In a recent masterclass, we discussed various aspects of using assessment instruments and how these might relate to the FIVE LENS. There’s no doubt that a good, assessment instrument can add considerable value when administered appropriately, in the correct context, and with positive intention.

Before choosing an assessment, test, or psychometric instrument, there are several things to consider, such as:

1. What value am I hoping to add by using an assessment instrument? What’s the purpose? 

It’s important that the assessment you select is ‘fit for purpose’, so it makes sense to define the purpose. Assessments tend to be designed with particular contexts and usages in mind. Examples of this are:

– as an aid to selection & recruitment.

– to assess specific competencies, capacities, traits or attributes.

– for clinical use to assess certain personality disorders.

– for use in personal development interventions such as coaching, mentoring, and counselling.

– for use in team development to make sense of team dynamics.

– for use in relationship counselling/coaching.

Take the time to be clear on your purpose and how an assessment instrument can add value to that purpose. This will help you select the appropriate tool. If you need help with this, seek guidance from someone who understands assessments – a psychologist or psychometrist, for example.

A note regarding FIVE LENS:

The FIVE LENS assessment has been designed for use in the people development context. This includes coaching, counselling, mentoring, and group/team development processes. It would fall into the broad category of ‘personality assessments’ that focus on the way people behave feel and think. It identifies certain behavioural patterns that may contribute or detract from a person’s overall effectiveness and can be used in situations where deepening personal and interpersonal awareness is important. It is NOT designed for selection & recruitment contexts or to assess specific skills or competencies.

Possible Legal Considerations:

There’s a need to be aware that some countries (e.g. South Africa) have legal restrictions or strong guidelines on the use of psychometric assessments, particularly relating to selection & recruitment. The intention is to ensure fairness to all candidates. If you use an assessment in this context, it’s essential to ensure that you’ve clarified the skills, competencies or other factors are required or essential to do the job for which you are recruiting. These are sometimes called ‘inherent job requirements’. You would then need to consider which of these inherent job requirements you want to evaluate in possible candidates and then choose an appropriate assessment instrument that can do this. The person administering the assessment needs to be properly trained (and sometimes qualified) to do so.

2. Is the assessment ‘valid’?  

Validity deals with the question: Does the assessment actually measure what it purports to measure? For example, if it’s supposed to measure extraversion, what evidence is there that it actually does this?

A useful way to establish the overall validity of an assessment instrument is to compare its results with another well-established, credible assessment that measures the same construct.

This was done in the case of FIVE LENS. For example, there are specific constructs that are addressed by both FIVE LENS and by Cattell’s 16Personality Factor (16PF) assessment. We ran both assessments on the same group of people and found a good correlation between the two. This is an indication that they were measuring the same constructs.

Through detailed FIVE LENS item analysis, we also found high correlations amongst our questionnaire items that were designed to measure the same construct. This is a strong indication that the highly correlated items are measuring the same construct.

A further indication of validity is the qualitative evidence we have received from a very high percentage of people who have completed the FIVE LENS questionnaire and been debriefed through their Personal Feedback Reports. The overwhelming evidence from these people is that the reports provide an accurate description of their current behavioural patterns.

We plan to conduct more research on the FIVE LENS assessment in the future. It’s interesting to note that one of the prominent universities in South Africa has shown interest in conducting further research. We are in communication with them and are hoping to get this started in the not-too-distant future.

We also identify the probability of ‘Motivation Distortion’ and ‘Randomness’ in responding to the FIVE LENS questionnaire. (Motivation Distortion relates to the statistical probability that respondents have adjusted their responses to portray themselves in a way that may not be entirely true. A high degree of Randomness suggests a haphazard way of responding to the questionnaire – perhaps the individual didn’t respond thoughtfully, or perhaps didn’t take the process seriously, or has a very low self-awareness.). In any case, these aspects have the potential to affect accuracy of measurement and, therefore, validity.

The debriefer is alerted by the reporting system when these factors are present so that they can be taken into account in the debriefing process. The practical aspects of this are covered in the FIVE LENS certification training.

3. Does the assessment have high or low face validity? 

High face validity suggests that, when reading the questionnaire items, it’s fairly obvious what construct they are aiming to measure. This can be shown by simply verifying it with a group of people (i.e. getting them to read an item and asking them if they can see what it’s attempting to measure.). This is not a particularly powerful way to establish validity but can be used in support of other evidence.

Low face validity suggests that in general, people can’t see an obvious link between the questionnaire items and the construct being measured. However, this is not to suggest that the assessment is completely invalid. It is theoretically possible for low-face validity questionnaires to still evaluate constructs that they purport to evaluate, but additional supporting evidence would be required to establish this. This type of assessment (as long as it is shown to be valid by other credible evidence) could be useful in the job selection process for example, as it would make it more difficult for candidates to represent themselves dishonestly in a questionnaire.

Note that the FIVE LENS assessment has been shown to have High Face Validity.

4. Does the assessment have solid theoretical underpinnings? 

It tends to increase confidence in an assessment if it can be shown to be rooted in credible theory.

The FIVE LENS certainly is, and here’s a summary of its theoretical underpinnings. Our Personal Mastery lens is centred on the work of Peter Senge, who introduced the well-established concept of the learning organisation. Learning is a central theme in personal mastery which Senge describes in his books, “The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization” and “The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization”.

FIVE LENS is also grounded in ‘systems thinking’ (developed by Prof Jay Forrester in 1956 at MIT and also referred to by Senge) emphasising the importance of a holistic, integrated approach. This is one of the main reasons for incorporating and integrating the five lenses which are designed to provide insights across five broad, interrelated aspects of human beings. In addition, each of the lenses consists of its own mini-system of factors. It’s also one of the reasons that we place so much emphasis on the need to conduct a thorough FIVE LENS debrief with clients in order to relate the feedback provided to individuals’ current contexts or broader system(s) in which they live and function.

We should also be aware that the FIVE LENS personal feedback reports aim to bring focus to clients’ beliefs about themselves, others and their current context. Some of these beliefs, which are often assumptions rather than substantial truths, can be either limiting or empowering. ‘Assumptions’, beliefs and perspectives relate to what Senge refers to as “mental models” and are essentially internal representations that underpin the ways people interpret and make sense of their world.

Fundamental to all of this is the concept, or philosophy, of ‘ontology’, the study of ‘being’. Many theorists and philosophers have addressed this theme in exploring what it is to exist. In a sense, this is at the heart of the FIVE LENS as it attempts to shine light onto the client’s ‘way of being’ and enable a deeper self-understanding.

The Social Drives lens has a relationship with the so-called Enneagram sub-types which have been quite thoroughly explored by some authors. We see that these sub-types relate to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model and, more recently Richard Barrett’s levels of consciousness model, which is derived from Maslow and the Chakra system of energy vortices.

I should also mention the strong emphasis that we place on the ethical thread that runs through all that we do with the FIVE LENS assessment and the way we work with clients, practitioners, and facilitators. It informs our business processes and the way we conduct certification training.

The International Coaching Federation (ICF) provides a solid ethical framework for coaches that we fully support.

5. Is the Enneagram a scientifically proven model of human behaviour? 

Although the Enneagram is fast becoming an accepted, credible model of human behaviour, you may, from time to time, be challenged about its validity. Is it a true and accurate representation of human characteristics, traits, and behavioural patterns? And what evidence is there to support this, if any?

Conducting an internet search reveals many strange and wondrous sources of information relating to the Enneagram! Some of them lean towards trivialising the Enneagram, turning it into a fun party game, or misleading the reader by creating a wrong impression of the model, but some sources are indeed helpful, accurate and informative. Unfortunately, a casual internet search can easily leave people feeling confused or negative about this model. So let’s take a look at some of the research that has put the Enneagram to the test.

Below I’ve cited and briefly summarised two sources of research that you can follow up if you need more detail:

Brown, A & Bertram, D. 2005. Relationships between OPQ and Enneagram Types. London: SHL plc.

Brown & Bertram’s work confirmed a trait structure for each Enneagram style using the OPQ assessment as a comparison. They provided evidence that the nine Enneagram styles do exist as a set of predictable traits and characteristics. These were verified against the ‘Big Five’ framework. In fact, they found that a Big Five analysis could classify people into their correct Enneagram styles at least 75% of the time. (NB: the Big Five traits are: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience.)

A quote from their work:

“The Enneagram has been scientifically supported… The research suggests that the nine Enneagram types do have validity as real and objective indicators of personality.”

Sutton, Anna (2012) “But is it Real?” A review of research on the Enneagram. Enneagram Journal, 5, 5-20

Anna Sutton, Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, researched the role of personality and self-awareness in the workplace.

Her 2012 review and summary of the academic literature on the Enneagram formed part of her PhD submission. Her article references 28 sources and includes the following findings:

The Enneagram fulfils the three criteria personality psychologists are looking for: we can make clear, testable hypotheses from it, it is practically useful, and it provides a comprehensive theory.

The 9 Enneagram styles can be shown to be clearly differentiated from each other using other established personality measures (e.g. The Big Five). This verifies the existence of the 9 styles in reality.

The 9 styles are fairly equally distributed across populations, although there are some small differences. For example, evidence suggests that there are 5% more Enneagram 9’s overall than other styles. Also, women seem more likely than men to be Enneagram 2, 4 or 7, while the reverse is true for Enneagram 3, 5 and 8.

The best way to make an accurate decision about a person’s Enneagram style is by combining good knowledge of the person and good knowledge of the Enneagram. (Hence, our thorough FIVE LENS certification training and the necessity to conduct a thorough debrief with clients.)

Once people identify their Enneagram style, it seems to be very stable over time (which is what Enneagram theory predicts).

Evidence suggests that learning about the Enneagram has a positive impact on self-acceptance, self-development and the understanding of others.

Although Sutton offers some caution regarding making extravagant claims about the Enneagram, she goes on to say: “I also believe we are on to something good and have a solid basis for confidence in using the Enneagram in our own lives and introducing it to others.”

6. A Note on Type versus Trait Approaches to understanding personality: 

Over time, two broad approaches have emerged in understanding and evaluating personality, each giving rise to a body of theory and assessment methodologies. Let’s take a look at some of the differences between these two theoretical positions:

Type theories tend to place people into specific categories based on certain individual characteristics. They emphasise distinct personality ‘types’ or categories that individuals fall into. These categories form a fairly rigid framework that tends to eliminate or at least de-emphasise subtle differences between people. In this way, these theories tend to be less sensitive to the diversity of human characteristics and instead group people under specific broad labels.

The earliest proponent of this approach was probably Hippocrates, who spoke of the four humours: sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic, each of which defined a certain personality type. More recent type theorists include C.G. Jung, William Sheldon, and Ernest Kretschmer, amongst others.

Trait theories emphasise the importance of traits in the study of personality. Traits are characteristics that influence people’s thoughts, emotions and behaviour. Trait approaches emphasise subtle differences between people rather than broad categories. In this approach, behaviour exists more on a continuum rather than a simple category, the continuum indicating to what extent a particular characteristic is present or how intense it appears to be. Examples of trait theories include the Big Five, Hans Eyesenck’s personality theory, J. P. Guilford’s structure of intellect theory, and Jeffrey Gray’s biopsychological theory of personality, etc.

More recently, psychologists have favoured trait rather than type approaches. However, it could be argued that both have a place in understanding personality and resultant behaviour. While there do seem to be broad categories of people in the world, there are many subtle differences between those who fall into the same category. The trait aspect brings flexibility that the strict type approach perhaps lacks.

The Enneagram is often viewed as a typological approach to understanding personality, hence the use of the term ‘Enneagram type’. However, from a FIVE LENS perspective, we aim to loosen up the concept of ‘type’ and introduce more flexibility. In fact, we prefer to use the language of Enneagram, ‘style’ rather than ‘type’. The word ‘style’ feels a little less rigid than ‘type’, and ‘style’ seems to better represent our approach.

While we do agree that one of the nine styles will be a default pattern of thought, feeling, and action for an individual, we also recognise that the other eight styles play a role, to some extent, in defining a person’s particular characteristics. This is why our Personal Feedback Reports show individuals’ relative scores across all nine styles. The higher the score, the more influence that style will have on behaviour. The most significant scores will generally be the two highest scoring styles and the lowest scoring style, representing behavioural patterns most used and least used. These are often where clients’ likely strengths and challenges lie.

The FIVE LENS also evaluates levels of integration (strongly influenced by Personal Mastery and Emotional Resilience); and Social Drives, all of which attenuate an individual’s overall Enneagram patterns or ‘way of being’. In this way, we aim to individualise the feedback provided in our Reports such that two people with the same primary Enneagram style are likely to receive different feedback in their reports because of the additional variations we take into account.

7. A Note on ‘Reliability’ in Assessments: 

Reliability is generally referred to as the extent to which the results from an assessment are replicated when the same individuals re-take it in the same setting. A strong similarity between original and subsequent assessments using the same assessment and methodology indicates high reliability.

(Interestingly, some Jungian-based typology assessments have been criticised for lacking subtlety and being unreliable. In one MBTI study, 33% of people received different results after four weeks and 50% after five weeks. Ref: Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI. Consulting Psychology Journal Practice & Research. 57(3): 210-221. June 2005. David Pottinger, Marshall University).

Reliability has been shown in the FIVE LENS over a relatively short period of time (2-3 months) between assessment and re-assessment, with no developmental interventions or other strongly impactful events having taken place in the intervening time period.

However, we need to bear in mind that this assessment is meant to be used in developmental interventions such as coaching, counselling, mentoring, etc., and these are generally intended to help individuals adjust their behaviour or thinking processes in some way.

In this case, using the FIVE LENS assessment at the start of the intervention and again at the end may yield somewhat different results.

This is to be expected and even desired as long as the changes are positive and advantageous for the client.