mapp - kcpltd.com

mapp

KCP questionnaire series

managerial and professional profiler

manual

mapp

KCP questionnaire series 2

manual

by

A M RobertsBSc, CPsychol, CSci, AFBPsS, FCIPD, Registered Psychologist

managerial and professional profiler

manual

mapp


manual

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to extend our special thanks and appreciation to the following people who gave generously of their ideas and time in the development of MAPP:

Andrew Munro of Nationwide for his enthusiastic contribution to the overall shape of the questionnaire.

Keith Gillies and Steve Wilkins of Mirage Design Consultants and Tracey Dale of KCP for their work in the design and production of the MAPP materials.

Pamela Fermor of KCP for her efforts in the production and analysis of the trial-ling materials.

The following organisations and their employees who helped with the trialling and standardisation of MAPP:

♦ Air Europe♦ BP Oil International Ltd♦ British Ports Federation♦ Hall Brothers (Whitefield) Ltd♦ International Leisure Group Ltd♦ Lloyds Bank plc♦ Nationwide ♦ Warner-Lambert (UK) Ltd♦ Search Elite Ltd♦ Uttlesford District Council

mapp


manual

CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAPP 6

3. THE MAPP SCALES 13

4. NORMS 48

5. NORMS FOR MAPP 50

6. RELIABILITY 54

7. SCALE INTERCORRELATIONS 59

8. VALIDITY 66

9. AVAILABILITY AND USE OF MAPP 86

10. MAPP ONLINE ADMINISTRATION 87

11. COMPUTER GENERATED REPORTS 88

12. INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES 89

13. MAPP FEEDBACK PRINCIPLES 90

14. SOME INTERPRETIVE HINTS FOR COMMON MAPP LINKS 91

15. ADDITIONAL INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES 93

16 MAPP AND JUNGIAN TYPE 94

mapp


manual

1. INTRODUCTION

Effective assessment of people at work is critical to selection, development, counselling and succession planning.

Some job-related attributes are best assessed through the use of ability tests, simulation exercises or interviews. Others lend themselves to measurement by self-report questionnaires. Generally, characteristics relating to temperament, style, preferences, typical responses, values and motivations can usefully be measured on this self-report basis.

The Managerial and Professional Profiler (MAPP) has been designed to measure all of the individual characteristics which are critical to the occupational setting and conducive to this form of measurement. During the early stages of MAPP’s development, existing self-report questionnaires were reviewed in order to identify the strengths and limitations of the instruments already available to practitioners. This work enabled KCP to produce a model of personality and values which incorporated the characteristics effectively measured by other questionnaires, but also included characteristics which are highly relevant but not assessed by existing instruments.

The information resulting from MAPP is both far reaching, in terms of the different domains explored, and concise. It is a state-of-the-art instrument for psychological assessment, developed to maximise its practical utility.

mapp


manual

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAPP

2.1 Market Analysis

This involved a critical evaluation of the employment market to ascertain which occupational groups would benefit most from using a sophisticated self-report questionnaire in assessment. Although personality characteristics and values are arguably relevant to all occupations, the demand for this kind of assessment method is greatest for the following groups:

• Graduates • Managers • Sales/Service Staff • Supervisors • Administrators

MAPP has therefore been targeted at these occupational groups.

2.2 Literature and Existing Product Search

A number of questionnaires are currently available for use in occupational assessments. These vary in their degrees of complexity, their structure, their presentation and their validity. Some of them are extremely simplistic and the use of them for any purpose is questionable, but most of the existing questionnaires have their own strengths and limitations. KCP have reviewed these extensively in order to build on the strengths and avoid the limitations. Further research involved reviewing relevant literature, including validation and utility studies.

Additional information was collected by talking to practitioners about perceived strengths and limitations of existing instruments. A number of specific points emerged in this way which have been useful in the MAPP’s conception. However, a more general issue concerned the management of staff turnover. While some questionnaires provide personality information which is relevant to performance in a given role, none of the existing instruments appeared to help in predicting job satisfaction and length of tenure. In order to make predictions of this kind it is necessary to have some insight into the motivational characteristics of the individual who is being considered for a job. More specifically, it is important to know what the individual values about work. The objective is to match individuals, in terms of their motivations and values, to the challenges, rewards and sacrifices which a particular job entails. An understanding of the individual’s work-related values also provides an opportunity to predict how well these are suited to the cultural characteristics of the organisation, or a department within an organisation.

mapp


manual

2.3 Model Conception: the Structure of MAPP

Having analysed market requirements, a “model” for this assessment instrument was formulated. The primary consideration here was to present profiled information about candidates in such a way as to maximise the practical usefulness of this information to the assessor. The model therefore had to take account of what people actually look for in a candidate and how best these data can be used.

Firstly a broad distinction was made between “outward” and “inward” dimensions.

The “outward” characteristics relate generally to the individual’s behaviour - what he/she does and how he/she does it. Included are attributes relating to the respondent’s interpersonal style and his/her work style. Cognitive or “intellectual” style attributes are included in this “outward” category insofar as these have a direct effect on the ways in which work is performed.

“Inward” characteristics are those which are experienced by the individual, but may not always be apparent to an outside observer. The individual’s emotions are included, together with his/her values. “Inward” dimensions are to do with how the individual feels about things, and often concern the respondent’s perceptions of what he/she would like or how things should be, rather than how they actually are. For example, an individual may value closeness to others (inward), without necessarily being particularly warm or affectionate in his/her behaviour (outward).

Within each of the “outward” and “inward” categories, there are two further subdivisions:

MAPP

“INWARD CHARACTERISTICS”“OUTWARD CHARACTERISTICS”

PEOPLE TASK FEELINGS VALUES

mapp


manual

People: Attributes relating to the respondent’s interpersonal style,

with particular emphasis on relationships with others at work.

Task: Individual differences in approach to tasks with emphasis

on preferred cognitive style.

Feelings: The emotional or temperamental aspect of personality.

Values: Characteristics pertaining to work-related values - an

analysis of what the individual holds as important or significant.

This classification facilitates the emergence of contrasts between “outward” and “inward” attributes. It also provides a breakdown of scales (into People, Task, Feelings, and Values) which is useful and accessible to practitioners with no training in psychology or personality theory.

mapp


manual2.4 Scale Definitions

A panel of human resource specialists and occupational psychologists listed and discussed all of the occupationally relevant characteristics which could effectively be assessed using a self-report questionnaire. These were gradually distilled into 32 scales each of which could be categorised under one of the four headings: People, Task, Feelings and Values (see Section 3). An additional “Response Style” scale was also defined which provides an indication of the individual’s style in answering the questions in the questionnaire, rather than their personality in the broader context.

All of the scales are bi-polar, which means that each end of each scale is characterised by certain kinds of behaviours, feelings or values. For example, Affectionate measures the extent to which the respondent is warm versus cold in their contact with people; Intuitive measures the extent to which the respondent is intuitive versus rational/analytical.

Full descriptions of the characteristics measured by each scale were written before the questionnaire items were generated. Modified versions of the scale descriptions are presented in Section 3.

2.5 Item Writing and Qualitative Item Analysis

A large number (40-50) of questions (or “items”) were then written by occupational psychologists for each of the 33 defined scales. Items were written in the form of statements which respondents would rate in terms of the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement. The items were written so that agreement (or “endorsement”) would characterise one end of the bi-polar scale, while disagreement would characterise the other end of the bi-polar scale.

The written items were then subjected to a qualitative item analysis. A number of criteria were applied in order to select items for the MAPP trialling versions.

The criteria included:

a. Impression Management This refers to the distortion of responses towards that which is socially

acceptable or desirable. Items for which such a response would be highly “tempting” to the candidate were excluded.

For example the item “I appear confident in most social situations” would be too susceptible to impression management, because most people in a selection situation would endorse the statement in order to present themselves in a favourable light.

A better item would be “In a group I am usually the one to start the conversation”, since shy, socially apprehensive individuals would be less likely to endorse this statement than the previous example.

mapp


manualb. Clarity of Language All items were screened for ambiguities or language which may be

unfamiliar to any representatives of the target groups for which the MAPP was designed. In particular, words and phrases which could be unfamiliar to specific groups (such as ethnic minorities) were disallowed.

c. Occupational Relevance Only items with a direct justifiable relevance to the occupational setting

were included.d. Scale Relevance Items were checked to ensure greater relevance to the scale for which they

were written than any other MAPP scale included in the trial version. Items which could be strongly related to more than one scale were screened out.

e. Scale Breadth Although the items for a particular scale must measure a discrete attribute,

a very narrow dimension results from simply rewording the same item again to generate several items per scale. Although this kind of narrow scale can be reliable, it’s validity in predicting job performance or job satisfaction tends to be slight. Care was therefore taken to promote scale breadth by choosing items which utilise different ideas, scenarios and wording.

f. Scale Gradation Items were selected to ensure that the range of possibilities for each

scale were represented. For each scale, then, some items are included to reference each of the two extremes of the dimension, while other included items represent the middle range between the two extremes.

To illustrate this, a number of items loading onto the Distractable scale are presented below:

High Distractable I can hardly bear to persevere with boring jobs.

I am easily distracted from repetitive work.

I get rather frustrated if I have to do a highly detailed piece of work.

Medium Distractable I have a disciplined approach to laborious

work.

I am often the one to finish off the details of a job.

Low Distractable Once I get started on a task, nothing can distract me.

The 660 selected items (20 per scale) comprised the initial MAPP trialling versions.

mapp


manual

2.6 Trialling of the Initial Version

The questionnaire items were organised into two booklets which could be completed either together or separately. A further two booklets were also produced for trialling purposes in which the sequence of items was altered in order to control for motivational factors which may vary during different stages in the completion of a questionnaire.

The initial version of MAPP was then completed by a sample of 200 people, consisting of:

• Job incumbents from industry and commerce, including graduates, managers, other professional personnel, sales staff, supervisors and administrators.

• Undergraduate students.

• Applicants to positions in industry and commerce.

2.7 Item Analyses

Having collected responses to the questionnaire from 200 participants, extensive item analyses took place. The overriding objective here was to select items for the final (refined) version which would comprise reliable scales, with good ranges, low susceptibility to impression management and which would measure discreet characteristics.

Item selection took into account:

• Item means and standard deviations, to ensure the exclusion of items with excessive endorsement rates and inclusion of items with good response range.

• Item-scale correlations, to ensure that selected items are all measuring the characteristic measured by the scale itself. Inclusion of items with high item-scale correlations produces a refined scale with high internal consistency. Exclusion of items with high correlations with scales other than their own reduces intercorrelations between scales.

• Item correlations with the Response Style scale. Having refined the Response Style (“Self Critical”) scale, this was used as a criterion for evaluating items for the remaining 32 scales. Items with lower correlations with the Self Critical scale were selected on the basis that these were less influenced by response style factors, and, in particular, impression management. Hence, those items included in the refined version are those for which individual differences in responding are representative of actual differences in personality or values, rather than differences in style of responding to the questionnaire.

mapp


manual

• Applicant/incumbent comparisons were also useful in the rejection of items which were susceptible to impression management. This is based on the argument that job incumbents, who are simply asked to complete the questionnaire for trialling purposes, have no motivation to “fake” (or manage their responses), while applicants are motivated to present themselves in a favourable light and may therefore distort their responses accordingly. Questions for which there were large differences in scores between applicant and incumbent subsamples were therefore identified as items for which applicants typically manage their responses towards their perceptions of the job requirements, and were not included in the final form.

2.8 Refined Version

Item analysis resulted in the selection of 12 items per scale (out of the 20 per scale included in the initial trialling version). Of these 12 items per scale, six were positively loading and six were negatively loading (endorsement of positively loading items results in scores towards the right on the profile chart; endorsement of negatively loading items results in scores towards the left on the profile chart). Scale reliabilities (internal consistencies) were computed for the refined versions of the 33 scales and are presented in Section 8. Scale intercorrelations were also computed (see Section 9) to ensure that all of the final scales provide some information about the respondent not already available from another scale.

mapp


manual

3. THE MAPP SCALES

MAPP consists of 34 bi-polar scales. Two of these are Response Style measures: the first indicates how the respondent has used the five point rating scale, and the second indicates the extent to which the respondent has been self-critical and frank in giving their ratings. The remaining 32 scales all measure characteristics which are important in the occupational setting and can be categorised under the headings People, Task, Feelings and Values. The scale titles are listed below:

RESPONSE STYLECentral TendencySelf-Critical

PEOPLE TASK FEELINGS VALUES

Affectionate Free- Self-Assured Material WealthSociable Thinking Anxious CompetitionConfident Strategic Sensitive Results Convincing Intuitive Expressive Recognition Perceptive Distractable Personal AuthorityCandid Systematic ResponsibilityAssertive Cautious IntellectUncompromising Novelty Self-Expression Altruism Intimacy Levity Security Work

Although each scale has a single title, which describes one end of the scale, all of the dimensions are bi-polar. For example, Affectionate measures the extent to which the respondent is warm versus cold in their contact with people; Intuitive measures the extent to which the respondent is intuitive versus rational/analytical.

Descriptions of “high scorers” and “low scorers” for each scale are presented below to provide an understanding of the meaning of each dimension.

mapp


manual

3.1 Response Style

RØ Central Tendency

This is an indication of the individual’s style in answering the questions rather than their personality in the broader context. The Central Tendency score can be generated using the Handheld, PC or CGIR administrations of MAPP.

LOW SCORER DESCRIPTION

Has tended to respond more radically, frequently using the extremeoptions(Strongly agree and Strongly disagree) but rarely using the middle option (In between). Has tended towards the extremes of the five point rating scale.

HIGH SCORER DESCRIPTION

Has tended to respond cautiously, rarely using the extreme options (Strongly agree and Strongly disagree) but frequently using the middle option (In between). Has tended towards the centre of the five point rating scale.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MAPP SCALES:

Central tendency has no strong positive or negative relationships with any other MAPP scales.

CALCULATION OF THE CENTRAL TENDENCY SCORE

The Central tendency score is based on all 228 items in Part 1 of the MAPP questionnaire. Points are accrued to a running total as shown below:

Response Points A Strongly disagree Zero B Disagree One C In between Two D Agree One E Strongly agree Zero

Thus respondents accrue maximum points each time they select the middle option and minimum points each time they select one of the extreme options.The total for all 228 items is divided by 10 before it is norm-referenced.

mapp


manual

R1 Self-critical

This is also an indication of the individual’s style in answering the questions rather than their personality in the broader context.


Has tended to give responses which are socially acceptable or desirable. Has been less self-critical in self-evaluations. May have oriented responses towards perceptions of job-requirements.


Has tended to respond in an open, frank and self-exposing manner. Has probably attempted to present self in a way which is true to life.


Respondents with higher Self-critical scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T4 Distractable (0.46) • F3 Sensitive (0.41) • V12 Levity (0.39)

The positive relationship of Self-critical with Distractable is likely to arise from differences in ways that different respondents complete the questionnaire, rather than from a real relationship between the characteristics of being self-critical and distractable. Respondents who are less self-critical are less likely to admit to being easily distracted, and more likely to present themselves as conscientious and disciplined. Respondents with higher scores on Self-critical are likely to be more frank about being easily bored or failing to finish work.

mapp


manual

3.2 People

P1 Affectionate


Cool; guarded; seemingly unfriendly. Maintains distance. Avoids involvement in other people’s problems. Appears unsympathetic. Doesn’t express affection easily.


Warm and affectionate. Is kind-hearted and caring. Likely to be approachable.Shows affection for people readily.


Respondents with higher Affectionate scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P2 Sociable (0.41)

mapp


manual

P2 Sociable


Enjoys own company. Doesn’t feel a strong need for social contact. Happy with solitary activities.


Likes company. Avoids solitary pursuits. Prefers to work with others rather than alone.


Respondents with higher Sociable scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P1 Affectionate (0.41) • F4 Expressive (0.41) • V11 Intimacy (0.51)

mapp


manual

P3 Confident


Shy and reticent, particularly in unfamiliar social settings. Unable to disguise apprehension in difficult social situations. Reluctant to speak up boldly. Finds social mixing difficult.


Projects a confident image in all social situations. Finds it easy to overcome shyness. Mixes well. Eager to speak up and contribute.


Respondents with higher Confident scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P4 Convincing (0.58) • P7 Assertive (0.59) • T1 Free-thinking (0.38) • F1 Self-assured (0.53) • V8 Novelty (0.38)

Respondents with lower Confident scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T6 Cautious (-0.47)

mapp


manual

Respondents with lower Convincing scores tend to have higher scores on:


P4 Convincing


May fail to convince others, even when right. Avoids pushing ideas on others; agrees to differ. Dislikes selling/negotiating.


Persistent in convincing others of a particular view. Likes negotiating. Enjoys the process of persuasion. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MAPP SCALES:

Respondents with higher Convincing scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P3 Confident (0.58) • P7 Assertive (0.66) • P8 Uncompromising (0.44) • T1 Free-thinking (0.44) • F1 Self-assured (0.54) • V2 Competition (0.43) • V8 Novelty (0.38)

mapp


manual

P5 Perceptive


Uninterested in the complexities of people’s motives and feelings. Takes others at face value. Tends not to notice subtle hints in people’s behaviour.


Interested in motives behind behaviour. Notices what people are thinking or feeling. Likes to understand people.


Perceptive has no strong positive or negative relationships with any other MAPP scales.

mapp


manual

P6 Candid


Artful; calculating. Cautious about revealing thoughts and opinions. Tactful; discreet. May put on a false exterior.


Frank and open about opinions. Speaks mind. Lets peo-ple know where they stand. May be considered blunt or tact-less. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MAPP SCALES:

Respondents with lower Candid scores tend to have higher scores on:

• F3 Sensitive (-0.38)

mapp


manual

P7 Assertive


Submissive; uncomfortable in leadership role. Avoids taking control of others. Tends not to push self forward.


Dominant; assumes leadership. Gives directions; organises people. Asserts self. Makes presence felt. May be considered overbearing.


Respondents with higher Assertive scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P3 Confident (0.59) • P4 Convincing (0.66) • P8 Uncompromising (0.45) • T1 Free-thinking (0.38) • V2 Competition (0.46) • V3 Results (0.41) • V6 Responsibility (0.45) • V8 Novelty (0.42) Respondents with lower Assertive scores tend to have higher scores on:


mapp


manual

P8 Uncompromising


Would rather capitulate than risk conflict. Accepts not always having own way. Makes concessions and compromises. Flexible, but may lack conviction.


Stubborn; insists on getting own way. Pursues own route without compromise. Gets very frustrated if own expectations are not met.


Respondents with higher Uncompromising scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P4 Convincing (0.44) • P7 Assertive (0.45) • T1 Free-thinking (0.36)

mapp


manual

3.3 Task

T1 Free-thinking


Accepts existing systems and methods. Adapts to existing practices and routines. Does things by the book. Prefers work which is clearly defined and doesn’t require a unique or creative approach.


Looks at problems in a fresh, unconstrained manner. Avoids preconceptions. Likes tasks for which systems/methods have not yet been established. Enjoys creative innovation.


Respondents with higher Free-thinking scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P3 Confident (0.38 • P4 Convincing (0.44) • P7 Assertive (0.38) • T2 Strategic (0.40) • F1 Self-assured (0.38) • V6 Responsibility (0.35) • V8 Novelty (0.61) • V9 Self-expression (0.58)

Respondents with lower Free-thinking scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T6 Cautious (-0.48) • V14 Security (-0.36)

mapp


manual

T2 Strategic


Concerned with the nitty gritty of task execution. Planning is shorter-term, and more detailed/specific than strategic. More interested in practice than theory.


Takes a global perspective. Makes longer-term plans/policies. Concerned with wider implications. Leans towards the theoretical and may be less concerned with the pragmatic.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MAPP SCALES:Respondents with higher Strategic scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T1 Free-thinking (0.40) • V7 Intellect (0.53)

mapp


manual

T3 Intuitive


Rational; analytical. Relies on hard facts and reasoning. Avoids assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Tries to be objective and logical.


Sets more store by impression than logic. Makes intuitive decisions based on what feels right, rather than analysing hard factual data.


Respondents with lower Intuitive scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T5 Systematic (-0.38) • T6 Cautious (-0.38)

mapp


manual

T4 Distractable


Disciplined approach to monotonous or repetitive work. Conscientious; likes to get things finished off. Concerned to meet deadlines and avoids distractions in order to do so.


Easily bored by repetitive tasks. May fail to finish less interesting work. Avoids involvement with routine processing. Easily distracted.


Respondents with higher Distractable scores tend to have higher scores on:

• R1 Self-critical (0.46) • F3 Sensitive (0.35) • V11 Intimacy (0.36) • V12 Levity (0.41)

Respondents with lower Distractable scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T5 Systematic (-0.57)

mapp


manual

T5 Systematic


Disorderly approach to work. Avoids rigid systems. Deals with problems as they arise. Crisis driven. Tends not to plan in advance; muddles through.


Organised, methodical approach to work. Maps out what needs to be done in advance. Uses systems and priorities to structure work. Keeps things neat and up-to-date.


Respondents with higher Systematic scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V3 Results (0.52)

Respondents with lower Systematic scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T3 Intuitive (-0.38) • T4 Distractable (-0.57) • V11 Intimacy (-0.38)

mapp


manual

T6 Cautious


Enjoys taking risks and seizing opportunities. Dislikes having to delay. Prefers situations where quick thinking and fast decisions are required.


Requires unhurried consideration before coming to a decision. Dislikes being rushed. Avoids risks and impulsive actions.


Respondents with higher Cautious scores tend to have higher scores on:

• F2 Anxious (0.38)

Respondents with lower Cautious scores tend to have higher scores on: • P3 Confident (-0.47) • P4 Convincing (-0.46) • P7 Assertive (-0.49) • T1 Free-thinking (-0.48)

mapp


manual

3.4 Feelings

F1 Self-assured


Self-doubting. Low self-esteem. Feels self-conscious when being observed. May need to be encouraged by others to perform or take on particular challenges. May feel inferior to others.


High self-esteem. Feels good about self, even in difficult situations. Rarely experiences self-doubt. May feel superior to others.


Respondents with higher Self-assured scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P3 Confident (0.53) • P4 Convincing (0.54) • P7 Assertive (0.55) • T1 Free-thinking (0.38) • V6 Responsibility (0.39) • V8 Novelty (0.37)

Respondents with lower Self-assured scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T6 Cautious (-0.46) • F2 Anxious (-0.53) • P3 Confident (0.53)

mapp


manual

F2 Anxious


Calm; relaxed. A low level of general anxiety. Usually feels that everything will turn out well. Only worries when circumstances are critical. Takes pressure in stride.


Generally anxious, even when things are going well. Maintains an internal tension. Rarely feels completely relaxed. Worries about work. Finds it difficult to switch off.


Respondents with higher Anxious scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T6 Cautious (0.38) • F3 Sensitive (0.52)

Respondents with lower Anxious scores tend to have higher scores on:

• F1 Self-assured (-0.53)

mapp


manual

F3 Sensitive


Thick skinned. Not concerned by what others think. Able to shrug off criticism. Rarely feels strong emotions. Difficult to provoke or upset.


Easily upset. Takes things personally and finds it hard to ignore criticism. Is concerned about what others think. Is more emotionally affected by events. Strongly moved by feelings.


Respondents with higher Sensitive scores tend to have higher scores on:

• R1 Self-critical (0.41) • T4 Distractable (0.35) • F2 Anxious (0.52) • V4 Recognition (0.48) • V11 Intimacy (0.47)

Respondents with lower Sensitive scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P6 Candid (-0.38) • F1 Self-assured (-0.50)

mapp


manual

F4 Expressive


Keeps feelings concealed from others. Doesn’t like to reveal emotional state. Can appear calm even when angry or otherwise emotionally affected. Bottles feelings up.


Readily shows feelings. May find it difficult to control emotions. More volatile. Prefers to let off steam rather than hiding feelings.


Respondents with higher Expressive scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P2 Sociable (0.41)

mapp


manual

3.5 Values

V1 Material wealth


Not interested in money or outward displays of wealth. Places more emphasis on interest or enjoyment at work than on material reward. Doesn’t value the pursuit of possessions or comfort. Rejects materialism.


Puts emphasis on material wealth and domestic comfort. Is motivated by financial reward. May be jealous of those who are better off. Likes spending money. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MAPP SCALES:

Respondents with higher Material wealth scores tend to have higher scores on

• V2 Competition (0.46) • V5 Personal Authority (0.44)

Respondents with lower Material wealth scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V10 Altruism (-0.43)

mapp


manual

V2 Competition


Prefers co-operation to competition. Is less concerned about making comparisons between self and others. Loses gracefully. Is interested in own standards rather than those of others.


Motivated by competition. Compares own achievements with others. Measures own success on a relative basis. Strongly dislikes losing. May feel envious of others.


Respondents with higher Competition scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P4 Convincing (0.43) • P7 Assertive (0.46) • V1 Material wealth (0.46) • V3 Results (0.45) • V5 Personal authority (0.45) • V6 Responsibility (0.43)

mapp


manual

V3 Results


Motivated more by process than outcome. Low need for achievement. Able to be contented, even when not working towards a particular goal.


Motivated by the potential to get results. Obtains job satisfaction primarily from seeing own achievements. Sets mind on the final outcome. Likes to get on with things.


Respondents with higher Results scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P7 Assertive (0.41) • T5 Systematic (0.52) • V2 Competition (0.45) • V5 Personal authority (0.43) • V6 Responsibility (0.54) • V9 Self-expression (0.35) • V14 Work (0.46)

Respondents with lower Results scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V11 Intimacy (-0.39)

mapp


manual

V4 Recognition


Low need for respect/recognition. Relatively indifferent to people’s opinions. Doesn’t expect thanks for good work. Motivated more by own perceptions of good work than other people’s.


Values respect and praise from others (including peers, subordinates, boss). Responds well to judicious praise. Likes to be seen to be good at job. Motivated by “pats on the back”.


Respondents with higher Recognition scores tend to have higher scores on:

• F3 Sensitive (0.48) • V5 Personal authority (0.35)

mapp


manual

V5 Personal authority


Favours democratic management. Sets little store by status. Dislikes having to submit to the authority of others. Negative values for autocratic leadership. Questions authority and expects own judgements to be questioned by others. HIGH SCORER DESCRIPTION

Values respect for own status. Enjoys the power element of personal authority. Favours a hierarchical reporting structure. Retains the right to demand unquestioning support from subordinates.


Respondents with higher Personal authority scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V1 Material wealth (0.44) • V2 Competition (0.45) • V3 Results (0.43) • V4 Recognition (0.35) • V13 Security (0.38) • V14 Work (0.42)

mapp


manual

V6 Responsibility


Unwilling to take on burdensome responsibilities. Would rather share accountability for critically important jobs. May feel more comfortable when somebody else is in charge.


Finds own responsibilities a reward in themselves. Demotivated when not given responsibility for tasks. Likes to have accountability, and is unwilling to share this with others.


Respondents with higher Responsibility scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P7 Assertive (0.45) • T1 Free-thinking (0.35) • F1 Self-assured (0.39) • V2 Competition (0.43) • V3 Results (0.54) • V8 Novelty (0.47) • V9 Self-expression (0.40)

mapp


manual

V7 Intellect


Not impressed by intellectuals. Negative values for academics. Believes theoretic arguments to be irrelevant. Feels that society attaches too much significance to intelligence.


Admires people with high intellectual capacity. Prefers work with an intellectual content. Likes the company of clever people. Discontented in an environment with little intellectual stimulation.


Respondents with higher Intellect scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T2 Strategic (0.53)

mapp


manual

V8 Novelty


Favours the familiar and predictable. Maintains interest after novelty has worn off. Rarely seeks novelty for its own sake. Contented with unchanging work and responsibilities.


Dislikes the predictable. Looks for new experiences. Dissatisfied in an unchanging environment. Becomes restless with work as its novelty wears off.


Respondents with higher Novelty scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P3 Confident (0.38) • P4 Convincing (0.35) • P7 Assertive (0.42) • T1 Free-thinking (0.61) • F1 Self-assured (0.37) • V6 Responsibility (0.47) • V9 Self-expression (0.53)

Respondents with lower Novelty scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T6 Cautious (-0.47) • V14 Security (-0.35)

mapp


manual

V9 Self-expression


Has less need to put something of self into work. Less likely to look for opportunities for self-expression. Puts little emphasis on creativity as a satisfier at work. Content with work that provides little outlet for individuality.


Likes to express self at work. Dislikes work which leaves no scope for originality. Is motivated by contributing something of self. Likely to be more individualistic.


Respondents with higher Self-expression scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T1 Free-thinking (0.58) • V3 Results (0.35) • V6 Responsibility (0.40) • V8 Novelty (0.53)

mapp


manual

V10 Altruism


Values personal rather than collective responsibility. Feels that first duty is towards self. Has less sympathy for those who don’t or won’t help themselves. Doesn’t feel a need to work in a caring environment.


Places emphasis on work that benefits others. More likely to make sacrifices for other people. May be unhappy with work that lacks a positive impact upon others. Is motivated by the concept of service.


Respondents with lower Altruism scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V1 Material wealth (-0.43)

mapp


manual

V11 Intimacy


Less dependent on friendship. More oriented towards task than people. Sees intimacy in the workplace as inappropriate. Need for affection is relatively low.


Attaches very high value to closeness in relationships. Needs affection and friendship. Values camaraderie. Puts relationships before other needs/rewards.


Respondents with higher Intimacy scores tend to have higher scores on:

• P2 Sociable (0.41) • T4 Distractable (0.36) • F3 Sensitive (0.47)

Respondents with lower Intimacy scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T5 Systematic (-0.38) • V3 Results (-0.39)

mapp


manual

V12 Levity


Takes work and self seriously. Dislikes frivolity. Feels that people are often too flippant. Takes a solemn, reflective view.


Enjoys jokes, values humour and light-heartedness. Feels that seeing the funny side is healthy. Enjoys the company of jovial people.


Respondents with higher Levity scores tend to have higher scores on:

• R1 Self-critical (0.39) • T4 Distractable (0.41)

mapp


manual

V13 Security


Rarely or never worries about the long term future. Attaches little importance to the notion of security. May find the prospect of a “safe” future unchallenging.


Needs security. Will avoid choices which involve the risk of losing security. Likes to know how the future will develop. Unsettled by uncertainty. Demotivated when the future is unsafe.


Respondents with higher Security scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V5 Personal authority (0.38)

Respondents with lower Security scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T1 Free-thinking (-0.36) • V8 Novelty (-0.35)

mapp


manual

V14 Work


Attaches no value to work for its own sake. Values other aspects of life as much or more than career. May choose not to work if it became financially unnecessary.


Feels that work is necessary for character and self-respect. Enjoys hard work. Identifies with career. Would be miserable if unemployed. Believes that people should work whether they have to or not. Misses work when away.


Respondents with higher Work scores tend to have higher scores on:

• V3 Results (0.46) • V5 Personal authority (0.42)

Respondents with lower Work scores tend to have higher scores on:

• T4 Distractable (-0.37)

mapp


manual4. NORMS

Normative data for a questionnaire are produced by asking a large sample of people to complete the questionnaire. The sample of people is called a norm group and the purpose of collecting normative data is to enable scores derived from subsequent administrations of the questionnaire to be interpreted by comparing these scores with those of a norm group. We can then conclude that an individual’s pattern of responses on a particular scale is either around the average in comparison with the norm group, or tending towards one end of the bi-polar dimension.

There are a number of ways of expressing a normed score. The simplest index is the percentile.

4.1 Percentiles

Normative data are usually published in the form of norm tables. Percentile norm tables are used to transform raw scores into percentiles. If a respondent has scored at the 50th percentile on a particular scale, this means that his/her score is average in comparison with the norm group (the score is higher than 50% of the group and lower than the other 50%).

A score at the 89th percentile means that the respondent’s score is higher than 89% of the norm group (and lower than the remaining 11%): the score is quite well above the average.

Percentiles have the advantage that they are easy to understand. However, they have the disadvantage that they are not equal units of measurement and tend to exaggerate differences near the mean and collapse differences at the low and high extremes of the score range.

4.2 Z-scores

Standard scores (such as Z-scores, T-scores and stens) are not susceptible to the problems of the percentile scale described above. The Z-score scale is the most basic of the standard score systems. A Z-score is computed from a raw score using the mean and standard deviation for the norm group, and indicates how many standard deviations a score is above or below the mean:

Z-score = raw score - mean standard deviation

A Z-score is therefore a raw score which has been changed to standard deviation units. A Z-score of 1.00 means that the raw score is one standard deviation above the mean (in comparison with the norm group). A Z-score of -2.00 means that the raw score is two standard deviations below the mean(in comparison with the norm group). A Z-score of 0 represents an average score.

mapp


manual

Although Z-scores are the basis of all standard score scales, they are not widely used in the interpretation of self-report questionnaires. This is partly because scores need to be expressed to one or two decimal places in order to be sufficiently precise, and all scores below the average are negative numbers. In order to avoid decimals and negatives, the sten-score scale may be used.

4.3 Stens (“Standard Tens”)

Sten scores are calculated from Z-scores as follows:

Sten score = (Z-score x 2) + 5.5

The result is then rounded to the nearest whole number (to avoid decimals). The range of sten scores is 1 (well below average) to 10 (well above average). Although it is theoretically possible for a sten score to be below 1 or above 10, scores at these extremes are usually expressed as 1 and 10 respectively in order to conceptualise all scores in the 1-10 range.

The mean of a sten score scale is 5.5 and the standard deviation is 2. A sten score of 5 or 6 therefore represents an average score in comparison with the norm group. A sten of 8 is quite well above average and is roughly equivalent to the 89th percentile. A score of 3 is quite well below average and is roughly equivalent to the 11th percentile.

mapp


manual

5. NORMS FOR MAPP

The Managerial and Professional Profiler (MAPP) was first published in late 1989 and has since been used in the assessment of many thousands of people both within the UK and internationally.

This latest norm update provides supplementary data to the 1993 update and is based upon data that has been provided by client organisations.

MAPP profile charts are pre-normed with the composite group, although users may make use of a range of additional norms ranging from senior managers to graduates. These norms are available in our free norm supplement.

THE COMPOSITE NORM GROUP

This composite norm group has been generated from a range of MAPP applications including selection, management development, team building and career counselling. The occupational groups represented are primarily middle and senior managers, although there is a smaller proportion of graduates, non-managerial professionals and junior managers. The male/female ratio in this sample is approximately 2:1, which interestingly mirrors the 1993, 2000 and 2010 ratios.

The scale means and SD’s of the composite are broadly similar to those of the earlier composite groups..

Additional norms are available for US, Australian, French, Dutch and German populations.

mapp


manual

5.2 Summary Statistics for Composite Norm Group

N Mean SD R1 Self-critical 28901 35.53 7.51 P1 Affectionate 28901 41.61 7.31 P2 Sociable 28901 39.26 7.68 P3 Confident 28901 42.81 7.65 P4 Convincing 28901 35.56 6.42 P5 Perceptive 28901 43.33 6.77 P6 Candid 28901 38.12 5.64 P7 Assertive 28901 41.66 6.42 P8 Uncompromising 28901 33.46 5.67 T1 Free-thinking 28901 38.60 6.17 T2 Strategic 28901 38.53 6.67 T3 Intuitive 28901 36.85 6.63 T4 Distractable 28901 33.55 7.98 T5 Systematic 28901 43.02 7.54 T6 Cautious 28901 32.20 6.74 F1 Self-assured 28901 38.00 8.81 F2 Anxious 28901 33.38 8.29 F3 Sensitive 28901 36.59 8.02 F4 Expressive 28901 35.08 7.69 V1 Material wealth 28901 37.43 6.34 V2 Competition 28901 37.76 6.62 V3 Results 28901 40.23 6.04 V4 Recognition 28901 36.55 7.27 V5 Personal authority 28901 38.07 6.79 V6 Responsibility 28901 39.07 6.71 V7 Intellect 28901 37.94 6.41 V8 Novelty 28901 40.55 7.67 V9 Self-expression 28901 39.82 7.03 V10 Altruism 28901 36.15 6.58 V11 Intimacy 28901 35.63 6.05 V12 Levity 28901 39.07 6.09 V13 Security 28901 36.15 7.00 V14 Work 28901 38.56 6.76

mapp


manual

St

en

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

10

R

espo

nse

Styl

e R

1 Se

lf-cr

itica

l 12

-20

21-2

4 25

-28

29-3

1 32

-35

36-3

9 40

-43

44-4

6 47

-50

5

1-60

Peop

le

P1 A

ffect

iona

te

12-2

6 27

-30

31-3

4 35

-37

38-4

1 42

-45

46-4

8 49

-52

53-5

6

57-

60

P2

Soc

iabl

e 12

-23

24-2

7 28

-31

32-3

5 36

-39

40-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0 51

-54

5

5-60

P3 C

onfid

ent

12-2

7 28

-31

32-3

5 36

-38

39-4

2 43

-46

47-5

0 51

-54

55-5

8

59-

60

P4

Con

vinc

ing

12-2

3 24

-26

27-2

9 30

-32

33-3

5 36

-39

40-4

2 43

-45

46-4

8

49-

60

P5

Per

cept

ive

12-2

9 30

-33

34-3

6 37

-39

40-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0 51

-53

54-5

6

57-

60

P6

Can

did

12-2

6 27

-29

30-3

2 33

-35

36-3

8 39

-40

41-4

3 44

-46

47-4

9

50-

60

P7

Ass

ertiv

e 12

-28

29-3

2 33

-35

36-3

8 39

-41

42-4

4 45

-48

49-5

1 52

-54

5

5-60

P8 U

ncom

prom

isin

g 12

-22

23-2

4 25

-27

28-3

0 31

-33

34-3

6 37

-39

40-4

1 42

-44

4

5-60

Task

T1

Fre

e-th

inki

ng

12-2

6 27

-29

30-3

2 33

-35

36-3

8 39

-41

42-4

4 45

-47

48-5

0

51-

60

T2

Stra

tegi

c 12

-25

26-2

8 29

-31

32-3

5 36

-38

39-4

1 42

-45

46-4

8 49

-51

5

2-60

T3 In

tuiti

ve

12-2

3 24

-26

27-3

0 31

-33

34-3

6 37

-40

41-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0

51-

60

T4

Dis

tract

able

12

-17

18-2

1 22

-25

26-2

9 30

-33

34-3

7 38

-41

42-4

5 46

-49

5

0-60

T5 S

yste

mat

ic

12-2

7 28

-31

32-3

5 36

-39

40-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0 51

-54

55-5

8

59-

60

T6

Cau

tious

12

-18

19-2

2 23

-25

26-2

8 29

-32

33-3

5 36

-38

39-4

2 43

-45

4

6-60

Feel

ings

F1

Sel

f-ass

ured

12

-20

21-2

4 25

-29

30-3

3 34

-37

38-4

2 43

-46

47-5

1 52

-55

5

6-60

F2 A

nxio

us

12-1

6 17

-20

21-2

5 26

-29

30-3

3 34

-37

38-4

1 42

-45

46-4

9

50-

60

F3

Sen

sitiv

e 12

-20

21-2

4 25

-28

29-3

2 33

-36

37-4

0 41

-44

45-4

8 49

-52

5

3-60

F4 E

xpre

ssiv

e 12

-19

20-2

3 24

-27

28-3

1 32

-35

36-3

8 39

-42

43-4

6 47

-50

5

1-60

Sten

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10

mapp


manual

St

en

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

Va

lues

V1

Mat

eria

l Wea

lth

12-2

4 25

-27

28-3

1 32

-34

35-3

7 38

-40

41-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0 51

-60

V2

Com

petit

ion

12-2

4 25

-27

28-3

1 32

-34

35-3

7 38

-41

42-4

4 45

-47

48-5

0 51

-60

V3

Res

ults

12

-28

29-3

1 32

-34

35-3

7 38

-40

41-4

3 44

-46

47-4

9 50

-52

53-6

0

V4 R

ecog

nitio

n 12

-22

23-2

5 26

-29

30-3

2 33

-36

37-4

0 41

-43

44-4

7 48

-51

52-6

0

V5 P

erso

nal a

utho

rity

12-2

4 25

-27

28-3

1 32

-34

35-3

8 39

-41

42-4

4 45

-48

49-5

1 52

-60

V6

Res

pons

ibilit

y 12

-25

26-2

8 29

-32

33-3

5 36

-39

40-4

2 43

-45

46-4

9 50

-52

53-6

0

V7 In

telle

ct

12-2

5 26

-28

29-3

1 32

-34

35-3

7 38

-41

42-4

4 45

-47

48-5

0 51

-60

V8

Nov

elty

12

-25

26-2

9 30

-32

33-3

6 37

-40

41-4

4 45

-48

49-5

2 53

-55

56-6

0

V9 S

elf-e

xpre

ssio

n 12

-25

26-2

9 30

-32

33-3

6 37

-39

40-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0 51

-53

54-6

0

V10

Altru

ism

12

-22

23-2

6 27

-29

30-3

2 33

-36

37-3

9 40

-42

43-4

6 47

-49

50-6

0

V11

Intim

acy

12-2

3 24

-26

27-2

9 30

-32

33-3

6 37

-39

40-4

2 43

-46

47-4

9 50

-60

V1

2 Le

vity

12

-26

27-2

9 30

-32

33-3

6 37

-39

40-4

2 43

-45

46-4

8 49

-51

52-6

0

V13

Secu

rity

12-2

2 23

-25

26-2

9 30

-32

33-3

6 37

-39

40-4

3 44

-46

47-5

0 51

-60

V1

4 W

ork

12-2

5 26

-28

29-3

1 32

-35

36-3

8 39

-41

42-4

5 46

-48

49-5

2 53

-60

St

en

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

mapp


manual

6. RELIABILITY

No psychometric instrument can measure an individual characteristic with 100% accuracy. It is therefore important to know about the level of consistency and precision offered by each scale incorporated in a psychological test or questionnaire.

6.1 What is Test Reliability?

Test reliability refers to a test’s degree of precision, or accuracy of measurement. To understand this concept, we can use the analogy of measuring distance (or “length”). If we wanted to measure the length of a football pitch, we could pace from one end to the other counting each pace as roughly 1 metre. This would provide us with an imprecise indication of the football pitch’s length.

A more reliable (or precise) method would be to use a tape measure. However, a tape measure is not the most reliable instrument for measuring a length or distance: very precise devices such as the micrometer can be used to measure the nearest thousandth of a millimetre. So, “pacing”, the tape measure and the micrometer are three methods of measuring distance which differ in their reliabilities. To measure a football pitch it would be absurd to use a micrometer, but “pacing” may be too inaccurate: the level of reliability offered by the tape measure method may make it the most appropriate option.

Like the “pacing” and tape measure methods, testing has a degree of inherent unreliability. In evaluating tests or questionnaires for use in assessment, we are concerned to ensure that the test’s reliability is acceptable. If scores are too inaccurate, wrong decisions will be made.

The reliability of a test or questionnaire scale is expressed as a correlation coefficient and is called a reliability coefficient.

A reliability coefficient of 0.0 means the test or scale has zero reliability; it is completely inaccurate and the characteristic is being measured no more precisely than a random guess. A reliability of 1.0 means that the test or scale is 100% reliable; it measures the characteristic with perfect precision. However, this degree of reliability is never actually found.

A reliability coefficient is thus an index with a theoretical range of 0 to 1. In practice, reliabilities generally vary between 0.5 and 0.9.

As a rule of thumb, it is generally not advisable to use a questionnaire with scale reliabilities below 0.6.

mapp


manual

6.2 Different Kinds of Reliability

TEST-RETEST RELIABILITYThe test-retest reliability coefficient is the correlation between the scores obtained by the same person on two separate administrations of the test or questionnaire. If results are generally different on the second administration from the first, the test-retest reliability coefficient will be low. If there is a good relationship between scores on the two occasions, the coefficient will be high.

ALTERNATE-FORM RELIABILITYThis is computed by comparing scores obtained by the same individuals on two forms (or versions) of the same test. Of course, this method is limited to tests and questionnaire scales for which more than one form exists.

INTERNAL CONSISTENCYOnly one administration of the questionnaire is required to compute the internal consistency coefficients of the scales. These are derived by splitting the scale questions into two and then correlating the respective totals for the two halves. Sophisticated statistical techniques can be applied to split the questions in different ways in order to take an average of the correlations resulting from each split. This average correlation is then identified as the internal consistency of the scale, and should be high if all the questions making up a scale are measuring the same characteristic.

6.3 Internal Consistency Estimates for MAPP

The following statistics were derived from a sample of 201 managers, profession-als and undergraduate students. Both job incumbents and applicants are included in the sample. The statistics are based on the 12 items per scale selected for the final version of MAPP.

mapp


manual

MAPP INTERNAL CONSISTENCIES

RESPONSE STYLE Mean SD Internal Consistency SEm (Cronbach’s Alpha)Self Critical 38.64 7.77 0.85 3.01

PEOPLE Mean SD Internal Consistency SEm (Cronbach’s Alpha)Affectionate 39.76 6.63 0.80 2.97

Sociable 39.16 7.26 0.85 2.81

Confident 40.45 8.06 0.85 3.12

Convincing 33.95 6.53 0.79 2.99

Perceptive 41.27 6.31 0.84 2.52

Candid 38.12 6.11 0.77 2.93

Assertive 39.07 7.34 0.86 2.75

Uncompromising 36.17 6.54 0.82 2.77

TASK Mean SD Internal Consistency SEm (Cronbach’s Alpha)Free thinking 36.41 6.13 0.76 3.00

Strategic 36.75 6.70 0.81 2.92

Intuitive 36.83 6.33 0.80 2.83

Distractable 35.73 7.17 0.84 2.87

Systematic 39.58 8.77 0.89 2.91

Cautious 33.49 7.49 0.86 2.80

mapp


manual

FEELINGS Mean SD Internal Consistency SEm (Cronbach’s Alpha)Self-assured 35.06 8.89 0.89 2.95

Anxious 33.54 9.15 0.89 3.03

Sensitive 38.09 8.62 0.90 2.72

Expressive 36.14 8.82 0.88 3.06

VALUES Mean SD Internal Consistency SEm (Cronbach’s Alpha)Material wealth 36.48 6.74 0.80 3.01

Competition 35.27 7.38 0.81 3.22

Results 39.13 6.34 0.75 3.17

Recognition 39.07 7.21 0.83 2.97

Personal authority 37.03 6.96 0.83 2.87

Responsibility 38.58 5.75 0.74 2.93

Intellect 39.23 6.61 0.79 3.03

Novelty 41.81 5.98 0.79 2.74

Self-expression 41.56 6.57 0.83 2.71

Altruism 37.78 6.57 0.77 3.15

Intimacy 38.13 6.73 0.79 3.08

Levity 40.56 6.57 0.78 3.08

Security 37.05 7.27 0.84 2.91

Work 35.74 7.70 0.82 3.27

mapp


manual

The internal consistency coefficients for the MAPP scales range between 0.74 and 0.90, with the median coefficient at 0.82. 23 of the 33 scales have coefficients at 0.80 or above. These are excellent reliability coefficients and compare very favourably with other self-report instruments. The high level of internal consistency found for each of the MAPP scales indicates that each of the dimensions accurately measures a discrete characteristic and features a degree of homogeneity which allows clear, unambiguous interpretation.

mapp


manual

7. SCALE INTERCORRELATIONS

An analysis of the intercorrelations between the MAPP scales was based on the sample of 201 managers, professionals and students who completed the questionnaire during trialling. The purposes of this analysis were to identify interesting relationships between the scales in the form of strong positive or negative intercorrelations, and to check that all scales are providing some independent information (i.e. that none of the intercorrelations are so high as to approach the scale reliability coefficients: see Section 8).

The main relationships between each scale and the other MAPP scales are identified in Section 3: The MAPP Scales. Intercorrelations between all of the MAPP scales are presented below for reference.

mapp


manual

7.1 Scale Intercorrelations - Response Style

RØ Central Tendency RØ R1R1 Self-critical .10 1.00 P1 Affectionate -.24 -.04P2 Sociable .07 .17P3 Confident -.10 .03P4 Convincing -.13 .10P5 Perceptive .01 .03P6 Candid -.19 .34P7 Assertive .16 .04P8 Uncompromising .34 .14 T1 Free-thinking .25 -.05T2 Strategic .08 -.07T3 Intuitive .21 .29T4 Distractable .14 .46T5 Systematic -.13 -.32T6 Cautious -.20 -.13 F1 Self-assured .07 -.25F2 Anxious .01 .23F3 Sensitive .25 .41F4 Expressive .16 .25 V1 Material wealth .00 .28V2 Competition .24 -.00V3 Results .07 -.13V4 Recognition .13 .25V5 Personal authority .28 .13V6 Responsibility .24 -.07V7 Intellect -.16 .09V8 Novelty .15 -.01V9 Self-expression .15 .03V10 Altruism -.08 -.10V11 Intimacy -.11 .32V12 Levity .24 .39V13 Security -.19 .01V14 Work -.09 -.19

mapp


manual

7.2 Scale Intercorrelations - People

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8R1 Self-critical -.04 .17 .03 .10 .03 -.34 .04 .14 P1 Affectionate 1.00 .41 .22 .07 .23 .07 .11 -.09P2 Sociable .41 1.00 .33 .31 .23 .04 .19 .14P3 Confident .22 .33 1.00 .58 .25 .13 .59 .21P4 Convincing .07 .31 .58 1.00 .24 .04 .66 .44P5 Perceptive .23 .23 .25 .24 1.00 -.04 .22 .16P6 Candid -.07 -.04 -.13 -.04 .04 1.00 -.22 -.18P7 Assertive .11 .19 .59 .66 .22 .22 1.00 .45P8 Uncompromising -.09 .14 .21 .44 .16 .18 .45 1.00 T1 Free-thinking -.01 -.03 .38 .44 .18 .11 .38 .36T2 Strategic -.20 -.20 .13 .12 .13 -.10 .11 .18T3 Intuitive .12 .11 .05 .12 -.03 -.02 .03 .01T4 Distractable -.01 .24 .01 .06 -.06 -.31 -.11 .06T5 Systematic .04 -.11 .16 .10 .19 .21 .32 .08T6 Cautious -.07 -.16 -.47 -.46 -.10 -.21 -.49 -.22 F1 Self-assured .01 .07 .53 .54 .17 .34 .55 .26F2 Anxious .03 .01 -.23 -.21 -.02 -.32 -.16 -.03F3 Sensitive .31 .19 -.14 -.14 .10 -.38 -.16 -.02F4 Expressive .30 .41 .06 .09 .10 .15 .13 .27 V1 Material wealth -.10 .08 -.02 .16 .01 -.08 .21 .19V2 Competition -.08 .05 .24 .43 .12 .14 .46 .29V3 Results .02 -.04 .24 .27 .17 .08 .41 .29V4 Recognition .20 .29 .01 .02 .06 -.10 .06 .07V5 Personal authority .07 .12 .08 .12 -.00 .07 .28 .11V6 Responsibility -.06 -.03 .25 .34 .16 .08 .45 .32V7 Intellect -.11 -.01 .08 .14 .29 -.19 .13 .31V8 Novelty .05 .16 .38 .35 .21 .19 .42 .27V9 Self-expression .14 .09 .24 .22 .29 .04 .17 .33V10 Altruism .33 .12 -.03 -.15 .16 .02 -.18 -.01V11 Intimacy .33 .41 -.08 -.09 .15 -.15 -.21 -.06V12 Levity .11 .32 .17 .20 .01 -.10 .10 -.00V13 Security -.02 .10 -.10 -.09 -.04 -.01 -.02 -.04V14 Work .07 -.04 -.06 .05 .02 .17 .16 .00

mapp


manual

7.3 Scale Intercorrelations - Task

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6R1 Self-critical -.05 -.07 .29 .46 -.32 -.13 P1 Affectionate -.01 -.20 .12 -.01 .04 -.07P2 Sociable -.03 -.20 .11 .24 -.11 -.16P3 Confident .38 .13 .05 .01 .16 -.47P4 Convincing .44 .12 .12 .06 .10 -.46P5 Perceptive .18 .13 -.03 -.06 .19 -.10P6 Candid -.11 .10 .02 .31 -.21 .21P7 Assertive .38 .11 .03 -.11 .32 -.49P8 Uncompromising .36 .18 .01 .06 .08 -.22 T1 Free-thinking 1.00 .40 .19 .05 .08 -.48T2 Strategic .40 1.0 -.26 .03 .16 .00T3 Intuitive .19 -.26 1.00 .20 -.38 -.38T4 Distractable .05 .03 .20 1.00 -.57 .02T5 Systematic .08 .16 -.38 -.57 1.00 -.10T6 Cautious -.48 .00 -.38 .02 -.10 1.00 F1 Self-assured .38 .19 -.02 -.22 .30 -.46F2 Anxious -.24 -.10 -.08 .16 -.05 .38F3 Sensitive -.11 -.13 .12 .35 -.23 .16F4 Expressive .02 -.12 .20 .24 -.14 -.13 V1 Material wealth -.05 -.04 .08 .11 .03 -.12V2 Competition .11 .04 -.07 -.12 .30 -.31V3 Results .20 .16 -.30 -.27 .52 -.23V4 Recognition -.11 -.18 .03 .28 -.08 -.04V5 Personal authority -.15 -.25 -.00 -.12 .21 -.18V6 Responsibility .35 .21 -.03 -.01 .26 -.28V7 Intellect .26 .53 -.23 .08 .10 -.01V8 Novelty .61 .31 .09 .01 .24 -.47V9 Self-expression .58 .31 .04 .10 .11 -.23V10 Altruism .06 .11 -.04 .07 -.07 .13V11 Intimacy -.08 -.14 .21 .36 -.38 .10V12 Levity .14 -.04 .34 .41 -.33 -.29V13 Security -.36 -.27 -.20 -.03 .13 .24V14 Work -.08 -.20 -.15 -.37 .34 -.01

mapp


manual

7.4 Scale Intercorrelations - Feelings

F1 F2 F3 F4R1 Self-critical -.25 .23 .41 .25 P1 Affectionate .01 .03 .31 .30P2 Sociable .07 .01 .19 .41P3 Confident .53 -.23 -.14 .06P4 Convincing .54 -.21 -.14 .09P5 Perceptive .17 -.02 .10 .10P6 Candid -.34 .32 .38 -.15P7 Assertive .55 -.16 -.16 .13P8 Uncompromising .26 -.03 -.02 .27 T1 Free-thinking .38 -.24 -.11 .02T2 Strategic .19 -.10 -.13 -.12T3 Intuitive -.02 -.08 .12 .20T4 Distractable -.22 .16 .35 .24T5 Systematic .30 -.05 -.23 -.14T6 Cautious -.46 .38 .16 -.13 F1 Self-assured 1.00 -.53 -.50 -.07F2 Anxious -.53 1.00 .52 .20F3 Sensitive -.50 .52 1.00 .32F4 Expressive -.07 .20 .32 1.00 V1 Material wealth .03 .09 .12 .19V2 Competition .32 -.09 -.07 .05V3 Results .26 .14 -.02 -.03V4 Recognition -.15 .27 .48 .32V5 Personal authority .06 .09 .12 .07V6 Responsibility .39 -.12 -.08 -.03V7 Intellect .00 .13 .17 .08V8 Novelty .37 -.18 -.14 -.02V9 Self-expression .19 .02 .10 .13V10 Altruism -.18 .11 .13 .16V11 Intimacy -.31 .22 .47 .33V12 Levity -.01 -.17 .11 .11V13 Security -.10 .18 .14 -.01V14 Work .03 .14 -.04 -.09

mapp


manual

7.5 Scale Intercorrelations - Values

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7R1 Self-critical .28 -.00 -.13 .25 .13 -.07 .09 P1 Affectionate -.10 -.08 .02 .20 .07 -.06 -.11P2 Sociable .08 .05 -.04 .29 .12 -.03 -.01P3 Confident -.02 .24 .24 .01 .08 .25 .08P4 Convincing .16 .43 .27 .02 .12 .34 .14P5 Perceptive .01 .12 .17 .06 -.00 .16 .29P6 Candid .08 -.14 -.08 .10 -.07 -.08 .19P7 Assertive .21 .46 .41 .06 .28 .45 .13P8 Uncompromising .19 .29 .29 .07 .11 .32 .31 T1 Free-thinking -.05 .11 .20 -.11 -.15 .35 .26T2 Strategic -.04 .04 .16 -.18 -.25 .21 .53T3 Intuitive .08 -.07 -.30 .03 -.00 -.03 -.23T4 Distractable .11 -.12 -.27 .28 -.12 -.01 .08T5 Systematic .03 .30 .52 -.08 .21 .26 .10T6 Cautious -.12 -.31 -.23 -.04 -.18 -.28 -.01 F1 Self-assured .03 .32 .26 -.15 .06 .39 .00F2 Anxious .09 -.09 .14 .27 .09 -.12 .13F3 Sensitive .12 -.07 -.02 .48 .12 -.08 .17F4 Expressive .19 .05 -.03 .32 .07 -.03 .08 V1 Material wealth 1.00 .46 .20 .33 .44 .23 .03V2 Competition .46 1.00 .45 .28 .45 .43 .17V3 Results .20 .45 1.00 .16 .43 .54 .17V4 Recognition .33 .28 .16 1.00 .35 .19 .10V5 Personal authority .44 .45 .43 .35 1.00 .32 -.06V6 Responsibility .23 .43 .54 .19 .32 1.00 .11V7 Intellect .03 .17 .17 .10 -.06 .11 1.00V8 Novelty .17 .31 .33 .01 .11 .47 .21V9 Self-expression .02 .17 .35 .20 .01 .40 .32V10 Altruism -.43 -.33 -.11 -.07 -.33 -.21 .11V11 Intimacy -.12 -.30 -.39 .29 -.18 -.25 .08V12 Levity .11 -.00 -.24 .14 -.07 -.07 .05V13 Security .22 .14 .10 .31 .38 -.00 -.07V14 Work .13 .23 .46 .04 .42 .27 .04

mapp


manual

Scale Intercorrelations - Values (Contd)

V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14R1 Self-critical -.01 .03 -.10 .32 .39 .01 -.19 P1 Affectionate .05 .14 .33 .33 .11 -.02 .07P2 Sociable .16 .09 .12 .41 .32 .10 -.04P3 Confident .38 .24 -.03 -.08 .17 -.10 -.06P4 Convincing .35 .22 -.15 -.09 .20 -.09 .05P5 Perceptive .21 .29 .16 .15 .01 -.04 .02P6 Candid -.19 -.04 -.02 .15 .10 .01 -.17P7 Assertive .42 .17 -.18 -.21 .10 -.02 .16P8 Uncompromising .27 .33 -.01 -.06 -.00 -.04 .00 T1 Free-thinking .61 .58 .06 -.08 .14 -.36 -.08T2 Strategic .31 .31 .11 -.14 -.04 -.27 -.20T3 Intuitive .09 .04 -.04 .21 .34 -.20 -.15T4 Distractable .01 .10 .07 .36 .41 -.03 -.37T5 Systematic .24 .11 -.07 -.38 -.33 .13 .34T6 Cautious -.47 -.23 .13 .10 -.29 .24 -.01 F1 Self-assured .37 .19 -.18 -.31 -.01 -.10 .03F2 Anxious -.18 .02 .11 .22 -.17 .18 .14F3 Sensitive -.14 .10 .13 .47 .11 .14 -.04F4 Expressive -.02 .13 .16 .33 .11 -.01 -.09 V1 Material wealth .17 .02 -.43 -.12 .11 .22 .13V2 Competition .31 .17 -.33 -.30 -.00 .14 .23V3 Results .33 .35 -.11 -.39 -.24 .10 .46V4 Recognition .01 .20 -.07 .29 .14 .31 .04V5 Personal authority .11 .01 -.33 -.18 -.07 .38 .42V6 Responsibility .47 .40 -.21 -.25 -.07 -.00 .27V7 Intellect .21 .32 .11 .08 .05 -.07 -.04V8 Novelty 1.00 .53 -.07 -.13 .16 -.35 .09V9 Self-expression .53 1.00 .15 .10 .09 -.20 .03V10 Altruism -.07 .15 1.00 .34 -.00 -.16 -.21V11 Intimacy -.13 .10 .34 1.00 .28 -.03 -.32V12 Levity .16 .09 -.00 .28 1.00 -.09 -.29V13 Security -.35 -.20 -.16 -.03 -.09 1.00 .26V14 Work .09 .03 -.21 -.32 -.29 .26 1.00

mapp


manual

8. VALIDITY

What is Test Validity?

The validity of a test or questionnaire is concerned with the extent to which it actually measures what it is supposed to measure. In assessment, a questionnaire’s validity is usually a measure of its relevance to the job (or training) content. In the case of MAPP, however, we are interested in the extent to which the questionnaire predicts job satisfaction and length of tenure, as well as the extent to which scores predict job performance.

Like reliability, the validity of a questionnaire scale is expressed as a correlation coefficient and referred to as a validation coefficient.

It is generally the case that a scale can be reliable without being valid, but the reverse is not true: the reliability of a scale sets the ceiling for its validity. This is because a scale’s relevance (or predictive power) cannot be higher than its precision as a measuring instrument.

Validity coefficients are therefore lower than reliability coefficients. As a rule of thumb, a scale can be useful in assessment if its validity coefficient is in excess of 0.2. It is quite unusual to find validity coefficients higher than 0.4.

Different Kinds of Validity

The validity of a questionnaire can take a number of forms:

FACE VALIDITYThis is concerned with the extent to which a questionnaire appears to have relevance to a particular job. Face validity is important since poor perceived relevance can cause resistance on the part of the respondents.

CONTENT VALIDITYThis is similar to face validity in that it concerns the extent to which questionnaire items are representative of the attribute to be measured. Content validity can be assessed in a structured way by performing a detailed job analysis, thereby deriving descriptions of the job content, which can then be matched with the test content. In a simple case, it may be discovered that a sales job involves persuading others to a point of view: if a questionnaire scale incorporates items specifically exploring this kind of behaviour its content validity would be high.

In developing psychometric instruments the process of establishing content validity is important as this enhances face validity, and provides a basis for concurrent and predictive validity.

mapp


manual

CONCURRENT VALIDITYThis is based on the correlation between scale scores and some measure (or “criterion”) of performance or satisfaction in the job. Both the scale scores and the performance/satisfaction data are obtained at the same time from existing job incumbents.

PREDICTIVE VALIDITYThis is measured by obtaining scale scores (usually at the point of selection) and then collecting performance and/or job satisfaction data at some subsequent point (e.g. 1 year after selection). This kind of validity is the most salient to the selection situation, in which the aim is to find out whether scores do predict subsequent performance or job tenure.

In summary, these four kinds of validity are important in the evaluation of psychometric instruments. Face validity and content validity are rational (rather than empirical) methods and as such do not result in a numerical validity coefficient. The latter can only be computed using the concurrent or predictive approaches. However, the empirical methods are dependent on the availability of a reliable criterion (of performance or tenure). Performance measures are often based on managers’ ratings with reliabilities as low as 0.2, which obviously undermines the validation. Concurrent and predictive validation studies are also dependent on the availability of large samples of job incumbents.

THE VALIDITY OF MAPP

8.1 FACE AND CONTENT VALIDITY

Careful design and qualitative screening of the questionnaire items (see Section 2.5) in the development of MAPP has served to maximise both the face validity and the content validity of the questionnaire as an assessment instrument for use at managerial, professional, graduate and administrative levels.

All of the questionnaire scales have been defined in terms of behaviours, preferences or values that are strictly relevant to the incumbent’s performance and/or job satisfaction at work. The high internal consistencies (see Section 8.3) of the MAPP scales provide further evidence that the questionnaire items relate to scale definitions in a homogenous, consistent and unambiguous fashion.

8.2 CONCURRENT AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY

Results are available from two early concurrent validation studies and one study of predictive validity. Summarised reports for these studies are presented on the following pages. Further concurrent and predictive validation studies are planned and the results will be published as they become available.

mapp


manual

8.2.1 CABIN STAFF

One hundred and twenty Cabin Staff were asked to participate in this study by completing the MAPP questionnaire. Three different Cabin Staff Managers provided performance data on the 120 job incumbents. Performance ratings for a number of different aspects of the job were collected, as well as overall performance ratings.

In order to summarise the results of this study, overall performance ratings from the three different managers were averaged to provide validation criteria.

The MAPP scales were then correlated with mean overall performance ratings to produce validation coefficients. The inter-rater reliability of the overall performance ratings was also computed and used to correct validation coefficients for attenuation.

Data were also collected on the length of time between recruitment into a basic grade cabin staff position and first promotion to a more senior grade.

Complete data were collected for 85 of the 120 participants in the study. The following results are based on this sample of 85 job incumbents.

Correlates of Performance (Cabin Staff)

Listed overleaf are the MAPP scales that correlated significantly with mean overall performance ratings. Arrows indicate the direction of the relationship between the scale and the performance criterion (e.g. ↓ Distractable -0.21 indicates that incumbents with lower scores on Distractable performed better, and the validation coefficient of this scale was -0.21).

mapp


manual

PEOPLE

↑ Affectionate +0.21

↓ Confident -0.27 ↓ Convincing -0.35 ↓ Candid -0.29 ↓ Uncompromising -0.37

TASK

↑ Systematic +0.23 ↑ Cautious +0.21

↓ Free-thinking -0.45 ↓ Distractable -0.21

FEELINGS

↓ Self-assured -0.32

VALUES

↑ Work +0.22

A multiple regression using the scales listed above to predict overall performance yielded a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.60 (corrected for shrinkage), demonstrating that MAPP may be used as a highly effective instrument for predicting high performance in the cabin staff role.

mapp


manual

Correlates of Promotion (Cabin Staff)

MAPP scales were also correlated with the length of time between recruitment and first promotion. The main predictors of speed of promotion are listed below. Again, arrows indicate the direction of relationships (e.g. ↑ Results +0.30 indicates that incumbents with a higher value for Results achieved promotion more rapidly, and the validation coefficient of this scale was +0.30).

PEOPLE

↓ Candid -0.23 ↓ Assertive -0.22

TASK

↑ Systematic +0.22

FEELINGS

↓ Expressive -0.36

VALUES

↑ Results +0.30 ↑ Responsibility +0.21 ↑ Novelty +0.31 ↑ Self-expression +0.32 ↑ Work +0.30

A multiple regression using the scales listed above to predict speed of promotion resulted in a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.66 (corrected for shrinkage). We may therefore conclude that MAPP may also be used to identify individuals who have the potential to be more rapidly developed and promoted.

mapp


manual

Correlates of Attendance (Cabin Staff)

Attendance data were collected in the form of number of days off work in a six month period, and number of spells away from work in a six month period. MAPP correlations with both criteria were very similar. However, correlations with number of spells away from work were slightly stronger and it is these which have been used to compile the list presented below. Arrows indicate the direction of relationships between the scale and attendance (e.g. ↓ Anxious -0.20 indicates that incumbents with lower scores on Anxious have better attendance records; i.e. have fewer spells away from work).

TASK

↓ Free-thinking -0.23 ↓ Distractable -0.17

↑ Systematic +0.17

FEELINGS

↓ Anxious -0.20

VALUES

↑ Personal authority +0.20 ↓ Novelty -0.20

Multiple regression of the scales listed above onto attendance data gave a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.28 (corrected for shrinkage).

mapp


manual

Correlates of Length of Service (Cabin Staff)

Length of service within the group ranged from 6 months to 10 years. The main MAPP scales which correlated with length of service are given below. Arrows indicate the direction of relationships (e.g. ↓ Novelty -0.22 indicates that incumbents with a lower value for Novelty are likely to stay for longer).

TASK

↑ Systematic +0.24 ↑ Cautious +0.25

FEELINGS

↑ Sensitive +0.21

VALUES

↑ Competition +0.21 ↑ Security +0.20

↓ Novelty -0.22

Multiple regression using these 6 scales to predict length of tenure gives a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.43 (corrected for shrinkage), demonstrating that MAPP can be used as a powerful means of predicting length of service and hence reducing future levels of staff turnover.

mapp


manual

SUMMARY

The results of this validation study indicate that scores on MAPP scales are related to performance in the cabin staff role, rapidity of promotion, length of tenure and, to some extent, attendance. Indeed, the multiple validation coefficients for the performance, promotion and tenure criteria are extremely impressive and compare very favourably with other self-report questionnaires:

0.60: Overall performance ratings

0.66: Rapidity of promotion to No 2

0.28: Attendance

0.43: Length of tenure

Inspection of the specific MAPP scales which correlate with the criterion data suggests that most of the discovered relationships are consistent with intuitive predictions. However, we were surprised to find that some of the PEOPLE characteristics, such as Affectionate, Sociable and Perceptive were not more strongly related to performance data, given the strong customer contact element of the cabin staff job. This may be attributed to the fact that the existing selection procedures focus on people orientation and may be quite effective in identifying suitability for this aspect of the role. The incumbent sample used in this study was comprised of individuals who had met the existing selection criteria and would thus be restricted in range.

8.2.2 OVERSEAS REPRESENTATIVES

A separate but similar concurrent study was undertaken with a sample of Overseas Representatives employed by three holiday companies.

One hundred and twenty incumbents were asked to complete MAPP. Performance ratings were collected from managers and used as the criteria for validating MAPP. Data on length of tenure were also collected and correlated with MAPP scales. Validity coefficients have been corrected for attenuation based on estimated reliability of the performance data at 0.7. Complete data were collected for 80 of the 120 participants.

Correlates of Performance (Overseas Representatives)

Listed overleaf are the MAPP scales that correlated significantly with overall performance ratings. Arrows indicate the direction of the relationship between the scale and the performance criterion (e.g. ↓ Distractable -0.24 indicates that incumbents with lower scores on Distractable performed better, and the validation coefficients of this scale was -0.24).

mapp


manual

PEOPLE

↑ Affectionate +0.26 ↑ Sociable +0.29 ↑ Assertive +0.32 ↓ Candid -0.27

TASK

↑ Systematic +0.28 ↓ Strategic -0.25 ↓ Distractable -0.24

FEELINGS

↑ Self-assured +0.29

VALUES

↑ Results +0.37 ↑ Personal Authority +0.24 ↓ Altruism -0.25 ↓ Intimacy -0.32

A multiple regression using the scales listed above to predict overall performance yielded a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.61 (corrected for shrinkage).

mapp


manual

Correlates of Length of Service (Overseas Representatives)

The MAPP scales which correlated with length of service in the sample of Overseas Representatives are listed below. Arrows indicate the direction of relationships (e.g. ↑ Assertive +0.25 indicates that incumbents with higher scores on Assertive are likely to stay for longer).

PEOPLE

↑ Assertive +0.25

VALUES

↑ Personal Authority +0.41 ↑ Responsibility +0.41 ↑ Intellect +0.26 ↑ Self-expression +0.30

Multiple regression using the above scales to predict length of tenure yielded a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.45 (corrected for shrinkage).

SUMMARY

The results of this validation study indicate that scores on MAPP scales are related to performance in the overseas rep role and length of tenure. The multiple validation coefficients for the performance and tenure criteria are high and compare very favourably with other self-report questionnaires:

0.61: Overall performance ratings 0.45: Length of tenure

Inspection of the specific MAPP scales that correlate with the criterion data suggests that most of the discovered relationships are consistent with intuitive predictions.

mapp


manual

8.2.3 FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS

Part 2 of the MAPP questionnaire, which provides scores on the 14 Values scales, was used by a Building Society as part of an assessment procedure specially designed for the selection of Financial Consultants (FCs). This was a newly created selling role. Candidates were highly experienced in the financial services sector and would typically have proven success in new business development. 325 applicants were assessed, of whom 94 were offered positions.

The 94 successful candidates were followed up after their first 6 months in the FC role by investigating their objective sales performance in three areas:

Fee Income (FI) This is generated by sales of life assurance schemes. This represents a relatively new product area for the Society and as such requires the development of new markets.

Mortgage (M) This is a traditional market for the Society.

Investment (I) Also a well established market for the Society.

The MAPP scores were slightly restricted in range because of the selection process. Correction for restriction of range has therefore been performed on the basis of the standard deviations of the scales for the full applicant sample (N=325).

Presented below are the Part 2 scales that correlated significantly (2-tailed) with the sales criteria at the 5% level:

Part 2 Scale Fee (FI) Mortgage (M) Investment (I)

V2 Competition +0.21

V3 Results +0.22

V9 Self-expression -0.20

V11 Intimacy +0.22

V13 Security +0.26

Five of the fourteen Values scales correlated significantly with a criterion variable (with 14 scales and 3 criteria, only 2.1 significant coefficients would be expected by chance alone).

mapp


manualMore interesting is the fact that different scales are related to the separate kinds of business targeted by the Society for development by FCs. For example, higher performance in the relatively new business area is positively correlated with values for Competition and Results, whereas sales of the “traditional” mortgage products are correlated with the more “traditional” values of high Security and low Self-expression. Sales of investment products/services are positively correlated with value for Intimacy, possibly because of the trusting relationship required for customers to select the Society for investment services.

8.3 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

It is important that we know whether MAPP is measuring the attributes that it is supposed to measure, and one useful way of establishing this is to compare MAPP data with that obtained from other trait based questionnaires.

Two recent studies have been conducted comparing MAPP with the 16PF (Form A) and the OPQ (Concept Model 5.2). These questionnaires are important as yardsticks since both are extensively used in personality assessment.

In both studies, we have primarily considered how Part 1 of MAPP compares with these instruments since MAPP Part 2 is a survey of work-related values as opposed to personality dimensions. Nonetheless, there are some OPQ dimensions, for example, that are perhaps more closely associated with certain MAPP Part 2 scales, and where this is the case we have included them in the study.

8.3.1 MAPP and the 16PF

This study comprised some 82 managers roughly split 50/50 in terms of males and females. The principal correlations of MAPP Part 1 scales and the 16PF are shown on the following pages.

It can be seen that the people vs task distinction found in Factor A is picked up by the MAPP scales Confident and Intuitive, although a possible relationship with Affectionate and Sociable does not appear. Interestingly, a similar study conducted by SHL looking at the relationship between the OPQ Factor version and the 16PF (Saville and Munro 1986) found that there was little relationship between OPQ scales and Factor A. Their conclusion was that many of the items loading onto Factor A appear to be around occupational interests, e.g. preferring to be a teacher rather than a forester, and that most of Factor A is about either preferring to work with things and ideas as opposed to people.

Since Factor B contains “ability” type items, we would probably not expect any especially important relationships with MAPP dimensions. It is again interesting to note that the SHL study referred to above also demonstrated that influence (i.e. MAPP scale Assertive) and structure (MAPP scales Systematic and Distractable) were associated with this Factor.

mapp


manual8.3.1 MAPP and the OPQ

This study comprised the same people who had completed the 16PF.

The scale intercorrelations and principal MAPP scales loading onto the OPQ are shown on the following pages.

The OPQ scale Persuasive appears to be picked up by Assertive and Convincing as anticipated, and the same two scales also figure large with the OPQ scale Controlling.

Independent also draws upon Assertive along with the “risky-shift” elements of Cautious and the obstinacy suggested by Uncompromising. Confident, Affectionate and Sociable pick up on the gregariousness implied by Outgoing, whilst Affiliative appears to be covered by our scales of Sociable and Affectionate. Socially Confident and Confident are highly correlated, whilst Cautious and Assertive appear to contribute to Modest. We would not have anticipated a strong relationship between Democratic and MAPP Part 1 scales, since our view is that Democratic is less of a fundamental personality trait and more of a value or attitude. It is worth noting, therefore, that Democratic has correlations of –0.21 with Personal Authority and Responsibility in Part 2 of MAPP. Caring, as expected, is picked up by Affectionate and Perceptive in MAPP.

In the Task domain, we had not set out to measure occupational interests such as Practical and Artistic in the OPQ since these always appeared to fit poorly into the model of a trait based questionnaire. We have presented the correlations of MAPP with these dimensions for interest only.

Behavioural and Perceptive correlate well as anticipated, although there is an unexpected lack of relationship between Data Rational and Intuitive. Intuitive in MAPP appears to be measuring more of gut-feel, impressionistic, emotional approach to decision making, for example, whereas Data Rational is perhaps majoring more on structure and detail. Indeed, in this study the highest correlation between Data Rational and the other OPQ scales was with Forward Planning (0.52***). By contrast, the intercorrelations within MAPP for Intuitive are most strongly represented by Systematic and Distractable (so, similar to Forward Planning), but also Expressive.

Traditional and Change Oriented are picked up by Free-thinking, and Conceptual by Strategic, as expected. Unsurprisingly, Innovative and Free-thinking are related, as are Forward Planning and Systematic; Detail Conscious with Systematic and Distractable; and, Conscientious with Systematic and Distractable.

In the Feelings domain, there are the expected relationships between Relaxed and Worrying with Anxious and Self-assured; Toughminded with Sensitive, and Emotional Control and Expressive.

mapp


manual

We had not constructed MAPP with dimensions such as Optimistic and Critical as part of our model. Nevertheless, it is interesting that Optimistic appears to be in part about confidence and a more risky, opportunistic approach, and Critical has something of Assertive, Confident and Free-thinking about it.

As with the “Fields of Use” dimensions in the OPQ, we had not sought to measure an equivalent to the scale Active. Some have criticised this dimension as having too much emphasis on sporting activities, and a not unexpected relationship to the age of the respondent.

Competitive in the OPQ appears to be partly picked up by Uncompromising – the dislike of giving way, as well as Competition in Part 2 of MAPP (0.46), and Achieving is related to Assertive and Results (0.43) and Self-Expression (0.42) in Part 2. As expected, Decisive and Cautious are highly inter-correlated, and there is a clear relationship between Social Desirability and Self-critical.

mapp


manual

A

B

C

E F

G

H

I L

M

N

O

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Affe

ctio

nate

.0

439

-.120

3 .2

295*

-.1

019

.070

7 .1

519

.352

5***

.1

270

-.164

6 .0

514

.051

8 -.0

977

-.184

3*

-.168

6 .2

873*

* -.3

289*

*

Soci

able

.0

284

-.044

4 .1

582

-.023

5 .3

809*

**

.187

2*

.285

0**

-.022

5 -.0

505

-.115

7 -.1

270

-.104

8 -.0

888

-.318

2**

.252

1*

-.187

0*

Con

fiden

t .2

481*

-.1

195

.077

5 .2

948*

* .3

572*

**

.110

5 .5

668*

**

-.108

3 .2

033*

.1

261

-.352

3***

-.1

592

.205

4*

-.175

9 -.0

019

-.080

0

Con

vinc

ing

.032

1 -.1

780

.005

8 .1

097

.228

6*

.092

1 .1

730

-.053

4 .2

950*

* -.0

356

-.201

9*

-.086

7 .3

063*

* -.0

081

-.018

3 -.0

985

Perc

eptiv

e -.0

551

-.131

0 .0

632

-.016

2 .2

137*

.1

188

.221

6*

.107

0 .1

516

-.080

2 -.2

415*

.0

724

.220

7*

-.204

4*

.089

2 .0

232

Can

did

.237

8*

.008

1 .2

637*

* .0

918

.173

9 .2

335*

.2

929*

* .0

465

-.005

4 .0

456

-.125

1 -.2

709*

* .0

314

-.087

7 .1

070

-.383

0***

Ass

ertiv

e .1

763

-.326

9**

-.162

7 .2

804*

* .1

257

.370

9***

.3

522*

**

-.094

1 .3

169*

* -.0

121

-.232

2*

.000

5 .1

858*

-.0

623

.230

0*

-.049

4

Unc

ompr

omis

ing

.122

1 .1

641

-.117

2 .2

496*

-.0

469

.068

3 -.0

259

-.178

7 .3

390*

**

-.080

2 -.0

597

.060

5 .1

569

.265

9**

-.182

1 .1

483

Free

Thi

nkin

g .0

965

-.272

6**

-.073

5 .1

395

.071

4 -.0

387

.039

7 -.2

095*

.3

315*

* .0

171

-.083

4 .0

139

.231

2*

-.239

1*

-.241

6*

.034

6

Stra

tegi

c .0

924

-.123

5 -.0

997

.244

7*

.136

0 .0

179

.223

7*

-.120

9 .2

623*

* .1

646

-.333

9**

-.000

8 .2

310*

-.3

065*

* .0

390

.116

0

Intu

itive

-.2

209*

.1

464

-.100

4 .0

816

-.008

3 -.2

052*

-.1

128

.121

0 -.0

111

-.078

6 .1

193

.097

0 -.1

507

.083

7 -.2

484*

.2

289*

Dis

trac

tible

-.1

806

.227

5*

-.250

7*

.142

5 .0

115

-.348

6***

-.0

621

-.022

7 .0

422

.124

5 -.0

560

-.020

9 .1

579

.170

7 -.4

342*

**

.429

6***

Syst

emat

ic

.059

3 -.1

880*

.1

342

.081

9 .0

617

.401

4***

.2

053*

.0

154

-.023

1 .0

060

-.022

8 -.1

322

-.116

0 -.0

411

.494

3***

-.2

738*

*

Cau

tious

-.1

023

.081

9 .0

083

-.366

7***

-.0

953

-.073

4 -.0

087

.205

4*

-.295

6**

.000

5 .1

696

-.033

3 -.2

678*

* -.0

679

.204

6*

-.097

5

Self-

assu

red

.385

2***

-.1

559

.208

0*

.220

8*

.253

8*

.370

8***

.3

481*

**

-.048

5 .2

436*

.1

025

-.186

4*

-.354

7***

.1

862*

-.0

729

.227

2*

-.277

0**

Anx

ious

-.1

555

.055

0 -.2

791*

* -.0

179

-.172

0 -.0

333

-.112

7 -.0

543

.059

8 -.1

003

-.019

3 .3

652*

**

-.171

2 -.0

095

-.106

9 .3

409*

**

Sens

itive

-.1

196

.087

1 -.1

254

-.054

2 .0

003

.018

1 -.0

187

.097

6 -.0

140

-.123

8 .0

711

.396

3***

-.1

249

.021

8 .1

396

.241

4*

Expr

essi

ve

-.074

5 .1

657

-.018

3 .2

651*

* .1

303

.034

1 .2

229*

.1

141

-.019

9 -.1

766

-.121

9 .2

036*

-.1

267

-.051

7 .1

124

.143

1

Sign

ifica

nce

Leve

l: *-

.05

**-.0

1 **

*-.0

01

(9

5% c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

)

MA

PP a

nd 1

6PF

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

mapp


manual

16PF

Fac

tor

Prin

cipa

l MA

PP C

orre

latio

ns

Mul

tiple

R

A Se

lf-as

sure

d(0.

39),

Con

fiden

t(0.2

5), C

andi

d(0.

24),

Intu

itive

(-0.2

2)

0.

40

B

Asse

rtive

(-0.3

3), F

ree-

thin

king

(-0.2

7), D

istra

ctab

le(0

.23)

, Sys

tem

atic

(-0.1

9)

0.

42

C

Anxi

ous(

-0.2

8), C

andi

d(0.

26),

Dis

tract

able

(-0.2

5), A

ffect

iona

te(0

.23)

, Sel

f-ass

ured

(0.2

1)

0.39

E C

autio

us(-0

.37)

, Con

fiden

t(0.3

0), A

sser

tive(

0.28

), Ex

pres

sive

(0.2

7), U

ncom

prom

isin

g(0.

25)

0.52

F So

ciab

le(0

.38)

, Con

fiden

t(0.3

6), C

onvi

ncin

g(0.

23),

Perc

eptiv

e(0.

21)

0.

49

G

Syst

emat

ic(0

.40)

, Ass

ertiv

e(0.

37),

Self-

assu

red(

0.37

), D

istra

ctab

le(-0

.35)

, Can

did(

0.23

) 0.

50

H

Con

fiden

t(0.5

7), A

ffect

iona

te(0

.35)

, Ass

ertiv

e(0.

35),

Self-

assu

red(

0.35

), C

andi

d(0.

29)

0.60

I Fr

ee-th

inki

ng(-0

.21)

, Cau

tious

(0.2

1)

0.

25

L U

ncom

prom

isin

g(0.

34),

Free

-thin

king

(0.3

3), A

sser

tive(

0.32

), C

autio

us(-0

.30)

, Con

vinc

ing(

0.30

) 0.

51

M

Expr

essi

ve(-0

.18)

, Stra

tegi

c(0.

17),

Con

fiden

t(0.1

3), D

istra

ctab

le(0

.13)

, Sen

sitiv

e(0.

12)

0.30

N

Con

fiden

t(-0.

35),

Stra

tegi

c(-0

.33)

, Per

cept

ive(

-0.2

4), A

sser

tive(

-0.2

3), S

elf-a

ssur

ed(-0

.19)

0.

40

O

Sens

itive

(0.4

0), A

nxio

us(0

.37)

, Sel

f-ass

ured

(-0.3

6), C

andi

d(-0

.27)

, Exp

ress

ive(

0.20

) 0.

54

Q1

Con

vinc

ing(

0.31

), C

autio

us(-0

.27)

, Fre

e-th

inki

ng(0

.23)

, Stra

tegi

c(0.

23),

Perc

eptiv

e(0.

22)

0.42

Q2

Soci

able

(-0.3

2), S

trate

gic-

0.31

), U

ncom

prom

isin

g(0.

27),

Free

-thin

king

(-0.2

4), P

erce

ptiv

e(-0

.20)

0.

53

Q3

Syst

emat

ic(0

.49)

, Dis

tract

able

(-0.4

3), A

ffect

iona

te(0

.29)

, Soc

iabl

e(0.

25),

Intu

itive

(-0.2

5)

0.55

Q4

Dis

tract

able

(0.4

3), C

andi

d(-0

.38)

, Anx

ious

(0.3

4), A

ffect

iona

te(-0

.33)

, Sys

tem

atic

(-0.2

7)

0.58

All M

ultip

le R

s si

gnifi

cant

at t

he 0

.05

leve

l or b

ette

r exc

ept F

acto

r I a

nd F

acto

r M

82

83

84

manualmapp

mapp


manual

OPQ Scale Principal MAPP Correlations Multiple R

Persuasive Assertive(0.60), Convincing(0.50), Cautious(-0.47), Confident(0.46), Free-thinking(0.37) 0.65

Controlling Assertive(0.65), Convincing(0.52), Confident(0.52), Affectionate(0.44), Self-assured(0.34) 0.72

Independent Assertive(0.61), Cautious(-0.56), Uncompromising(0.52), Free-thinking(0.48), Confident(0.38) 0.70

Outgoing Confident(0.69), Affectionate(0.54), Sociable(0.48), Convincing(0.45), Free-thinking(0.38) 0.74

Affiliative Sociale(0.61), Affectionate(0.41), Confident(0.37), Candid(0.33), Free-thinking(0.30) 0.64

Socially Confident Confident(0.80), Self-assured(0.58), Convincing(0.56), Free-thinking(0.51), Affectionate(0.50) 0.83

Modest Cautious(0.41), Assertive(-0.33), Confident(-0.28), Expressive(-0.27), Strategic(-0.25) 0.54

Democratic Perceptive(0.24), Convincing(0.23), Systematic(0.23), Uncompromising(-0.21) 0.40

Caring Affectionate(0.33), Perceptive(0.24), Anxious(0.20) 0.43

Practical istractable(-0.37), Sensitive(-0.26), Self-assured(-0.25), Free-thinking(-0.24), Uncompromising(0.21) 0.44

Data Rational Assertive(0.34), Systematic(0.29), Cautious(-0.26), Distractable(-0.23), Self-assured(0.21) 0.45

Artistic Strategic(0.29), Perceptive(0.29), Self-critical(-0.28), Systematic(0.28), Uncompromising(-0.19) 0.50

Behavioural Perceptive(0.50), Anxious(0.28), Sensitive(0.27) 0.58

Traditional Free-thinking(-0.49), Cautious(0.45), Uncompromising(-0.35), Assertive(-0.33), Self-assured(-0.30) 0.56

Change Oriented Free-thinking(0.34), Assertive(0.26), Sociable(0.26), Perceptive(0.26) 0.44

Conceptual Strategic(0.66), Confident(0.21), Free-thinking(0.20), Affectionate(0.19) 0.68

Innovative Free-thinking(0.58), Assertive(0.45), Cautious(-0.41), Affectionate(0.35), Confident(0.35) 0.64

Forward Planning Systematic(0.65), Free-thinking(0.31), Assertive(0.30), Confident(0.29),Self-critical(-0.26) 0.71

Detail Conscious Distractable(-0.55), Systematic(0.54), Self-critical(-0.46), Expressive(-0.28), Sensitive(-0.20) 0.65

Conscientious Systematic(0.47), Distractable(-0.41), Expressive(-0.27), Self-critical(-0.21) 0.53

Relaxed Anxious(-0.73), Self-assured(0.61), Sensitive(-0.60), Confident(0..51), Free-thinking(0.43) 0.78

Worrying Anxious(0.64), Self-assured(-0.59), Confident(-0.55), Sensitive(0.52), Convincing(-0.46) 0.72

Toughminded Sensitive(-0.68), Anxious(-0.52), Self-assured(0.49), Uncompromising(0.36), Assertive(0.35) 0.71

Emotional Control Expressive(-0.76), Affectionate(-0.36), Cautious(0.35), Sociable(-0.32), Intuitive(-0.30) 0.79

Optimistic Confident(0.49), Cautious(-0.45), Assertive(0.43), Self-assured(0.39), Free-thinking(0.37) 0.57

Critical Assertive(0.35), Confident(0.34), Free-thinking(0.33), Convincing(0.32), Strategic(0.23) 0.47

Active Assertive(0.42), Free-thinking(0.39), Systematic(0.38), Sociable(0.32), Cautious(-0.28) 0.59

Competitive Uncompromising(0.50), Assertive(0.46), Self-assured(043), Convincing(0.42), Cautious(-0.39) 0.59

Achieving Assertive(0.43), Cautious(-0.41), Free-thinking(0.35), Confident(0.30), Sociable(0.26) 0.51

Decisive Cautious(-0.77), Self-assured(0.57), Confident(0.53), Assertive(0.50), Convincing(0.50) 0.84

Social Desirability Self-critical(-0.47), Systematic(0.42), Affectionate(0.34), Intuitive(-0.27), Expressive(-0.26) 0.60

All Multiple Rs significant at the 0.05 level or better

mapp


manual

9. AVAILABILITY AND USE OF MAPP

KCP keeps a register of clients to whom MAPP is available for use. Registered users must all have received appropriate training in occupational testing and personality measurement in accordance with the guidelines of the British Psychological Society. Specifically, they must be holders of the RQTU Test User - Personality qualification. KCP offers public, in-house and e-learning programmes that have been verified by the BPS.

In addition, suitably qualified users of other substantive questionnaires, e.g. 16PF or OPQ, may upgrade to MAPP via a free workshop or e-learning programme.

mapp


manual

10. MAPP ONLINE ADMINISTRATION

All versions of MAPP are available for online administration at KCP’s dedicated test site:

www.kcpltd.org.uk

Only registered users have access to MAPP logins and MAPP output.

MAPP output options are: Executive profile chart - for BPS qualified assessorsPlatinum report (narrative format) - for all assessors and line managersCandidate report - for candidates requiring written feedback

(see more information in section 11 overleaf)

These may not be photocopied or reproduced in part or whole by any means without the written permission of Knight Chapman Psychological Ltd.

mapp


manual

11. COMPUTER GENERATED INTERPRETIVE REPORTS

Two pre-defined or user specifiable “expert system” reports are available for MAPP. An expert system is essentially a way of replicating a human interpretation of a MAPP profile in a consistent and objective way.

The MAPP Platinum ReportThis provides an interpretation of all the MAPP scales; team types; leadership behaviours; potential sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of both job context and content; and a summary of potential strengths and limitations against managerial competences. It also includes suggested open-ended questions to be asked against all the potential strengths and limitations that have been identified. Finally, it also has predictions of Jungian Type.

The MAPP Candidate Feedback ReportThis report can be given directly to candidates. It identifies potential strengths and limitations, and offers up appropriate developmental guidelines. It is useful for interview candidates who request written feedback after interview, or for candidates who are undergoing a development programme.

In addition, Knight Chapman Psychological will tailor-make any report format that you wish. Typically, such user-specified reports have included assessment centre criteria and interview questions.

The MAPP platinum report is particularly helpful when:-

• A number of profiles need to be interpreted quickly, as in assessment or development centres, for example

• As a means for checking on the objectivity of a human assessment

• The assessor wishes to make predictions about likely team roles or leadership styles

• When assessment against specific management competences is desirable

mapp


manual

12. INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES

Experienced users of other trait questionnaires should have little difficulty in quickly understanding how to interpret Part 1 of MAPP. Part 2 sometimes presents the novice with some challenges as other questionnaires do not assess these characteristics. However, we hope these notes will soon allay any fears that you may have.

Each MAPP scale has a description associated with the extreme of each end of the scale. Scores which are not at the extremes indicate that elements of the description either do not apply, or are not so strongly marked. Users should beware of the temptation to overstate scores that are not at the extremes.

Whilst we do not advocate that you use the following terms in your reports or feedback in a slavish way, you can think of the following as a guideline in terms of the extent to which the given description is like the person:-

Stens 1 and 10 Extremely like this Stens 2 and 9 Very like this Stens 3 and 8 Quite like this Stens 4 and 7 Fairly like this Stens 5 and 6 Typical

Since the MAPP scales have been designed to explore a broad scenario of behaviours, you may find that someone scoring at say, Sten 8 associates closely with some behaviours and to a lesser extent with others. This highlights the importance of discussing the questionnaire with each candidate in detail so that you can be sure what the profile means for them.

MAPP Part 1 scales inevitably interact which each other, and developing an understanding of the linkages is a vital part of interpretation. MAPP Part 2 scales are more discrete although there are some inter scale links within Part 2 and across to Part 1. For example, someone scoring high on Assertive and high on Personal Authority is quite likely to adopt a more autocratic management style than someone who is high Assertive but low Personal Authority.

One should also note that Part 2 scales which deviate from the mean are more likely to be of significance in terms of motivation and organisational fit. Indeed, many practitioners have commented that Part 2 almost works hierarchically, and that one can often detect that those values which deviate the most from the mean are those that have the greatest impact upon occupational and organisational choice.

mapp


manual

13. MAPP FEEDBACK PRINCIPLES

Introduction

Your aim here is to:

Establish the agenda Start the rapport building process Set the context for feedback Reassure the candidate about use of the results Highlight what the questionnaire can and can’t do Encourage the candidate to engage in a dialogue

Your introduction should cover:

MAPP is a self-report questionnaire – i.e. it is what they have said about themselves Questionnaires have no rights and wrongs – it is simply about their behavioural style and preferences. It is NOT

about ability. There are no “good” or “bad” profiles The questionnaire is not infallible, but people generally find it to be accurate The results are comparative How the questionnaire fits in to the process – selection/development etc Confidentiality of the data Need for a dialogue – i.e. you want to discuss and interact Any questions that they have Obtain their consent to proceed

The Feedback

Whilst there is no one “correct” way of providing feedback, these guidelines should help you to do a thorough job:

Describe the scope of the questionnaire – people, task, feelings, values and motivation Check out what was happening for them at the time they filled in the questionnaire Proceed logically – try to avoid jumping around the profile, you’ll lose your way! Mix direct feedback with questions – e.g. “You seem to have said that you enjoy creative problem solving – tell me

more about that.” vs “Tell me a little about your typical approach to solving problems.” “Typical” scores are often best tackled by going in with a question Probe and follow up – get concrete examples where possible. Try not to keep saying “Give me an example” this

gets tedious, but rather use the approach “How might I notice that in your day to day work?” Don’t use scale titles – these are merely shorthand “aide-memoires” for you Don’t overstate – e.g. a sten of 7 is NOT an extreme score description Deal with individual scales BEFORE attempting links Avoid saying “You ARE…” they might not be! Summarise at the end of each section Make sure they do at least 50% of the talking Don’t give them the profile chart

mapp


manual14. SOME INTERPRETIVE HINTS FOR COMMON MAPP LINKS

(Note that reverse scale positions will indicate ROUGHLY the opposite of the likely behaviours.)

People

Affectionate Low Candid Low

May be difficult (or concerning) for others to read. Apparently cool, guarded, rather “closed”. May appear to be a rather “cold fish”.

Affectionate High Sociable High Intimacy High

Warm, outgoing, people oriented. A teamy person. Someone who needs people. May find it difficult to take difficult decisions about others.

Assertive Moderate to High Perceptive High

More likely than many to take on the leadership role. Will probably have a broader repertoire of leadership styles. May be better than many at understanding subordinates, their needs, abilities, aspirations.

Affectionate Moderate to High Perceptive High

This combination can suggest a more empathetic style. Probably more caring and perceptive about others and their needs. Can put themselves in someone else’s shoes.

Perceptive High Candid Low

Might be, or come across as, manipulative. In combination with High Convincing, could be an extremely effective nego-tiator.

Assertive High Personal Authority High

Might be a rather authoritarian, undemocratic leader.

Task

Intuitive High Cautious Low

Likely to take risks based on scant data. Opportunistic but impressionistic approach could lead to rash decisions. (Typi-cally, you would want to check intellectual abilities here as well!).

Systematic High Distractable Low

A very administrative style. Organised and conscientius but may get bogged down. Could lack the flexibility to deal with the unexpected.

Strategic High Free-thinking High Intellect High

Could be intellectually curious, innovative and keen on conceptual activities. May be a source of novelty and/or inspira-tion. However, could also be impratical, and not a “doer”.

Cautious High Free-thinking Low Strategic Low

Slow to arrive at conclusions. May not see the wood for the trees. Could be resistant to change. Highly operational and detailed.

mapp


manual

Feelings

Anxious High Sensitive High

May find some aspects of work stressful. Less resilient than many. Likely to dwell on things and be ready to spot “slights”.

Self-assured Low Anxious High Sensitive High Expressive High

As above, plus volatile and unsure of self. This profile could be an indicator of high levels of stress and may need referral to a professional counsellor or psychologist. (Note that if Expressive is Low, anxieties etc may be channelled inwards and this may lead to health problems.)

mapp


manual

15. ADDITIONAL INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES

Refer to the Manual. For each scale you will note that intercorrelations with other scales are presented. When looking at someone’s profile, look for “unusualness”, for example, it would be unusual for someone with a HIGH score on Strategic to have a LOW score on Free-thinking.

Scores around the mean (Sten 5 and Sten 6). Most new assessors much prefer to provide feedback on profiles with more extreme scores, and are sometimes anxious about “average” responses. Average scores do not mean that the person is “neither one thing nor the other”, and similarly someone with a Sten 5 on Con-fident does not swing between being shy and retiring and highly confident in unfamiliar settings.

When dealing with average scores, it is normally better to go in with a question, e.g. “Tell me a little about how you feel when having to make a presentation at work?”.

Alternatively, you can provide some feedback followed up with a probe, e.g. “From what you’ve said about yourself, it looks like there could be times when you don’t always like to be at the centre of attention. Tell me a little more about this.”

Or, you could provide some pointers along the lines of, “Some people are always happy being in the spotlight, whilst others may prefer to remain on the sidelines, how does that work out for you?”

There are some differences in feedback practice and interpretation between Part One (personality) and Part Two (values). Over time, both we at KCP and other MAPP users discovered that whilst it is important to deal with every scale and every scale position in Part One, the same does not always apply to Part Two.

What appears to happen with Part Two is that those scales that do deviate from the mean are of the most significance to the candidate in terms of satisfiers and dissatisfiers. At the same time, there is almost a hier-archical nature to Part Two, so someone with a Sten 9 on Material Wealth will probably see that as a greater satisfier than their response of Sten 7 on Intellect, for example.

mapp


manual

16. MAPP AND JUNGIAN TYPE

Many MAPP users administer the questionnaire as part of coaching, career counselling and other developmental interventions. Very often, a suite of instruments may be used including Jungian Type questionnaires such as the MBTI or JTI.

KCP conducted a study in which 74 Test User - Personality (formerly Level B) course delegates completed both MAPP and the MBTI as part of their training. Strong correlations were found between MAPP Part 1 and Part 2 scales and the four Jungian functions of Sensing, Intuition, Thinking and Feeling. In addition, there are strong relationships between MAPP and the Jungian attitudes - extraversion and Introversion, as well as the two mediators of Judging and Perceiving.

These correlations are presented overleaf.

The strength of the relationship allowed us to write specification equations that provided predictions of a candidate’s psychological type.

These predictions are displayed graphically in both the MAPP Profile Chart and the Computer Generated Interview Report. Software can also be purchased to enable Registered Users to enter sten scores and obtain these predictions.

Our experience over the years has shown that the Jungian function, attitude and lifestyle titles were somewhat inaccessible to some candidates, so we modified these as below taking account of the associated MAPP scales and their interpretation:

Extraversion = GregariousIntroversion = Reserved

Sensing = ConcreteIntuition = Imaginative

Thinking = LogicalFeeling = EmpatheticJudging = Structured

Perceiving = Adaptable

mapp


manual

MAPP AND MBTI CORRELATIONS

Extraversion Introversion Sensing Intuition Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving

Self-critical -0.37 0.31

Affectionate 0.52 -0.50 -0.38 0.40

Sociable 0.74 -0.74

Confident 0.55 -0.55 -0.35 0.36

Convincing 0.37 -0.34 -0.32 0.34

Perceptive -0.33 0.33

Candid 0.46 -0.40

Assertive 0.37 -0.38

Uncompromising -0.37 0.37

Free-thinking -0.65 0.69

Strategic -0.65 0.68

Intuitive -0.49 0.55

Distractable -0.36 0.40 -0.58 0.62

Systematic -0.35

Cautious -0.38 0.35 0.37

Self-assured 0.41 -0.41 -0.33 0.34 0.30

AnxiousSensitive -0.33

Expressive 0.48 -0.42 -0.33 0.39

Mat WealthCompetitionResults -0.31 0.30 -0.38

RecognitionPers AuthorityResponsibility -0.44 0.41

IntellectNovelty 0.37 -0.38 -0.50 0.50

Self-expression -0.57 0.49

Altruism -0.44 0.37

Intimacy 0.31 -0.33 -0.49 0.47

Levity 0.49 -0.55 -0.36

Security 0.32 -0.38

Work -0.33

All correlations significant at 0.01 level

mapp


manual

MAPP-J (Personality Preferences Profiler)

The specification equations described previously are a useful, but less than perfect way of predicting Jungian Type. To satisfy client demand, KCP therefore developed MAPP-J, a questionnaire to directly measure Jungian Type.

MAPP-J was designed to provide MAPP users with a type-based companion to the trait-based MAPP. Recognising the usefulness of type instruments in team, coaching and developmental settings, our aim was to develop a questionnaire that would provide psychological insights into ways of interacting with people and tasks, team roles, learning preferences and possible career directions.

Jung’s Psychological Types

Jung’s typology consisted of two basic types that he described as extraverted and introverted - this dichotomy is characterised by the direction of interest. Extraverts direct their interest and energies outwards, or towards what Jung would call the object. Introverts, by contrast, direct their interest and energies inwards, that is towards the subject. Jung saw these two types as “....so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman....”.

Indeed, he goes on to say (Psychological Types, 1971), “Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters....”

Some have argued that certain existing type questionnaires over-emphasise the distinction between being reserved versus being gregarious, and yet Jung himself drew our attention to this distinction.

A re-inspection of the MAPP/MBTI Correlation table highlights the very strong relationship bewteen the MAPP scales Affectionate, Sociable and Confident with Introversion and Extraversion. For this reason, MAPP-J labels this dichotomy as Gregarious vs Reserved.

Jung went on to identify function types - the way the individual adapts and orients his/her behaviour. Thinking types base their decisions on logic and fact, Feeling types consider people and base decisions on their personal values.

MAPP-J recognises this distinction with the dichotomy Logical vs Empathetic.

Another Jungian function describes how information is taken in and dealt with. Sensing types prefer the concrete and tangible: data that comes in through the senses. On the other hand, Intuition types prefer interpretation, the future and possibilities.

MAPP-J calls these functions Concrete vs Imaginative.

mapp


manual

The final dichotomy is described as an attitude or orientation. In essence, this concerns how someone goes about dealing with the outside world. Myers and Briggs labelled this dichotomy as Judging vs Perceiving. Judging types will tend to use the either the Thinking or Feeling functions, whilst Perceiving types will be more likely to use the Sensing or Intuition functions.

Our analysis suggests that the dichotomy here is between those who prefer structure and closure, and those who are more spontaneous and adaptable. MAPP-J therefore uses the terms Structured vs Adaptable.

The Development of MAPP-J

MAPP-J is derived from our research into the relationship between the MAPP trait items and scales and the four MBTI functions or attitudes. Initial items were selected from the MAPP scales that correlated most highly with Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perceiving. The contribution of each MAPP item to the reliability of its relevant scale was, of course, already well known, so those items that made the strongest contribution were selected for consideration in the initial version of MAPP-J.

A group of KCP researchers then made minor adjustments to the wording of each item in order that it could easily fit into a statement that always began with “I am some one who......”.

The next phase was to create an ipsative questionnaire where each item was randomly paired with an item from each pole of the four dichotomies. for example, E + S, E + N, E + T, E + F, E + J, E + P, I + S, I + N, I + T, I + F, I + J, I + P etc. Each pair was then scrutinised to ensure that neither statement was more socially desirable than another to avoid false endorsement.

This process culminated in the final version that consists of 48 pairs of items.

Reliability of MAPP-J

The ipsative nature of MAPP-J makes internal consistency an inappropriate source of reliability data.

We therefore decided to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire with a test/re-test study based on a sample of course delegates. The time between re-administrations varied between 2 weeks and 12 months, with about half of the sample falling into the latter category.

Gregarious (Extraversion) 0.82 significant at 0.01 levelReserved (Introversion) 0.78 significant at 0.01 levelConcrete (Sensing) 0.82 significant at 0.01 levelImaginative (Intuition) 0.77 significant at 0.01 levelLogical (Thinking) 0.65 significant at 0.01 levelEmpathetic (Feeling) 0.66 significant at 0.01 levelStructured (Judging) 0.75 significant at 0.01 levelAdaptable (Perceiving) 0.77 significant at 0.01level

KCP Questionnaire Series© 2017 Knight Chapman Psychological Ltd

Documents

mapp - kcpltd.com