estimating how close to their true score a given score is
likely to be.

Table 6
Internal Consistency Reliability
and Standard Error of Measurement

Work/School Style Personal Style

A B C D A B C D
Coeff. α .73 .81 .71 .81 .71 .82 .71 .85
S.E.M. 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.5 2.9

N= 1602 Adults and Students

Table 7
Test - Retest Reliability
INSIGHT Inventory

School Style Personal Style

A B C D A B C D
.78 .75 .82 .76 .64 .77 .54 .69

Time period between administrations: Six weeks

Sample: 90 Undergraduate students; University of Kansas

(29)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Reliability

Table 8

Corrected item-scale correlations

Correlation
Item With Work/ With Per-
School Scale sonal Scale

Competitive W1 .41 P10 .30

Demanding W5 .51 P30 .52
SCALE A Domineering W9 .49 P22 .52
Forceful W13 .47 P18 .49
Getting One’s Convincing W16 .33 P28 .31
Way Strong Willed W18 .42 P26 .44
Decisive W22 .33 P1 .26
Intense W25 .37 P5 .36

Talkative W2 .57 P16 .61

Animated W7 .41 P11 .42
SCALE B High Spirited W11 .62 P13 .64
Good Mixer W17 .57 P7 .61
Responding Enthusiastic W21 .53 P2 .55
to People Life of the Party W26 .63 P20 .59
Daring W27 .46 P32 .45
Charming W30 .48 P24 .49

Patient W3 .43 P15 .47

Serene W6 .40 P8 .35
SCALE C Easygoing W10 .43 P17 .45
Mild W14 .45 P21 .46
Pacing Even Tempered W20 .44 P25 .50
Activity Tolerant W24 .48 P31 .48
Restrained W28 .23 P3 .12
Laid-back W31 .37 P29 .38

Accurate W4 .53 P9 .56

Perfectionistic W8 .54 P27 .59
SCALE D Structured W12 .52 P19 .58
Systematic W15 .56 P23 .61
Dealing Exacting W19 .56 P14 .65
with Detail Detailed W23 .59 P6 .62
Particular W29 .43 P4 .51
Organized W32 .53 P12 .56

n = 1602 General population Adults and Students

(30)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Validity

VI. VALIDITY

The validity of a test estimates what the test measures and how well it does
this. Simply put, it answers the question, “Does the test measure what it
says it measures?” Several different types of validity exist, each addressing
a slightly different form of the above question. Several of those include:

Face Validity: Do the items appear to be related to what the test is about?
In other words, would someone familiar with the area agree that the items
on the “Dealing With Detail” scale have something to do with dealing with
detail?

Content Validity: For a test such as the INSIGHT Inventory, face validity
is closely related to content validity, or the degree to which an instrument
fully measures the content of a subject matter or behavior. Typically, con-
tent validity is discussed in terms of item selection, and on the INSIGHT
Inventory, items were developed by psychologists familiar with personality
and its manifestations in the workplace and in school. Initial items were
chosen by this method, and further statistical analyses were carried out to
select the best items.

Criterion Validity: Is the test able to predict the behavior of an indi-

vidual in a specific situation, i.e., can a profile associated with successful
sales persons successfully predict the likelihood of someone who takes the
test and receives that same profile becoming a successful salesperson? To
this point, no studies have attempted to utilize the INSIGHT Inventory in
a predictive fashion.

Concurrent Validity: How well a test relates to other measures with

which it theoretically should relate.

Discriminant Validity: The converse of concurrent validity, how well a

test consistently differs from tests with which it is theoretically different.
This manual provides several measures of concurrent and discriminant
validity for the INSIGHT Inventory.

Construct Validity: All of these types of validity taken together, along with
measures of reliability and factor analyses, form what is called construct
validity. This is the ability of an instrument to adequately define, measure,
and predict a particular construct. The INSIGHT Inventory attempts to
deal with four separate constructs, all important dimensions of personality
in the workplace, in school, and at home. Establishing construct validity is
a never ending process, with each new study adding or taking away from
our confidence in a test’s construct validity.

The INSIGHT Inventory is still fairly young in terms of personality mea-

sures, and thus statistical data is still being collected. The data that are
available, in terms of reliability, factor analysis, and concurrent and dis-
criminant validity, are encouraging, and should lead to additional research
projects in academic institutions and corporate settings.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (31)

 Validity

As part of the validation process, the scores on the four scales of the IN-
SIGHT Inventory have been compared to scores on other tests known to
measure similar personality characteristics.

The personality and interest tests used in the validity research were:

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI

Sixteen Personality Factors, 16PF
Self-Directed Search, SDS

A brief review of each inventory is provided to familiarize the reader with

the purpose and format of each test. Pearson product moment correlations
were used to compare each of the style scores of the INSIGHT Inventory
with each trait measured by the other tests.

SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTORS (16PF)

The 16PF is a 187-item, multiple choice inventory first developed in 1949

by Raymond Cattell (1950). This personality test has undergone over thirty
years of extensive research and norming and is used widely in organizations
and educational institutions.

Results yield the following sixteen factor scores and descriptions of extreme
scorers:

Factor

Reserved, quiet, retiring, A - Warmth Outgoing, personal,

private, detached participating, sharing
of feelings

Dull, concrete thinking B - Intelligence Bright, abstract,

conceptual

Easily upset, affected by C - Emotional Calm, relaxed, satis-

feelings, easily distracted Stability fied, persistent

Accommodating, E - Dominance Assertive, dominant,

modest, agreeable, aggressive, competi-
submissive tive, forceful

Reflective, serious, F - Impulsivity Expressive, lively,

pensive, inhibited enthusiastic, lots of
friends, enjoys parties

Nonconforming, G - Conformity Responsible,

independent, unstruc- conscientious, respect-
tured, frivolous ful of authority, rigid

Cautious, personally H - Boldness Venturesome, bold,

less sure, hesitant energetic, daring

Tough minded, I - Sensitivity Tender minded, sensi-

practical, logical tive, artistic, senti-
mental

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (32)

 Validity

Trusting, adaptable, free L - Suspiciousness Guarded, suspecting,

of jealousy, easygoing questioning, skeptical

Practical, down to earth, M - Imagination Creative, fanciful, ab-

dependable sorbed, absentminded

Forthright, natural, N - Shrewdness Calculating,

genuine, unpretentious insightful, shrewd

Secure, assured, confi- O - Insecurity Apprehensive, anxious,

dent, self-satisfied concerned, moody

Conservative, tradi- Q1- Radicalism Liberal, innovative, ex-

tional, respectful perimenting, unconven-
tional

Group-oriented, seeking Q2- Self-Sufficiency Self-sufficient, loner,

others independent

Uncontrolled, noncon- Q3 - Self-Discipline Controlled, socially

forming, unplanned aware, organized

Relaxed, tolerant, com- Q4 - Tension Tense, easily frustrated

posed

SAMPLE ITEM

24. When talking I like:

a) to say things just as they occur to me
b) in between
c) to get my thoughts well organized first

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (33)

 Validity
Table 9
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
INSIGHT Inventory and 16PF - Sixteen Personality Factors

INSIGHT – School Style

A B C D
Indirect (-) Reserved (-) Urgent (-) Unstructured (-)
16PF Direct (+) Outgoing (+) Steady (+) Precise (+)

Warmth A .23* .25* -.09 .17*

Intelligence B .10 -.08 -.06 .11
Emotional Stability C .13 .10 .08 .11
Dominance E .35* .21* -.22* .00
Impulsivity F .26* .48* -.15 -.06
Conformity G .12 -.10 -.04 .40*
Boldness H .40* .48* -.16 .00
Sensitivity I -.20 -.09 .07 .04
Suspiciousness L .14 .03 -.19* -.07
Imagination M -.15 -.03 .10 -.05
Shrewdness N .04 -.08 -.06 .23*
Insecurity O -.24 -.19* -.12 -.08
Radicalism Q1 .14 .11 .05 -.09
Self-Sufficiency Q2 -.11 -.26* .04 -.14
Self-Discipline Q3 .07 -.17* .21* .35*
Tension Q4 -.02 -.09 -.24* -.05

INSIGHT – Personal Style

Warmth A .10 .15 .02 .16
Intelligence B -.01 -.15 -.04 .03
Emotional Stability C .02 .08 -.02 .05
Dominance E .30* .20* -.05 .05
Impulsivity F .11 .39* -.07 -.04
Conformity G .18* -.05 -.01 .46*
Boldness H .22* .36* -.11 -.06
Sensitivity I -.21* -.02 .03 .06
Suspiciousness L .14 .14 -.10 -.03
Imagination M -.14 -.07 .07 -.07
Shrewdness N .09 -.17* -.06 .28*
Insecurity O -.07 -.12 -.20* -.04
Radicalism Q1 .08 .10 .08 -.04
Self-Sufficiency Q2 .11 -.15 .00 -.10
Self-Discipline Q3 .07 -.22* .18 .27*
Tension Q4 .07 -.00 -.24* -.09

N = 169 College Freshmen/Sophomores Westminster College, Fulton, MO, 1987

* = Significant at the .05 level

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (34)

 Validity

Discussion: Relationship between the 16PF and the INSIGHT Inventory

Table 9 outlines correlations of the INSIGHT School and Personal Style

Scales with the 16 PF scales.

Direct The first scale (A) of the INSIGHT Inventory measures one’s style of Influ-
encing and yields two preferences, Direct and Indirect. Scale A correlated
significantly with six of the 16 PF factors. A person having high Direct
scores would be characterized by the 16PF as: outgoing, personal, partici-
pating (Factor A); assertive, dominant, aggressive, competitive, and forceful
(Factor E); expressive, lively, enthusiastic, friendly (Factor F); responsible,
respectful of authority, rigid (Factor G); and tough-minded, practical, logi-
cal (Factor I).

Indirect The Indirect preference is identified by increasingly lower scores on scale

A of the INSIGHT Inventory. Significant correlations on Scale A with the
16PF indicate the Indirect preference would be described by the 16PF as:
detached, retiring, quiet and reserved (Factor A); accommodating, modest,
agreeable, and submissive (Factor E); reflective, serious, pensive and in-
hibited (Factor F); non-conforming, independent and unstructured (Factor
G); cautious, personally less sure, hesitant (Factor H); and tender-minded,
sensitive, artistic and sentimental (Factor I).

Scale B of the INSIGHT Inventory measures one's style of Responding.

Opposite preferences are Outgoing and Reserved. High scores represent
the Outgoing preference, low scores reflect the Reserved preference. Six
significant correlations were found with the 16PF Factors.

Outgoing An Outgoing individual on INSIGHT would be described by the 16PF as:

personable, participating, outgoing, and expressive (Factor A); assertive,
dominant, aggressive, competitive, and forceful (Factor E); expressive,
lively, enthusiastic, having lots of friends, enjoying parties (Factor F); ven-
turesome, bold, energetic, daring (Factor H); secure, assured, confident,
self-satisfied (Factor O); group-oriented, a joiner, seeking social approval
and fashionable (Factor Q2); and impulsive, non-conforming, unplanned
(Factor Q3).

Reserved In parallel fashion, comparing the opposite tendencies, Reserved individu-

als (low scores on INSIGHT) would be characterized by the 16PF as: quiet,
retiring, private and detached (Factor A); accommodating, modest, agree-
able and submissive (Factor E); introspective, reflective, serious, pensive,
incommunicative (Factor F); emotionally cautious, personally less sure and
hesistant (Factor H); apprehensive, anxious, concerned, and moody (Factor
O); self-sufficient, a loner, seclusive, having a limited number of close friends
and dissatisfied with group interaction (Factor Q2); and controlled, socially
aware, and ordered (Factor Q3).

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (35)

 Validity

Scale C on the INSIGHT Inventory measures one's style of Pacing. Opposite

styles are Urgent and Steady. Low scores are indicative of Urgency; high
score of Steadiness.

Steady High scores on INSIGHT Scale C (Steady) would be characterized by the

16PF as: accommodating, modest, agreeable and submissive (Factor E);
trusting, understanding, permissive, tolerant, conciliatory and easygoing
(Factor L); secure, self-satisfied, placid, resilient, and confident (Factor O);
controlled, of strong will power, socially precise, persistent and considerate
(Factor Q3); and relaxed, tolerant, and composed (Factor Q4).

Urgent Low scores on Scale C, Urgent, are characterized by the 16 PF as: assertive,
competitive, and forceful (Factor E); guarded, suspecting; questioning and
skeptical (Factor L); apprehensive, anxious, concerned, and moody (Factor
O); and tense, easily frustrated and nervous (Factor Q4).

Scale D on the INSIGHT Inventory measures ones preference for Organiz-

ing. Opposite preferences are Precise and Unstructured.

Precise High scores on Scale D (Precise) would be characterized by the 16 PF as

conforming, conscientious, respectful of authority, responsible and rigid
(Factor G); calculating, insightful, and shrewd (Factor N); and controlled,
self-disciplined, and organized (Factor Q3).

Unstructured The Unstructured preference indicated by low scores on Scale D would be

characterized by the 16 PF as non-conforming, independent, unstructured
and frivolous (Factor G); forthright, natural, genuine, and unpretentious
(Factor N); and uncontrolled, non-conforming, and unplanned (Factor
Q3).

The descriptions of the factors of the 16 PF that correlate with the scales on
the INSIGHT Inventory match very closely with the descriptions provided by
the INSIGHT Inventory. INSIGHT attempts to use only positive terms in
its scale descriptions and the comparison with the 16 PF adds some descrip-
tions which demonstrate the problems or negative sides to each preference.
All in all, the 16 PF, which was developed through factor analysis much the
same as was the INSIGHT Inventory and provides solid construct validity
support for the INSIGHT scale descriptions.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (36)

 Validity

MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

The MBTI is a multiple choice personality inventory which yields scores

on four personality dimensions: Extroversion - Introversion (EI), Sensing
- Intuition (SN), Thinking - Feeling (TF), and Judgement - Perception (JP).
The MBTI was developed by Isabel B. Myers and Katherine C. Briggs to
make the theory of psychological types described by C.G. Jung understand-
able and useful in people’s lives.

The Abbreviated Version (form AV) was used in this study. This is a 50 item
self-scoring version that can be taken in less time and has been statistically
demonstrated to produce essentially the same scores as the longer Form G.
(Kaiser, 1981; Macdaid, 1983, Myers, 1977).

The four scales measure the following psychological preferences:

Extroversion ....................................... Introversion

preference for being with people, preference for internal focus,
outgoing, talkative, open, sociable, quiet, reserved, idea and thought-
communicative oriented, private

Sensing .................................................Intuition
practical, concrete, trusts senses theoretical, abstract, trusts
for information, focused on hunches and intuition for
present and immediate information, future-minded

Thinking ................................................ Feeling

logical, rational, decisions made emotional, warm, makes decisions
based on analytical thinking; based on feelings and personal
cause and effect, objective values, subjective

Judging .............................................. Perceiving

seeks closure, see things in black open, seeks new information, sees
and white, likes decisions made, things in shades of gray, postpones
prefers closure decision making, likes options open

Scores are grouped into sixteen “type” categories which represent dichoto-
mous classification of each of the four scales.

16 Types

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

Continuous scale scores were used in computing the relationship between

each of the four MBTI scales and the four INSIGHT Inventory scales.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (37)

 Validity
Table 10

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with INSIGHT Inventory (Student)

School Style

A B C D
Indirect/ Reserved/ Urgent/ Unstructured/
Direct Outgoing Steady Precise

EI -.15 -.26* .25* -.00

SN -.04 .20* -.00 -.32*
TF -.29* -.02 .11 -.22*
JP -.09 -.18* .06 -.39*

Personal Style

Indirect/ Reserved/ Urgent/ Unstructured/

Direct Outgoing Steady Precise

EI -.15 -.36* .20* .00

SN .00 .23* -.03 -.34*
TF -.02 .03 .02 -.19*
JP .07 -.06 -.02 -.32*

* = Significant at .01 level

N = 241 167 males, 74 females; College Freshmen/Sophomores, Career Planning Class,

University of Kansas, 1987, 1988

Discussion: Relationship between Myers-Briggs Type indicator and

the INSIGHT Inventory.

Direct scores on the INSIGHT Inventory would be characterized by the

MBTI as Thinking (logical, rational, preferring to use logical processes for
decision-making, trusting data rather than feelings). In turn, Indirect
scores on INSIGHT would relate to the Feeling preference on the MBTI
being characterized as emotional, warm, and trusting feelings when mak-
ing decisions.

The Outgoing style on INSIGHT would be characterized by the MBTI as

Extroverted (expressive, talkative, open, outgoing, preferring to be with
people), Intuitive (theoretical, abstract, trusting of hunches, future-mind-
ed), and Judging (seeking closure, seeing things in black and white, liking
decisions closed). Reserved scores on INSIGHT relate to Introversion on
the MBTI, being characterized as quiet, internally focused, reserved, idea
and thought oriented, Sensing (practical, concrete, trusting senses for in-
formation, focused on the present and immediate) and Perceiving (open,
seeking new information, seeing things in shades of gray, postponing deci-
sion making).

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (38)

 Validity

Scale three, Pacing Activity (Urgent/Steady), of the INSIGHT Inventory

was related to MBTI preferences in the following way: Urgent scores on
the INSIGHT Inventory would be characterized as Extroverted (preferring
to be with people, talkative, sociable, and communicative). In turn Steady
scores would relate to Introversion (preferring an internal focus, quiet,
private, idea and thought oriented).

The fourth scale of the INSIGHT Inventory measures one’s style of Dealing
with Detail and produces two opposite tendencies, Unstructured and Pre-
cise. High scores on Dealing with Detail (Precise) would be characterized
by the MBTI as Sensing (practical, concrete, trusting observable reality for
information), Thinking (rational, analytical, objective, trusting logic over
feelings), and Judging (seeking closure, seeing things in black and white,
preferring to narrow options and make decisions). Low scores on Dealing
with Detail (Unstructured) would be described by the MBTI as Intuitive
(theoretical, abstract, trusting hunches and intuition for information) Feel-
ing (emotional, warm, subjective, trusting feelings over logic) and Perception
(open, seeking additional information, seeing things in shades of grey, and
preferring to expand options).

The data obtained from this study indicate that the INSIGHT Inventory and
MBTI measure some very similar personality dimensions. Each scale of
the MBTI had a significant relationship with one or more of the INSIGHT
Inventory scales. Therefore, the inventories could be used together to pro-
vide a double check of the strength of each personality preference or they
might be used interchangeably when limited test taking time is available
or when a slightly different framework or language would be helpful.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (39)

 Validity

SELF-DIRECTED SEARCH (SDS)

The SDS was developed by John Holland, Ph.D. It is a self-scoring interest

personality inventory designed to provide users with an understanding of
their career interests in relation to their personality characteristics. The
SDS is used widely in schools and colleges for career planning and vocational
counseling and in corporate settings for career development.

The SDS was originally developed as an expansion of Holland's Vocational

Preference Inventory (VPI) and has undergone numerous revisions since its
1974 publication. It is noted for the extensive research that it has generated
and the practical usefulness of its concepts. The most thorough reference is
Holland’s book, Making Vocational Choices (1985).

The SDS provides six scores which indicate the relative strength of the users'
preference for each of six interest/personality themes. These are typically
represented in a hexagon.

Realistic Investigative

HOLLAND
Conventional CODE Artistic
THEMES

Enterprising Social

R - Realistic Preference for careers employing work with the hands, manual labor,
outdoor activities. Personality descriptors: practical, stable, frank,
materialistic, shy, normal and conforming.

I - Investigative Preference for careers involving study and investigation of the sciences
and people. Personality descriptors: analytical, cautious, critical, intel-
lectual, introspective, reserved, passive and precise.

A - Artistic Preference for careers that entail creative, free, unsystematized activi-
ties. Personality descriptors: imaginative, disorderly, independent,
introspective, non-conforming, intuitive and original.

S - Social Preference for careers that involve helping, training, developing, car-
ing, enlightening others and socializing. Personality descriptors: co-
operative, friendly, generous, helpful, kind, persuasive, understanding
and sociable.

E - Enterprising Preference for careers that involve selling or leading others, power,
status, achieving and risk-taking. Personality descriptors: acquisi-
tive, adventurous, ambitious, argumentative, dependent, energetic,
pleasure-seeking and self-confident.

C - Conventional Preference for careers that entail explicit, ordered, systematic ma-
nipulation of data, records and materials. Personality descriptors:
conscientious, conforming, efficient, obedient, orderly, persistent and
controlled.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (40)

 Validity

Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Holland Self-directed Search with INSIGHT Inventory

School Style

Indirect/ Reserved/ Urgent/ Unstructured/

Direct Outgoing Steady Precise

Realistic .24* .08 .11 -.04

Investigative -.02 -.08 .06 .15
Artistic .13 .29* .02 -.02
Social .18* .17 -.01 -.01
Enterprising .57* .33* -.36* .24*
Conventional .19* .05 -.12 .44*

Personal Style

Indirect/ Reserved/ Urgent/ Unstructured/

Direct Outgoing Steady Precise

Realistic .37* -.03 .15 .05

Investigative .05 .01 .09 -.01
Artistic .16 .26* .13 -.09
Social .07 .19* .07 -.08
Enterprising .37* .12 .06 .18*
Conventional .14 -.08 --.12 .36*

N = 241 Undergraduate students, Career Planning Class, University of Kansas, 1988

* significant at .01 level
NOTE: A positive correlation signifies a relationship between the Holland type and the
following INSIGHT descriptors: Direct, Outgoing, Steady, Precise.

Individuals scoring Direct on Scale A of the INSIGHT Inventory would be

described as Realistic (practical, stable, frank, materialistic) and Enterpris-
ing (adventurous, ambitious, argumentative, energetic and self-confident)
on the SDS.

Individuals who score Outgoing are described as Enterprising (adventurous,

ambitious, argumentative, energetic and self-confident) on the SDS.

Urgent scores on INSIGHT also were significantly related to Enterprising

scores on the SDS. It is noteworthy that the Enterprising code of the SDS
could be characterized by INSIGHT terms as Direct, Outgoing and Urgent.
This closely resembles the language used by Holland in describing the En-
terprising individual.

Individuals scoring Precise on INSIGHT would be described by the SDS

as Conventional (conscientious, conforming, efficient, obedient, orderly,
persistent and controlled).

The comparison of INSIGHT scores to the SDS produces some good concur-
rent and discriminant validity for the INSIGHT Inventory. This encourages
its use in conjunction with the SDS in career planning. Since the inventories
are different yet related, a user could gain helpful information using both.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (41)

 Validity

Summary on Validity

Descriptions of what each scale of the INSIGHT Inventory measures are

provided below using data from the construct validity studies. To make
this information as helpful as possible, the descriptions of each INSIGHT
scale and its opposite preferences will first be given. These are followed
by the descriptions of the traits from the 16-PF, MBTI and SDS that were
significantly correlated with each INSIGHT preference.

SCALE A

INFLUENCING

DIRECT

Get their way by taking charge and pushing for action.

They:
Like to use power and authority to get things done
Are: Strong willed
Forceful and sometimes blunt
Project an air of self-confidence
Are assertive (tend to tell rather than persuade)
Will openly argue or debate their point of view or opinion
Are frank, will say what’s on their mind

They are stressed by:

losing power, being controlled

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

get demanding, blunt, aggressive

When the significant correlations on the 16 PF, MBTI and SDS are brought
together, the following descriptors emerge:
… outgoing, personal, participating (16 PF–A)
… assertive, dominant, aggressive, competitive, forceful (16 PF-E)
… expressive, lively, enthusiastic, and friendly (16 PF–F)
… responsible, respectful of authority and rigid (16 PF–G)
… venturesome, bold, energetic and daring (16 PF–H)
… tough-minded, practical and logical (16 PF–H)
… enterprising, self-confident, argumentative, ambitious, adventurous and
energetic (SDS – Enterprising)
… thinking, objective, rational, preferring to use logical processes for deci-
sion-making (MBTI-TF)

Most of these statements support those given by the INSIGHT Inventory

for the DIRECT style. It is noteworthy that several of these descriptions
also attribute some extroversion characteristics to DIRECT scores. When
correlated, high DIRECT scores on INSIGHT were related to high OUTGO-
ING scores on Scale B. It would appear that assertiveness and extroversion,
while not exactly the same, tend to be related traits.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (42)

 Validity

Low scores on Scale A indicate a preference for being INDIRECT. Individu-

als who score INDIRECT are described in the INSIGHT Inventory as:

INDIRECT

Get their way through strategy and careful planning.

They:
Lead through quiet, behind-the-scenes example
Tend to under use their power preferring to negotiate and compro-
mise
Will delegate authority

Are: Modest
Non-intimidating
Agreeable
Approachable and non-demanding

They are stressed by:

conflict and confrontation

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

avoid, become hesitant and unsure

The following descriptions emerge from the correlations with the 16 PF,
MBTI and SDS.
… reserved, quiet, retiring, private, detached (16 PF–A)
… accommodating, modest, agreeable, submissive (16 PF-E)
… reflective, serious, pensive, inhibited (16 PF–F)
… non-conforming, independent, unstructured (16 PF–G)
… cautious, personally less sure, hesitant (16 PF–H)
… tender-minded, sensitive, artistic, sentimental (16 PF–I)
… emotional, warm, trusts feelings when making decisions (MBTI-TF)

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (43)

 Validity

SCALE B

RESPONDING

OUTGOING

Direct their energy outward toward people and activities.

They:

Get results accomplished through persuading people

Are: Talkative and openly friendly
Enthusiastic and expressive
Enjoy being the center of attention
Are energized by other people and lots of stimulus
Like to talk things out – actually talk as a way of thinking
through
their thoughts
Are playful and at ease with others

They are stressed by:

disapproval, not being liked

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

become emotionally explosive and upset or withhold usual
friendliness

When the correlations with the 16 PF, MBTI, and SDS are analyzed, the
following descriptions emerge:
… personal, participating, sharing of feelings, attentive to people, laughs
readily (16 PF–A)
… assertive, dominant, aggressive, competitive (16 PF-E)
… expressive, lively, enthusiastic, having lots of friends, enjoying parties,
animated (16 PF–F)
… cheerful, assured, confident, self-satisfied (16 PF–O)
… talkative, outgoing, expressive, open, animated (MBTI-EI)
… intuitive, trusting of hunches, abstract (MBTI-SN)
… judging, seeking closure, seeing things in black and white (MBTI-JP)
… enterprising, self-confident, argumentative, ambitious, adventurous,

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (44)

 Validity

RESERVED

Turn their energy inward to the world of ideas and thoughts

They:
Prefer to interact with others one-to-one or in small groups
Are: Quiet in large groups
Self-contained
Recharge their batteries by being away from noise and people
Tend to choose careers that allow them to think, create, and work
alone or in small groups

They are stressed by:

group pressure, being public or center of attention, lack of private
time

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

withdraw and become overly quiet

When significant correlations with the 16 PF, MBTI, and SDS are sum-
marized, the following descriptions result:
… reserved, quiet, retiring, private, detached (16 PF–A)
… accommodating, modest, agreeable, submissive (16 PF-E)
… reflective, serious, pensive, inhibited (16 PF–F)
… cautious, personally less sure, hesitant (16 PF–H)
… apprehensive, anxious, concerned, moody (16 PF–O)
… self-sufficient, loner, independent (16 PF–Q2)
… controlled, socially aware, organized (16 PF–Q3)
… introverted, preference for internal focus, quiet, idea and thought ori-
ented, private (MBTI-EI)
… sensing, practical, concrete, trusting senses for information (MBTI-SN)
… perceiving, open, seeking new information for decisions, seeing things
in shades of grey (MBTI-JP)
… not likely to be enterprising or seeking of power, not likely to enjoy sell-
ing or promoting (SDS – Enterprising)

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (45)

 Validity

SCALE C

PACING

The third scale of INSIGHT Inventory is a measure of the pace, speed or

rhythm with which people act and burn energy. Opposite preferences are
STEADY and URGENT.

STEADY

Burn energy in an even-paced, very consistent manner

They:
Get things done by “hanging in there,” being persistent and deter-
mined
Are: Even-tempered
Patient and easygoing
Consider all options when deciding
Will wait for the right time for their move, “Timing is everything”
Have a long fuse – don’t get angry easily
Take time to patiently listen to others

They are stressed by:

pressure to make fast decisions, unpredictable change

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

become anxious and nervous when unusually calm or may hesitate
to make decisions

When significant correlations with the 16 PF, MBTI, and SDS are summa-
rized, the following descriptions of the STEADY preference emerge:
… accommodating, modest, agreeable (16 PF–A)
… trusting, adaptable, free of jealousy, easygoing (16 PF-L)
… conservative, traditional, respectful (16 PF–Q1)
… controlled, self-disciplined, organized (16 PF–Q3)
… relaxed, tolerant, composed (16 PF–Q4)
… introverted, quiet, private, idea and thought oriented (MBTI-EI)
… not likely to be enterprising or seeking of power, not likely to enjoy sell-
ing or promoting (SDS-E)

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (46)

 Validity

URGENT

Burn their energy in a fast-paced, restless manner

They:
Like change, variety, action, are quick to decide
Appear to always be in a hurry - like to do things fast
Dislike routines - seek variety
Are instantaneous and can be impulsive
Often work best under the pressure of time
Are: Reactive
Impulsive
Restless

They are stressed by:

lack of action, indecision, delays

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

get impatient, short-tempered, frustrated

When significant correlations with the 16 PF, MBTI, and SDS are sum-
marized, the following descriptions of the URGENT preference for Pacing
Activity emerge:
… assertive, competitive, forceful (16 PF–E)
… suspecting, questioning, skeptical (16 PF-L)
… liberal, innovative, experimenting (16 PF–Q1)
… uncontrolled, non-conforming, unplanned (16 PF–Q3)
… tense, easily frustrated (16 PF–Q4)
… extroverted, talkative, preferring to be with people, social (MBTI-EI)
… enterprising, seeking status and power, enjoy promoting and selling
(SDS-E)

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (47)

 Validity

SCALE D

ORGANIZING

The fourth scale of the INSIGHT Inventory measures an individual’s man-

ner of ordering or structuring the world.

PRECISE

Strive to have their world very planned, predictable and or-

dered.

They:
Focus on being right, want to perform as correctly and flawlessly as
possible
Are: Systematic
Perfectionistic
Meticulous
Like to make lists and will follow the list
Are likely to read directions and follow rules
Get satisfaction and feel pride in having things organized

They are stressed by:

making errors, not being able to get organized

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

become perfectionistic, compulsive and overly structured.

When the significant correlations with the 16 PF, MBTI and SDS are sum-
marized, the following descriptions of the PRECISE preference emerge:
… reserved, quiet, retiring, private (16 PF–A)
… responsible, conscientious, respectful of authority, rigid, conforming
(16 PF-G)
… calculating, insightful, shrewd (16 PF–N)
… controlled, self-disciplined, organized (16 PF–Q3)
… sensing, practical, concrete, trusting observable reality (MBTI-SI)
… thinking, rational, analytical, objective, using logic for decision making
(MBTI-TF)
… judging, seek closure, see things in black and white, like decisions made
(MBTI-JP)
… conventional, ordered, conforming, efficient, persistent and controlled
(SDS-C)

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (48)

 Validity

UNSTRUCTURED

Strive to have their world open, unstructured, non-conforming,

aren’t detail oriented – will delegate detail if at all possible

They:
Prefer to act first and attend to details later
Are: Non-conforming
Flexible
Will accept the risk of action without approval
Will proceed on projects before carefully reading directions – enjoy
just “figuring it out”
Are able to tolerate ambiguity – sometimes even prefer it

They are stressed by:

too many rules, excessive details

Their initial reaction to stress is to:

look for loopholes in rules, operate independently

When significant correlations with the 16 PF, MBTI, and SDS were sum-
marized, the following descriptions of the UNSTRUCTURED preference
emerged:
… outgoing, personal, participating (16 PF–A)
… non-conforming, independent, unstructured (16 PF-G)
… forthright, natural, genuine, unpretentious (16 PF–N)
… uncontrolled, non-conforming, unplanned (16 PF–Q3)
… intuitive, theoretical, abstract, trusting hunches (MBTI-SN)
… emotional, warm, subjective, trusting feelings over logic (MBTI-TF)
… perceiving, open, seek new information, see things in shades of grey,
postpone decision-making, like options open (MBTI-JP)
… not conventional, non-conforming, less structured, not likely to enjoy
ordering and organizing (SDS-C)

Summary

In summary, when INSIGHT Inventory scales are compared to three well-

established measures of personality type, traits and interests, consistent
support is garnered for the constructs measured by the INSIGHT Inventory.
These studies do not unequivocally establish construct validity, but they
begin such a process and strengthen the case for the instrument’s utility.

Anecdotal evidence of the usefulness of the INSIGHT Inventory and its

supporting materials gives further support to its utility, particularly in
team building and other interpersonal situations where appreciation of dif-
ferent styles is called for. Over time, further studies will help expand and
strengthen the validity data.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (49)

 Norming

VII. NORMING

Norms provide a basis for interpreting a person's score in relation to a de-

fined group of people. A person’s score has meaning primarily in terms of
its relation to how other people score.

For example, a second grader’s score of 12 on a spelling test of 20 words

says very little. If, however, you learned that the child was in a class for
the gifted and the mean (average) score was 18 with 90% of the students
scoring within 2 points of the mean, then you could conclude that the child
did not do very well compared to those gifted students. If, however, you
learned that this child was in a normal second grade class and the average
score was 6 with most students scoring within 2 points of the mean, you
could safely conclude that this same child, with a score of 12, did exception-
ally well compared to their classmates.

To understand the meaning of test scores, normative data are essential,

and an inventory should be suspect if norms are not provided. However,
normative data aren’t everything. Norms do not tell what is being measured.
Norms do not tell how well something is being measured. But, norms do
describe what a person’s score means in relation to other people's scores.
Statistical norms often include percentile scores with median, first and third
quartiles (Q1 and Q3), means, and standard deviations.

Percentiles

Percentile scores are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in

the samples who fall below a given test score. A percentile indicates the
individual's relative position in the sample. For example, if an inventory
score of 31 is given the rank of 40th percentile, this would mean 60% of
the other people in the sample scored greater than 30 and 40% scored less
than 30.

The profile charts for the INSIGHT Inventory scores are constructed with
the distribution of raw scores placed according to their percentile location.
This makes it possible for test takers to plot their scores directly on the chart
and see the percentile relationships without actually converting the score to
a percentile. The advantage of this is that percentiles are easily understood
and can be used equally well with different populations.

(50)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

The chief drawback of percentile scores arises from the marked inequality
of their units, especially at the extremes of the distribution. If the distribu-
tion of raw scores approximates the normal curve (as is the case with the
INSIGHT Inventory), the score differences near the center are exaggerated
in percentile transformation, whereas raw scores near the ends of the dis-
tribution are greatly shrunk (Anastasi, 1976). This explains why the points
on the profile charts are irregularly spaced with the tight grouping of points
on either end and the wide spacing near the center.

The example below shows how irregular spacing develops when raw scores
are charted in relation to their percentile equivalent. Refer however to the
norm tables and most recent printing of the participant's booklets for the
most up-to-date normative data.

The following tables present norms for Adult and School samples (Tables 12
and 13), and for Adult and School samples broken down by gender (Tables
14 and 15). For most purposes, the combined norms are adequate since
differences are not large. Combined norms are utilized on the materials
provided for charting.

When norms were developed for the Style Feedback Inventory (ratings done
on persons other than oneself), they were found to be very similar to those
for the Work Style and Personal Style Inventories. For consistency in use,
the norms are close enough to be considered equal.

(51)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming
Table 12
Adult Percentile Scores from Raw Scores

Percentile

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99
Work Style
Scale
A 18 21 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 46
B 13 17 20 22 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 39 45
C 14 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 41 44
D 20 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 34 36 37 38 40 42 44 46 48

Personal Style
Scale
A 15 20 22 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 41 46
B 13 18 20 22 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 35 37 38 41 46
C 14 19 22 23 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 36 38 39 43 47
D 12 19 23 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 38 42 46 48

Sample composition: 13 Bank commercial lending officers 65 Elementary teachers

76 Mid-level managers - corporate headquarters office 21 Supervisors - automotive assembly plant
N = 589 Adults 12 Home center hardware sales staff 99 Auto assembly plant employees
24 Protestant ministers 9 Hotel hospitality
12 Technical trainers - engineering firm 67 Public utility employees
10 Engineers 22 Clerical/Operational employees - Fortune 100 Co.
8 Credit Supervisors 34 Fish products packaging/warehousing
16 Credit Union managers 27 Highway maintenance employees
11 Mental Health professionals 35 Small Business managers and spouses
4 Jazz musicians 19 Manufacturing employees
3 College English professors 2 Occupation unavailable

(52)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Table 13
Student Percentile Scores from Raw Scores

Percentile

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99
Scale
School Style

A 17 21 23 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 37 38 40 42 46
B 15 20 23 25 26 27 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 42 44 46
C 16 20 23 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 41 45
D 15 20 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 41 44 48
Scale
Personal Style

A 18 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 34 36 37 38 40 43 46
B 15 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 46 48
C 16 19 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 37 39 41 44
D 12 18 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 40 44 48

Sample composition: 72 College freshmen and sophomores – University of Kansas – Career Development class
169 College freshmen and sophomores – Westminister College
N = 1031 students 59 High School students – Blue Valley, Missouri
22 4H members – high school juniors/seniors Missouri
709 Leadership camp participants – American Youth Foundation

(53)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Table 14
Percentile Scores – Gender Differences for Adult Sample

Male-Adult Percentile Scores

Percentile

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99

Work Style
Scale
A 18 22 24 26 27 28 28 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 41 48
B 14 17 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 34 35 37 39 42
C 14 19 21 24 24 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 30 34 36 37 39 42 44
D 20 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 38 40 41 44 46 48

Personal Style
Scale
A 15 20 23 25 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 37 38 40 48
B 12 17 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 40 46
C 15 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 40 43 48
D 15 21 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 36 38 40 44 46 48

Norms: General Population Sample: 403 males; July 1988

Female-Adult Percentile Scores

Percentile

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99

Work Style
Scale
A 14 19 21 23 25 26 27 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 43
B 9 17 21 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 41 48
C 11 19 21 22 23 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 34 38 41 46
D 14 25 26 27 28 30 30 32 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 40 42 44 46 46 48

Personal Style
Scale
A 13 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 32 35 36 38 42 46
B 13 19 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 40 44 47
C 12 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 35 37 38 41 47
D 11 16 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 32 32 34 36 37 39 42 44 48 48

Norms: General Population Sample: 144 Females; July 1988

(54)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Table 15
Percentile Scores – Gender Differences for School Sample

Male Student Percentile Scores

Percentile

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99

Males – School Style

A 19 22 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 42 46
B 15 20 23 24 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 44 46
C 16 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 38 39 43 48
D 17 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 38 40 44 48

Males – Personal Style

A 20 23 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 43 46
B 15 23 25 26 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 40 41 42 44 46 48
C 17 21 23 26 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 45
D 12 18 22 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 40 44 48

Norms: General Student Sample; N = 355 Males

Female Student Percentile Scores

Percentile

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99

Females – School Style

A 17 21 23 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 42 44
B 14 20 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 36 37 39 40 41 42 44 47
C 16 19 22 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 38 40 44
D 15 20 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 42 44 48

Females – Personal Style

A 17 20 23 24 26 26 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 37 39 40 43 46
B 14 23 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 48
C 13 18 21 22 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 36 38 40 44
D 12 17 20 22 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 39 43 48

Norms: General Student Sample; N = 362 Females

(55)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Means
The mean of a set of scores is their arithmetic average. It is found by add-
ing all the scores in a sample and dividing by the total number of subjects
in that sample.
The INSIGHT Inventory does not produce a single mean score. It is com-
posed of eight individual scales, four Work (or School) Style scales and four
Personal Style scales. Therefore, eight scale means exist.

STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Another type of normative statistic is the standard deviation. This is a
measure of variability or dispersion of scores.
The bell-shaped curve is often thought of when the term standard deviation
is used. The bell curve represents a normal distribution, i.e., the distribution
that occurs when the largest number of cases cluster in the center of the
range and the numbers drop off gradually in both directions as the extremes
are approached. For a perfectly normal distribution, approximately two-
thirds (68.3 percent) of the scores are within the range from one standard
deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean.

99.72%

95.44 %
68.26 %
Percentage of cases

-3 SD -2 SD -1 SD +1 SD +2 SD +3 SD
Mean
Percentage Distribution of Cases in a Normal Curve
The more scores that cluster around the mean, the smaller the standard de-
viation. This would make the distribution of scores more peaked or pointed.
The larger the standard deviation, the flatter the distribution curve.

Large SD
Small SD
Number of Cases

-3 SD -2 SD -1 SD +1 SD +2 SD +3 SD
Mean
Frequency Distributions with the Same Mean but Different Variability.

(56)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

To create a simplified model for participants to use to understand the rel-

evance of their scores, halftones of varying intensities have been overlaid on
the graphs. Although the standard deviation of each scale varies, the center
of each tonal area is approximately one standard deviation from the mean.
The mean is located in the center of the unshaded area. Plus or minus one
standard deviation falls in the center of the light gray tone and two standard
deviations falls approximately in the center of the dark gray tone.

The graphs on which scores on the INSIGHT Inventory are plotted is a

combined sex average. There are small but noteworthy variations between
gender. These variations are provided in Tables 16 and 17.

X
-1 σ +1 σ
-2 σ +2 σ

Getting Your Way

Responding To People

Pacing Activity

Dealing With Detail

CLEAR
May use both extremes GRAY SHADE DARK SHADE
Moderate Use Strong Preference

(57)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Means and standard deviations are listed for each of the four INSIGHT
scales for both Adult and School samples in Tables 16 and 17. Those same
tables also list means and standard Deviations broken down by gender.

Table 16
Means and Standard Deviations – Adult Sample

Scale Work Style Personal Style

Men Women Total Men Women Total
A X 31.2 29.6 30.8 30.4 28.7 30.0
S.D. 5.7 6.0 5.8 6.2 6.8 6.3
B X 28.3 30.3 28.8 28.6 30.7 29.1
S.D. 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.8 7.4 6.9
C X 29.9 28.7 29.5 30.7 29.3 30.1
S.D. 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.7 6.8
D X 33.5 34.8 33.8 31.8 31.9 31.6
S.D. 6.4 7.1 6.6 7.3 8.2 7.5

Men N = 403 General population working adults.

Women N = 144 General population working adults.
Total N = 587 (gender not available for all cases)

Table 17

Means and Standard Deviations – Student Sample

Scale Work Style Personal Style

Men Women Total Men Women Total
A X 32.0 30.7 31.3 32.1 31.2 31.6
S.D. 5.9 6.2 6.1 5.8 6.5 6.2
B X 31.5 33.1 32.4 33.8 35.0 34.4
S.D. 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4
C X 31.2 30.1 30.6 31.1 29.0 30.1
S.D. 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.5 6.4
D X 31.5 31.8 31.7 30.3 29.6 29.9
S.D. 6.6 7.2 6.9 7.4 7.5 7.5

Men N = 445
Women N = 517
Total N = 1028 (gender not available for all cases).

(58)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Profile Analysis

Once norms have been established, it becomes possible to compare a per-

son’s relative position on one scale to their relative position on the other
scales. This is known as profile analysis, and it allows the examination of
an individual’s outstanding personality characteristics. The plotting of
one’s profile, as described with the materials given to each examinee, is the
product of these efforts.

In Table 18 can be found percentages of all adults and then all men and
women who have each of the eight possible scales as a high point. Table 19
provides the same information on the school sample.

Finally, Tables 20-21 provide similar information for two point codes, i.e.,
the highest scale followed by the second highest scale.

In the adult sample, 45% scored the same high point on both work and per-
sonal style profiles. While 40% of the school sample shows that consistency,
only 3% of adults and 2% of students show an opposite high point (e.g. Direct
vs. Indirect) or work (or school) and personal style profiles.

Table 18

Percentage of Adult Sample Scoring with each high point

All Adults Adult Males Adult Females

Work Personal Work Personal Work Personal

Direct 10.9 9.5 13.5 11.3 5.6 4.9

Outgoing 10.5 12.1 8.2 9.8 18.8 21.0
Steady 13.9 11.7 16.0 14.0 7.6 6.3
Precise 15.4 13.2 12.7 13.5 22.2 14.7
Indirect 10.2 10.5 8.0 8.3 17.4 18.9
Reserved 10.5 13.6 12.2 16.0 7.6 7.7
Urgent 12.6 14.6 13.2 13.5 11.1 16.8
Unstructured 15.1 13.8 16.2 13.8 9.7 9.8

Percentage of Student Sample Scoring with each high point

All Students Male Students Female Students

School Personal School Personal School Personal

Direct 10.8 11.1 14.2 13.1 7.8 9.3

Outgoing 13.7 12.5 9.9 14.0 17.1 12.6
Steady 11.8 13.2 13.3 15.3 9.9 11.2
Precise 13.7 13.2 11.3 15.1 16.0 12.0
Indirect 11.2 11.3 9.2 6.5 13.4 15.5
Reserved 12.5 14.4 15.5 18.0 10.7 10.8
Urgent 12.4 11.3 11.3 7.0 13.2 15.7
Unstructured 13.7 12.5 15.3 10.8 11.9 13.0

(59)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Table 20

Percentage of Adult Sample Scoring with each two point profile

All Adults Men Women

Work Personal Work Personal Work Personal

Direct/Outgoing 3.4 % 2.2 % .4 % .3 % 2.1 % 0%

Direct/Steady .7 .5 .1 .5 0 .7
Direct/Precise 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.0 .7 2.8
Direct/Reserved .5 .5 .7 .5 0 .7
Direct/Urgent 2.4 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.8 .7
Direct/Unstruc. .7 1.0 .7 1.5 0 0
Outgoing/Direct 1.7 2.9 1.7 1.8 2.1 5.6
Outgoing/Steady 1.2 1.5 .5 1.3 2.8 2.8
Outgoing/Precise 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.1 0
Outgoing/Indirect .8 1.2 .5 .8 2.1 2.8
Outgoing/Urgent 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.0 4.2 4.2
Outgoing/Unstruc. 3.2 3.7 2.7 3.5 5.6 5.6
Steady/Direct .7 .3 1.0 .5 0 0
Steady/Outgoing 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.8 1.4
Steady/Precise 2.7 2.2 3.2 3.0 1.4 .7
Steady/Indirect 3.2 2.5 3.7 2.5 2.1 3.5
Steady/Reserved 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.8 0 .7
Steady/Unstruc. 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.8 1.4 0
Precise/Direct 3.7 2.5 2.0 2.8 7.6 2.8
Precise/Outgoing 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.8 .7 3.5
Precise/Steady 2.2 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.1 0
Precise/Indirect 1.5 1.4 .5 1.3 4.2 1.4
Precise/Reserved 3.9 2.2 4.2 2.3 3.5 2.8
Precise/Urgent 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 4.2 4.2
Indirect/Outgoing .8 .7 .5 .3 1.4 2.1
Indirect/Steady 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.3 4.2 2.8
Indirect/Precise 1.4 .5 1.0 .5 2.1 .7
Indirect/Reserved 1.9 3.4 .7 3.0 5.6 4.9
Indirect/Urgent 1.0 .5 .5 .3 2.8 1.4
Indirect/Unstruc. 2.5 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.4 7.0
Reserved/Direct .2 .8 .2 1.0 0 0
Reserved/Steady 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.5 .7 .7
Reserved/Precise 1.7 1.9 1.5 2.0 2.8 2.1
Reserved/Indirect 3.2 3.7 3.7 5.0 1.4 1.4
Reserved/Urgent 1.4 3.7 1.0 3.8 2.8 2.1
Reserved/Unstruc. 2.2 1.5 3.2 1.8 0 1.4
Urgent/Direct 3.2 4.2 4.5 4.5 0 2.8
Urgent/Outgoing 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 4.2 3.5
Urgent/Precise 1.4 1.4 1.2 .8 2.1 3.5
Urgent/Indirect .5 1.4 .2 1.0 1.4 2.8
Urgent/Reserved 1.0 1.9 .7 1.5 1.4 2.1
Urgent/Unstruc. 3.7 3.1 4.0 3.5 2.1 2.1
Unstruc./Direct 1.7 .5 2.0 .8 .7 0
Unstruc./Outgoing 2.5 2.4 2.0 2.5 3.5 2.1
Unstruc./Steady 1.9 1.4 2.0 1.0 .7 1.4
Unstruc./Indirect 5.3 3.6 5.5 3.0 2.8 4.2
Unstruc./Reserved 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.5 .7 1.4
Unstruc./Urgent 2.0 3.7 2.5 4.0 1.4 .7

N = 589 N = 401 N = 144

1% = 6 1% = 4 1% = 1.4

(60)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Norming

Table 20

Percentage of School Sample Scoring with each two point profile

All Students Men Women

School Personal School Personal School Personal

Direct/Outgoing 3.9 % 2.1 % 4.7 % 2.5 % 3.1 % 1.9 %

Direct/Steady .7 1.5 .7 1.8 .2 1.2
Direct/Precise 2.6 3.1 2.9 4.1 2.7 1.9
Direct/Reserved .7 1.2 1.1 1.8 .2 .8
Direct/Urgent 1.8 2.2 3.2 1.6 1.0 3.1
Direct/Unstruc. 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.4 .6 .4
Outgoing/Direct 3.1 2.8 2.7 3.4 3.3 2.5
Outgoing/Steady 2.2 3.0 2.3 3.6 2.5 2.7
Outgoing/Precise 1.5 1.6 .7 .9 2.1 2.3
Outgoing/Indirect 1.3 1.1 .5 .9 2.1 1.4
Outgoing/Urgent 2.9 1.2 1.8 2.0 3.7 .6
Outgoing/Unstruc. 2.7 2.9 2.0 3.2 3.3 3.1
Steady/Direct .8 1.4 1.1 1.4 .6 1.2
Steady/Outgoing 1.4 3.1 1.6 2.7 1.2 3.7
Steady/Precise 2.3 2.3 2.7 1.8 1.9 2.5
Steady/Indirect 3.2 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.5 2.1
Steady/Reserved 2.4 2.1 2.7 3.6 1.6 .8
Steady/Unstruc. 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.2 1.0
Precise/Direct 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.9 2.9
Precise/Outgoing 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 2.3 1.9
Precise/Steady 2.7 3.3 2.9 4.5 2.9 2.3
Precise/Indirect 1.0 .8 .2 .7 1.6 1.0
Precise/Reserved 2.6 2.7 2.5 4.1 2.9 1.7
Precise/Urgent 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.1
Indirect/Outgoing .7 1.6 .5 .7 1.0 2.7
Indirect/Steady 2.3 2.1 2.0 .9 2.7 3.1
Indirect/Precise .7 .6 .7 .2 .8 1.0
Indirect/Reserved 2.4 2.4 3.2 1.8 1.9 3.3
Indirect/Urgent 1.4 1.2 .9 .9 1.9 1.4
Indirect/Unstruc. 3.7 3.4 2.0 2.0 5.1 4.1
Reserved/Direct 1.1 1.1 2.0 .9 .4 1.0
Reserved/Steady 2.6 1.8 3.8 2.9 1.8 1.0
Reserved/Precise 1.6 1.9 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.9
Reserved/Indirect 4.1 4.8 4.1 7.2 4.3 2.9
Reserved/Urgent 1.4 2.3 1.1 2.9 1.8 1.9
Reserved/Unstruc. 1.7 2.4 2.0 2.7 1.6 2.1
Urgent/Direct 3.3 2.4 4.1 2.3 2.7 2.7
Urgent/Outgoing 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.4 3.1 2.7
Urgent/Precise 2.2 1.3 1.6 .2 2.7 2.3
Urgent/Indirect 1.0 1.1 0 0 1.8 2.1
Urgent/Reserved 1.0 3.1 1.4 2.0 .6 4.1
Urgent/Unstruc. 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.7
Unstruc./Direct .4 .6 .9 .5 0 .8
Unstruc./Outgoing 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.6 3.3 2.3
Unstruc./Steady 2.0 1.6 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.4
Unstruc./Indirect 3.4 3.1 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.9
Unstruc./Reserved 2.8 1.6 3.6 1.6 2.1 1.5
Unstruc./Urgent 2.1 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.1 4.1

N = 1032
1% = 10 1% = approximately .5

(61)
© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.
 Future Research

VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH

The INSIGHT Inventory has grown from its infancy in the early 1980’s into
its adolescence. Data is steadily being accumulated in both theoretical and
applied research. As research continues, this Technical Manual will be
revised and updated. The goal is that, as the INSIGHT Inventory matures
and its use widens, it will become one of the more thoroughly researched
self-scoring style inventories.

Following are some suggestions for further research.

1. Duplicate and expand the test retest reliability data. It would be helpful
to determine if Work Style (or School Style) scale scores are as consistent
over time as are the Personal Style scores. This could shed some light
regarding whether people see themselves making adjustments more
often to one environment.
2. Conduct some predictive validity studies using such criteria as selection
into leadership positions, success on the job, satisfaction with work (or
academic major), etc.
3. Explore any relationships between the INSIGHT scales and different
cultural, sex, age, or racial heritage.
4. Identify which profile configurations are the most frequently occurring
in different samples.
5. Conduct additional construct validity studies between the INSIGHT
Inventory and such personality and interest tests as the:
• Big Five Assessments
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• California Personality Inventory (CPI)
• Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (SCII)
• Kuder DD
6. Measure the difference between people’s Work (or School) scores and
Personal Style scores and determine:
• the explanations for such variations
• how much variation is typical versus how much is unusual
• the relationship of any given variation is to stress and pressure
7. Test the degree to which individuals can “fake good” or bias the results.
It would be beneficial to know if specific populations (students, job ap-
plicants, etc.) perceive certain style preferences to be inherently more
desirable.
8. Examine the relationships between self-ratings on the INSIGHT Inven-
tory and feedback ratings obtained from the e-INSIGHT Obsererver
feedback. For example, research might show that people’s self-rating
scores on one scale (i.e., Responding) more closely match feedback av-
erages than do matched ratings on a different scale (i.e., Influencing).
Also, one might find adults self-ratings scores more closely match their
feedback ratings than do students; thus indicating an age factor in self
awareness

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (62)

 Future Research

9. Explore the congruence of self-ratings and observer feedback ratings in

relationship to such independent variables as:
• self-esteem
• leadership and management skill
• job success
• interpersonal conflict, etc.

This is just a beginning list of potential research projects. It is included to

stimulate even more ideas on possible research. The usefulness of the IN-
SIGHT Inventory will grow with each added piece of information acquired
and this data will be added to the next revision of the Technical Manual.
Individuals interested in conducting a research study are encouraged to
contact the authors for assistance.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D. (63)

 References

IX. REFERENCE LIST

Allport, G.W. (1955), Theories of Perception and the Concept of Structure.

New York: Wiley.

Allport, G.W. & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait-Names: A Psycho-lexical Study.

Princeton: Psychological Review Company.

Allport, G.W. (1947). The Genius of Kurt Lewin. J. Pers., 16, 1-10.

Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New

York: Holt.

Allport, G.W. (1950a). The Nature of Personality: Selected papers. Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Allport, G.W. (1955). Becoming Basic Considerations for a Psychology of

Personality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Allport, G.W. (1966). Traits Revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1-10.

American Psychological Association (1983). Publication Manual of the

American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Psychological Association (1985). Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological Testing. New York: MacMillian Pub-

lishing Co., Inc.

Cattell, R.B. (1943). The Description of Personality: Basic Traits resolved

into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36.

Cattell, R.B. (1946). Description and Measurement of Personality. Yonkers-

on-Hudson: World Book Co.

Cattell, R.B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality

factors. Psychometrika
Psychometrika, 12, 197-220.

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W. & Tatsuoka, M. (1980). Handbook for the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.

Cattell, R.B. (Ed.). (1966b). Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psy-

chology. Chicago: Randy McNally.

Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and Motivation Structure and Measure-

ment. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.

(64)
 References

Gough, H.G. (1965). The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Handley, P.G. (1982). The Relationship Between Supervisors’ and Train-

ees’ MBTI Styles and the Supervision Process. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 29, 508-515.
Psychology

Hartshorne, H., & May, M.A. (1930). Studies in the nature of character: III.
Studies in the organization of character. New York: MacMillian.

Holland, J.L. (1973). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kaiser, K.M. (1981) Use of the First 50 Items as a surrogate measure of

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G. Research on Psychological
Type.
Type

Krug, S.E. (1983). Interpreting 16PF Profile Patterns. Champaign: Institute

for Personality and Ability Testing.

Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-

Hill, 1935.

Lewin, K. (1936b). Some Social-Psychological Differences Between the

United States and Germany. Character and Personality, 4, 265-293.

Lewin, K. (1936a). Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: Mc-

Graw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts; Selected papers on group dynam-

ics. Gertrude W. Lewin (Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; Selected theoretical papers.

D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Lewin, K. (1954). Behavior and development as function of the total situa-

tion. In L. Carmichael (Ed.). Manual of child psychology. New York,
Wiley, 918-970.

MacDaid, G.P. (1983) A Comparison of Myer-Briggs Form G and Form H.

Paper presented at APT-V, College Park, MD.

Myers, I.B. (1962) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. Palo Alto, Cali-
fornia: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.M. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development
and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palto Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Nunnally, J.C., (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.

(65)
 References

Sealy, A.P., and Cattell, R.B. Adolescent personality trends in primary fac-
tors measured in the 16PF and the HSPQ questionnaires through ages
11-23. Brit. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol., 1959, 15, 3-21.

Thurstone, L.L. Multiple factor analysis. Psychology Review. l931, 38, 406-
427.

Thurstone, L.L. Multiple factor analysis: a development and expansion of the

vectors of the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Thurstone, L.L. Psychological implications of factor analysis. American

Psychologist, 1948, 3, 402-408.

Tolman, E.C. Kurt Lewin, 1890-1947. Psychol. Rev., 1948,55,1-4.

© 1989—revised 2012, Patrick Handley, Ph.D.

(66)