A major concern of test developers is whether each test question reliably measures the construct (i.e. deep-seated mental framework) it is supposed to measure. If a test is well designed, scores from items on one part of the test should correlate with scores from questions measuring the same construct in another part of the test. Thus, test "reliability" refers to the ability of the test to produce consistent scores over time.

Statistical procedures used in development of the Emergenetics Profile include inter-item reliability (item by item), split-half (overall) reliability, and test/re-test reliability. Inter-item reliability is an internal measure of how well each item correlates to the total score for that item. Split-half reliability is a measure of relationship between scores on the first half of the test with scores on the last half. Test/re-test reliability is a measure of consistently a person answers the profile from one time to the next.

Inter-item Reliability Assertiveness, the value of this response would be expected to increase with the total score for Assertiveness. If the item score and total score were not positively correlated, question 14 would be dropped from the test.

The measure of Split-half (overall reliability) used for the Emergenetics profile is coefficient alpha. Coefficient alpha refers to the average of all possible inter-item and split-half correlations, both good and bad. Without relying on single indicators of reliability which may contain large amounts of error, coefficient alpha provides an overall measure of the internal reliability of the test. The coefficient alphas for the Emergenetics Profile are:

Construct	Coefficient Alpha
Analytical	.83
Structural	.76
Social	.76
Conceptual	.76
Expressiveness	.83
Assertiveness	.83
Flexibility	.80

Test/Re-Test Reliability Test/re-test reliability is a measure of how well a person answers the profile over time. Test/re-test measures were conducted during the development of the profile. Results indicate that persons who completed the profile over a period of two years tended to respond in much the same manner. Here are the statistical correlations for each attribute for that study: (Any number .70 or greater is considered a very strong correlation.)

Construct	Coefficient Alpha
Analytical	.84
Structural	.77
Social	.74
Conceptual	.82
Expressiveness	.80
Assertiveness	.78
Flexibility	.82

Further test/re-test studies were completed in 2004. This time, we measured Emergenetics scores for 171 females and 117 males, some of whom took the test as early as 1993. This data was examined using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedure to determine whether change in test scores was due to chance. The ANOVA data showed Conceptual scores increased slightly between the first testing and second testing. We think this might be due to an Emergenetics "workshop effect" where participants learned that being Conceptual can be a "good thing".

Relationships of the Attributes Behavioral research is generally filled with overlapping results. How can a person, for example, not be "Assertive" when he or she is also "Expressive"? Much of this confusion comes from the fact that behavioral science is "fuzzy"—that is, one behavior often overlaps another behavior. The similarities between attributes were recognized during our research and an attribute was only included when it helped explain different behaviors between people with similar Thinking Attributes.

Construct Relationships The relationships between Thinking Attributes and Behavior Attributes are the strength of Emergenetics. They also make understanding Emergenetics slightly more complex. The relationships between the Emergenetics factors are shown in the following table:

	Analytical	Structural	Social	Conceptual	Expressiveness	Assertiveness
Structural	.18
Social	NS	NS
Conceptual	.11	-.74	.26
Expressiveness	.10	-.51	.55	.52
Assertiveness	.25	-.50	.15	.49	.80
Flexibility	NS	-.20	.84	.38	.66	.30

Correlations are significant at the P=<.01 level using a two-tailed test of significance. The data from the Emergenetics research base now contains responses from tens of thousands of people. The table above shows how the relationships between behaviors, attitudes and thinking styles generally vary in strength and direction. Here are some of the highlights:

Relationships Between Thinking Attributes There is a minimal correlation between Analytical and Structural (r=.18); Analytical and Conceptual (r=.11); and, Social and Conceptual (r=.26). Structural showed a strong negative relationship with Conceptual (r=-.74) indicating an expected bipolarity between an expressed interest in either creativity or rule following. Social showed no statistical relationship with either Analytical or Structural attributes. This indicates the four Thinking Attributes tend to measure different factors, some of which move in opposite directions.

Relationships Between Behavioral Attributes These relationships were straightforward. Expressiveness was strongly related with Assertiveness (r =.80) and had a strong relationship with Flexibility (r =.66). While it is difficult to separate assertiveness in a social situation from assertiveness in a task situation, it is possible to be task assertive without being socially assertive. Therefore, the two scales, Assertiveness and Expressiveness, were included to explain the presence of autocratic behavior. Flexibility, on the other hand, should have lower correlations with Assertiveness than with Expressiveness and this was confirmed by the data (.66 compared with .30).

Relationships Between Thinking Attributes and Behavioral Attributes The three Behaviors showed the expected relationships with each other, but differing relationships with the Thinking Attributes, as intended. Flexibility moved independently from Analytical (r=.07, ns); negatively with Structural (r=-.20); very positively with Social (r=.84) and, generally positive with Conceptual (r=.38). These relationships showed that people who rated themselves as socially or conceptually oriented thinkers also tended to rate themselves as being flexible (a beneficial trait in social and creative situations). Analytical thinking had no strong Flexibility indicators either way. Structural thinking indicators were negatively related to Flexibility indicators, which meant that people who valued rules and order were also likely to be less flexible than others.

People who rated themselves as Assertive were slightly correlated with Analytical (r=.25) and Social (r=.15); negatively related with Structure; (r-.50); and moderately correlated with Conceptual (r=.49). These relationships indicate that Assertiveness is largely associated with rule-breaking (a negative Structural Attribute) and risk-taking (a positive Conceptual attribute).

Expressiveness is negatively associated with Structural (r=-.51) and positively associated with Analytical (r=.10), Social (r=.55), and Conceptual (r=.52). These patterns indicate that rule followers are likely to be quiet and reserved; problem solvers tend to be independent; and, social and conceptual thinkers are likely to be more outgoing.

Flexibility is negatively associated with Structural (r=-.20) and positively associated with Social (r= .84) and Conceptual (r=.38). These relationships indicate that Social thinkers will almost always also be Flexible and that Conceptual thinkers are likely to be Flexible.

Putting It Together A person's primary Thinking style does not always predict how he or she will behave. Social thinking is likely to be Expressive and Flexible, and only slightly Assertive. Conceptual thinking is probably more Expressive and Assertive and may be somewhat Flexible. Structural thinking tends to be Non-Expressive, Non-Assertive and, slightly, Inflexible. Analytical thinking has little association with any of the behaviors. It correlates slightly with Expressiveness and Assertiveness and not at all with Flexibility.

Gender Differences and Normative Information In general, the mean raw scores for males and females show interesting differences. Females scored significantly higher in Structural, Social, Expressiveness and Flexibility attributes. Males scored higher in Analytical, Conceptual and Assertiveness attributes. These differences are not good or bad; they are just differences. The following T-score comparisons are statistically significant at the P=<.01 level. They represent averages, not individual scores, and should be considered with interest, not judgment.

Analytical	Male preferences are 5 points higher than females
Structural	Female preferences are 2 points higher than males
Social	Female preferences are 5 points higher than males
Conceptual	Male preferences are 2 points higher than females
Expressiveness	Female preferences are 1 points higher than males
Assertiveness	Male preferences are 2 points higher than females
Flexibility	Female preferences are 2 points higher than males

Because of these differences, a person's final score for each Emergenetics factor is reported in relation to others of the same sex. Gender-based norms were used because reporting this avoids sexual bias in the report. Emergenetics norms have a standard error of less than 1.0.

Normative Updates Emergenetics is periodically renormed to account for test bias and to reflect changes in the culture. Through the years the norms have not shown substantive change, with two exceptions. When we compared the 1991, 1995 and 2002 data, we found there was a shift in the means and point differences in some of the attributes as the following chart reveals:

Gender Gap

Attribute	Mean	1991	1995	2002	2010
Analytical	Males higher	5 points	4 points	5 points	5 points
Structural	Females higher	2 points	2 points	2 points	2 points
Social	Females higher	7 points	6 points	6 points	5 points
Conceptual	Males higher	3 points	3 points	2 points	2 points
Expressiveness	Females higher	1 points	1 points	2 points	1 points
Assertiveness	Males higher	5 points	3 points	2 points	2 points
Flexibility	Females higher	5 points	3 points	3 points	2 points

This latest data was drawn from a base of 54,222 respondents and all of these numbers represent statistically significant changes.

Conclusions The Emergenetics Profile meets or exceeds all expected criteria for face validity, construct validity, content validity, split-half reliability and inter-item reliability.

It provides valuable information about four different Thinking styles and three Behavioral styles using norms generated from analyzing tens of thousands of profiles.

The Emergenetics Profile has been found to provide valuable feedback to people who wish to use the instrument for improving interpersonal effectiveness whether in a personal or occupational setting and it appears to reflect cultural norms over time.