Validity and reliability of enneagram personality types and subtypes inventory in a Turkish sample

Öz

Aim: In this study, we aimed to perform validity and reliability of the Enneagram Types and Subtypes Inventory (ETASI) based on the Enneagram Personality Theory (EPT).

Methods: A self-report scale was developed to evaluate personality types and subtypes based on the EPT. After the pilot application, the final form of ETASI (69 items for types, 30 items for subtypes) and five-factor personality inventory short form (5FPI-SF) were applied as an online form on the Internet. 5FPI-SF was utilized for the concurrent validity. For the construct validity of the subscales, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used, and internal consistency reliabilities were determined by Cronbach Alpha coefficients. Also, test-retest reliabilities were assessed within the four weeks period.

Results: In this study, there were 3531 participants and most of the participants were females (91.3%) and had a higher education level (14.37±4.33 years). For the CFA model, data fit indices of the scales were found as good and acceptable values. Cronbach Alpha coefficients were calculated between 0.665 (type 5) and 0.865 (type 8) for the type scales, and between 0.748 (social) and 0.783 (self-preservation) for the subtype scales. Concurrent validity of the scales (5FPI-SF and ETASI) was found well established. Satisfactory test-retest coefficients of reliability were also confirmed within the range of 0.289 and 0.512 (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Psychometric analyses have shown that ETASI is a valid and reliable self-report personality inventory for determining types and subtypes of EPT.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• factor analysis
• personality
• validation study

Enneagram kişilik tipleri ve alt tipleri ölçeğinin Türkiye örnekleminde geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Enneagram Kişilik Teorisi (EKT)’ne dayanan Enneagram Tip ve Alt Tip Ölçeği’nin (ETAÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmasını gerçekleştirmeyi amaçladık.

Yöntemler: Kişilik tiplerini ve alt tiplerini değerlendirmek için EKT’ye dayalı bir öz bildirim ölçeği geliştirilmiştir. Pilot uygulama sonrasında, ETAÖ ölçeğinin son hali (tipler için 69 madde, alt tipler için 30 madde) ve beş faktör kişilik ölçeği kısa formu (5FKÖ-KF) internet ortamında çevirimiçi formlar olarak uygulanmıştır. 5FKÖ-KF eşzamanlı geçerlik için kullanılmıştır. Alt ölçeklerin yapı geçerliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) kullanılmış ve iç tutarlılığın güvenirliği Cronbach Alfa katsayıları ile belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca dört haftalık süre içerisinde test-tekrar test güvenirlikleri değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Bu çalışmaya 3531 katılımcı dâhil olmuştur ve katılımcıların çoğu kadındır (%91,3) ve yüksek eğitim düzeyine (14,37±4,33 yıl) sahiptir. DFA modeli için ölçeklerin veri uyum indeksleri iyi ve kabul edilebilir değerler olarak bulunmuştur. Cronbach Alfa katsayıları, tip ölçekleri için 0.665 (tip 5) ile 0.865 (tip 8) arasında, alt tip ölçekleri için 0.748 (sosyal) ile 0.783 (kendini koruma) arasında hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeklerin (5FKÖ-KF ve ETAÖ) eşzamanlı geçerliliği iyi olarak belirlenmiştir. Tatmin edici test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayıları da 0,289 ile 0,512 (p<0.05) aralığında doğrulanmıştır.

Sonuç: Psikometrik analizler, ETAÖ’nün EKT’nin tiplerini ve alt tiplerini belirlemek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir öz bildirim kişilik ölçeği olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• faktör analizi
• geçerlilik çalışması
• kişilik

Kaynakça

1. McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol. 1997;52(5):509-16.
2. Newgent RA, Parr PH, Newman I, Wiggins KK. The Riso-Hudson enneagram type indicator: estimates of reliability and validity. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2004;36(4):226–37.
3. Sutton A. Implicit and explicit personality in work settings: an application of enneagram theory. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds, England. 2007
4. Dameyer JJ. Psychometric evaluation of the Riso-Hudson enneagram type indicator (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California Institute of Integral Studies, US. 2001
5. Petsche JJM. The sacred dance of the enneagram. Fieldwork in Relig. 2016;11(1):53–75.
6. Riso RD, Hudson R. The wisdom of the enneagram. New York, NY: Bantam Dell Publishing Group; 1999.
7. Naranjo C. Character and neurosis: An integrative view. Gateways Books&Tapes; 1994.
8. Bland AM. The enneagram: A review of the empirical and transformational literature. J Humanist Couns Educ Dev. 2010;49(1):16–31

9. Choucroun PM. An exploratory analysis of the enneagram typology in couple counseling: A qualitative analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 2012
10. Bowlby J. (Attachment and loss, Vol 1: Attachment. London: Vintage. 1997 (Original work published 1969).
11. Luyten P, Fonagy P. Integrating and differentiating personality and psychopathology: A psychodynamic perspective. J Pers. 2022;90(1):75-88.
12. Cloninger CR, Dragan MS, Przybeck TR. A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50(12):975–90.
13. Hook JN, Hall TW, Davis DE, Van Tongeren DR, Conner M. The enneagram: a systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. J Clin Psychol. 2021;77(4):865-83.
14. Tolk LS. Integrating the Enneagram and schema therapy: bringing the soul into psychotherapy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology, Berkeley. 2006
15. Wagner J. Enneagram styles and maladaptive schemas: a research inquiry. The Enneagram J. 2008;1(1):52–64.
16. Siegel DJ. Attachment and self-understanding: parenting with the brain in mind. Prenat Perinat Psychol Health. 2004;18(4): 273–85.
17. Daniels D, Saracino T, Fraley M, Christian J, Pardo S. Advancing ego development in adulthood through study of the enneagram system of personality. J Adult Dev. 2018;25(4):229–41.
18. Komasi S, Zakiei A, Ghasemi SR, et al. Is enneagram personality system able to predict perceived risk of heart disease and readiness to lifestyle modification? Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22(4):394-9.
19. Lee JW, Seong KS, Eom, HJ. Prediction of obesity by Sasang Constitutions and enneagram in university students. J Korean Med Obes Res. 2009;9(2):21-32.
20. Saeidi M, Komasi S, Amiri MM, Azizi M, Alikhani M. Is the enneagram personality system an effective approach to explaining drug addiction. Middle East J. Rehabil. Health Stud, 2020;7:e98710.
21. Whillans PP. Applying the enneagram to the world of chronic pain. The Enneagram J. 2009;2(1):81-103.
22. Wagner J. Reliability and validity study of a sufi personality typology: the enneagram. J Clin Psychol. 1983;39(5): 712–7.
23. Youn YS. The enneagram personality type scale: its development and validation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001;15(3):131–61.
24. Scott SA. An analysis of the validity of the enneagram. (Unpublished doctoral dissertations). The College of William and Marry, Virginia. 2011
25. Demir A, Rakhmanov O, Dane S. Validity and reliability of the Nile personality assessment tool based on enneagram for English-Speaking people. J Res Med Dent Sci. 2020;8(4):24–32.
26. Hoseinian S, Azimipour P, Karami A, Yazdi SM, Keshavarz GG. Study of the psychometrical features of enneagram personality types. Journal of Career & Organizational Counseling. 2012;4(12):125–44.
27. Núñez Galvez C, Ramos-Vera CA, Barrientos AS, Ogundokun RO. Adaptation of the personality type inventory based on enneagram in Peruvian University students of health sciences. J Res Med Dent Sci. 2021;9(5):10–5.
28. Tastan K. Development and validation of a personality type‎ inventory‎ based on enneagram. Konuralp Tıp Deg. 2019;11(1):112-8.
29. Heppner PP, Wampold BE, Owen J, Wang TK, Thompson NM. Research design in counseling (3rd ed.). Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole. 2008
30. Tatar A. Büyük Beş-50 Kişilik Testinin Türkçeye çevirisi ve Beş Faktör Kişilik Envanteri Kısa Formu ile karşılaştırılması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2017;18(1):51-61.
31. Chestnut B. The complete enneagram: 27 paths to greater self-knowledge. She Writes Press. 2013
32. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH.. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher, INC. 1994
33. Sutton A. But is it real? A review of research on the enneagram. The Enneagram J. 2012;5(1):5-20.