The DISC Personality Assessment: Worthwhile Investment Or Con?
DISC Personality Types: A Critical Review
The DISC assessment is popular for discerning behaviour styles and personality traits. Psychologist William Moulton Marston (1) is credited with the groundwork for this measure.
The DISC personality test, known for assessing Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness, holds an enduring appeal in many professional contexts. However, several critiques can be raised from a scientific perspective. We briefly summarise key issues in this article.
The Underlying Theory
While rooted in Marston's ideas, the theory behind DISC profiles was developed into a practical assessment tool posthumously. The DISC personality test is known for its simplicity. A person's responses are categorised into a DISC type. Each type - D, I, S, or C - corresponds to a quadrant of the DISC graph.
This model proposes that people display these personality traits in varying degrees, with one typically more dominant than the others. These DISC personality styles are:
Dominance (task-oriented and fast-paced)
Influence (people-oriented and fast-paced)
Steadiness (people-oriented and detail-oriented)
Conscientiousness (task-oriented and detail-oriented).
The knowledge of personal style can guide interactions and decision-making in both personal and professional situations.
The Scientific Scrutiny
Despite its broad application, the DISC personality test is subject to significant criticism.
Reliability and Consistency
Reliability relates to the consistency of results over time. This element is a fundamental attribute for any psychological assessment. Some research raises questions about the test-retest reliability of DISC assessments. Significant response variation may occur when individuals take the test at different intervals (2).
Lack of Predictive Validity
Predictive validity is the ability to anticipate future behaviour or outcomes. This attribute is very important for personality assessments. Critics argue that the DISC model lacks predictive validity. This suggests that a person's DISC profile may not accurately foretell their success in a particular role or context (3).
Oversimplification of Personality Traits
By dividing personalities into four DISC types, the DISC personality test risks simplifying the complex nature of human personality (4). Therefore, this assessment may neglect the nuances and subtleties that a more comprehensive assessment might reveal.
Absence of Normative Data
Responses collected from hundreds of people for a given questionnaire represent normative data. It is essential to compare individual scores with an appropriate reference group. DISC assessments lack this normative data.
This shortcoming is problematic for many reasons. For instance, an individual's score cannot be interpreted in a broader context (5). This absence can limit the tool's application in an employment context (e.g., recruitment).
Scarcity of Peer-Reviewed Research
Compared to other popular personality assessments, there is a relative lack of independent, peer-reviewed research supporting the DISC model (6). Independent, peer-reviewed studies are the gold standard for validating such assessments. This absence further questions scientific credibility.
Alternatives
Several alternative scientifically validated personality assessment tools that are available and used by trained practitioners. The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) are two such examples.
The NEO-PI-R, grounded in the Five Factor Model. This approach views personality in five key domains: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (7). Some of these personality elements have been linked reliably to many psychological issues (e.g., neuroticism with perfectionism and depression). The NEO has demonstrated robust reliability and validity across numerous studies (8).
Similarly, the MMPI is one of the most widely used personality assessments in mental health. It has evolved through multiple iterations, each enhancing its validity and clinical relevance (9).
These assessments, backed by a wealth of empirical research, represent the gold standard in personality testing.
Summary
The DISC personality test provides a simple and accessible tool for exploring behaviour styles and personality profiles. However, a rigorous examination uncovers significant scientific limitations on many fronts. A comprehensive view of an individual (e.g., consideration of experiences, skills, and a broad range of personality facets) remains the most prudent approach in both personal and professional contexts.
Further reading:
Here is one of the many books providing a critical analysis of personality testing
We are Coaching & Clinical Psychologists with extensive experience helping people conquer depression and other wellbeing issues. Read more about our work, watch practical skills videos or browse other articles. Get in touch anytime.
References
Marston, W.M. (1928). Emotions of normal people. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Brennan, R.L., & Prediger, D.J. (1981). Coefficient Kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687-699.
Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, C.O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
Birkeland, S.A., Manson, T.M., Kisamore, J.L., Brannick, M.T., & Smith, M.A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 317-335.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587-596.
Butcher, J.N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
