2022 Validation Report 2022 Published

Extended DISC® & FinxS® – Validation Report 2022
Validation Report 2022

Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis
FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment
FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery
Copyright Extended DISC & FinxS – No reproduction in any form is allowed without written
permission by the owner of the copyright.
Instagram @FinxSBackStage
EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

© Copyright Extended DISC Global & FinxS 1/111
1 EXTENDED DISC® & FINXS® - VALIDATION SUMMARY ....................................................................... 4

2 PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 PURPOSE OF THE VALIDATION REPORT .............................................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Research coverage and use ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 HISTORY OF EXTENDED DISC® BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 9
4 ORIGINAL VALIDATION STUDY ................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2 ABOUT THE EXTENDED DISC® PERSONA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................... 11
4.3 ABOUT THE VALIDATION PROCESS................................................................................................................... 14
4.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.................................................................................................................................. 16
4.5 VALIDITY.......................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.6 CRITERION VALIDITY ....................................................................................................................................... 22
4.7 RELIABILITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
5 BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS - OVERALL RESULTS .................................................................................... 31
5.1 GLOBAL POPULATION....................................................................................................................................... 31
5.1.1 Global Distribution – DISC.................................................................................................................... 32
5.1.2 Global Distribution – DISC by Age Group ............................................................................................ 33
5.1.3 Global Distribution – DISC vs. Gender ................................................................................................. 35
5.2 LANGUAGE DISTRIBUTION................................................................................................................................ 37
5.2.1 DISC Distribution by Language ............................................................................................................. 37
5.2.2 “Sister language” Comparison – DISC Distribution ............................................................................. 38
5.2.3 DISC Distribution by Language vs. Age Group ..................................................................................... 41
5.2.4 DISC Distribution by Language vs. Gender ........................................................................................... 43
6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 46
6.1 TEST-RETEST .................................................................................................................................................... 46
6.2 INVALID PROFILES ............................................................................................................................................ 49
6.3 COMPARISON OF RANDOM POPULATIONS ......................................................................................................... 51
6.4 LEAST “HIT-RATE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES .................................................................................................. 52
6.5 LEAST HIT-RATE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES FOR EACH DISC TRAIT ............................................................... 52
6.6 DOMINATING ‘LEAST’ RESPONSE IN EACH QUESTION ...................................................................................... 52
6.7 QUESTION VALIDITY AND WORD CHOICES ...................................................................................................... 53
6.8 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY ..................................................................................................................................... 53
6.9 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY .................................................................................................................................. 54
7 CULTURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 56
7.1 NATIONAL STRESS INDICATOR™ ..................................................................................................................... 56
7.2 SPECIAL CASES ................................................................................................................................................. 58
7.3 DEVICE DETECTION .......................................................................................................................................... 59
7.4 PROFILE II VS. PROFILE I .................................................................................................................................. 62
7.5 COUNTRY DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................................. 63
8 INVENTORY ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................. 65
8.1 STEP-BY-STEP .................................................................................................................................................. 65
8.2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FACILITATOR .............................................................................................. 65
8.3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT .............................................................................................. 66
9 INVENTORY REPORTING ............................................................................................................................. 67
9.1 OTHER PROVIDERS ............................................................................................................................................ 69
10 INVENTORY BIAS ........................................................................................................................................... 70
11 OUR ETHICS ..................................................................................................................................................... 71

11.1 CODE OF FAIR TESTING PRACTICES ............................................................................................................. 71
11.1.1 Section 1: Responsibilities of Those Who Develop Assessment Products and Services .................... 71
11.1.2 Section 2: Responsibilities of Those Who Market and Sell Assessment Products and Services ........ 72
11.1.3 Section 3: Responsibilities of Those Who Select Assessment Products and Services ........................ 73
11.1.4 Section 4: Responsibilities of Those Who Administer Assessments ................................................... 74
11.1.5 Section 5: Responsibilities of Those Who Score Assessments ........................................................... 74
11.1.6 Section 6: Responsibilities of Those Who Interpret, Use, and Communicate Assessment Results .... 75
11.1.7 Section 7: Responsibilities of Those Who Educate Others About Assessments ................................. 76
12 FINXS® SALES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT (SCA) ...................................................................................... 77
12.1 BACKGROUND TO SCA ................................................................................................................................ 77
12.2 SALES COMPETENCES .................................................................................................................................. 78
12.3 SALES MINDSETS ......................................................................................................................................... 80
12.4 EXCUSE INDEX® .......................................................................................................................................... 82
12.5 SALES ROLES ............................................................................................................................................... 83
13 FINXS® REASONING TEST BATTERY ........................................................................................................ 85
13.1 BACKGROUND TO THE FINXS® REASONING TEST BATTERY ........................................................................ 85
13.2 REASONING TESTS ....................................................................................................................................... 85
13.3 REASONING STATISTICS - DEMOGRAPHICS................................................................................................... 87
13.4 REASONING STATISTICS – ANSWERING ........................................................................................................ 88
14 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................ 89
14.1 EXTENDED DISC® THEORY RELATED QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 89
14.2 EXTENDED DISC® BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE RELATED QUESTIONS.................................... 91
14.3 EXTENDED DISC® PROFILE AND DIAMOND RELATED QUESTIONS ............................................................... 94
14.4 SALES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT RELATED QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 95
14.5 SPORTS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT RELATED QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 102
15 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................................... 107
16 SUPPORT MATERIAL ................................................................................................................................... 111

1 Extended DISC® & FinxS® - Validation Summary
Research population
The population was collected from the users of the Extended DISC® and FinxS® Systems from all
over the world. The population represents all the age groups, genders, organization types and
levels and races in the same ratio it is designed to be used.
The total population of results used in the research was 1.237.505 for Behavioral Analysis, 51.202
for Sales Capacity Assessment and 151.960 for Reasoning.
The language versions of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis for the study were (the language
codes used in this study):
- Afrikaans (AFR) - German (Switzerland) (GES)

- Albanian (ALB) - Greek (Cyprus) (GRC)
- Arabic (ARA) - Greek (Greece) (GRE)
. Basque (BAQ) - Gujarati (GJR)
- Bengali (BEN) - Hebrew (HEB)
- Bosnian (BOS) - Hindi (HIN)
- Bulgarian (BUL) - Hungarian (HUN)
- Burmese (BUR) - Icelandic (ICE)
- Catalan (CAT) - Indonesian (IND)
- Chinese (Hong Kong) (CHK) - Italian (ITA)
- Chinese Simplified (CHI) - Japanese (JAP)
- Chinese (Traditional) (TWN) - Kannada (KAN)
- Croatian (CRO) - Khmer (KHM)
- Czech (CZE) - Korean (KOR)
- Danish (DAN) - Kurdish (KUR)
- Dutch (HOL) - Latvian (LAT)
- English (Australasia) (AUS) - Lithuanian (LIT)
- English (Canada) (ECA) - Macedonian (MAC)
- English (Caribbean) (ENC) - Malay (MAL)
- English (India) - Maori (MAO)
- English (Ireland) (EIR) - Marathi (MAR)
- English (East/West Africa) (NIG) - Montenegrin (MNE)
- English (Southern Africa) (RSA) - Molu (MEU)
- English (US) (ENG) - Nepalese (NPL)
- English (UK) (EUK) - Norwegian (NOR)
- Estonian (EST) - Persian (PER)
- Filipino / Tagalog ( FIL) - Polish (POL)
- Finnish (FIN) - Portuguese (Brazil) (POB)
- Flemish (FLE) - Portuguese (Portugal) (POR)
- French (Canada) (FCA) - Romanian (ROM)
- French (Caribbean) (FRR) - Serbian (SER)
- French (France) (FRA) - Sinhala (SIN)
- Galician (GLG) - Slovak (SLK)
- German (Austria) (GEA) - Slovene (SLN)
- German (Germany) GER) - Somali (SOM)
- Spanish (Caribbean) (SPC) - Tok Pisin (TPI)

- Spanish (Spain) (SPA) - Tongan (TON)
- Spanish (Latin America) (SPL) - Turkish (TUR)
- Swahili (SWA) - Ukrainian (UKR)
- Swedish (Finland) (SWF) - Urdu (URD)
- Swedish (Sweden) (SWE) - Vietnamese (VIE)
- Tamil (TAM) - Yoruba (YOR)
- Thai (THA) - Zulu (ZUL)
Reliability and Validity of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis
Internal consistency. Internal consistency is a measure based on the correlations between different
items on the same test (or the same subscale on a larger test). It measures whether several items
that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores. Internal consistency is
usually measured with Cronbach's alpha, a statistic calculated from the pairwise correlations
between items. Internal consistency ranges between zero and one. A commonly-accepted rule of
thumb is that α of 0.6-0.7 indicates acceptable reliability, and 0.8 or higher indicates good
reliability. High reliabilities (0.95 or higher) are not necessarily desirable, as this indicates that the
items may be entirely redundant.
The global Cronbach’s Alpha for Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis version 2022 (previous
study) was:
D .81 (.81)
I .79 (.79)
S .82 (.82)
C .78 (.78)
The results prove that the instrument continues having a very high validity.
Population statistics and interesting research findings
The global DISC distribution
2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2008 2007 2006
D 7,7 7,8 9,0 9,0 9,1 9,1 12,3 11,8 13,2 12,1 12,8 12,3 12,0
I 25,3 25,4 27,9 28,4 28,3 29,0 26,4 29,8 29,6 31,3 31,4 31,5 30,9
S 33,7 33,6 32,6 32,2 32,0 30,8 30,9 29,9 28,9 30,4 30,2 30,8 31,6
C 33,4 33,2 30,4 30,4 30,6 31,1 30,4 28,5 28,2 26,2 25,6 25,4 25,4
0,988 F -test
1 Correlation
2005 2004 2003 2002

D 13,1 13,0 13,0 14,0
I 31,0 29,0 29,0 27,0
S 30,9 29,0 32,0 31,0
C 25,0 29,0 26,0 28,0
The stability of the instrument (proved by the very high correlation between the different years)
supports the claim that the instrument has been able to maintain its reliability.

The different age groups
2022 <1960’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s

D 6,9 8,3 8,6 7,8 6,1 8,0
I 27,1 26,2 25,2 25,7 25,7 24,9
S 35,6 34,1 33,1 32,0 32,9 36,6
C 30,4 31,5 33,1 34,5 35,3 30,5
The 2022 research supports the finding (that was first identified in 1994 research), that the global
population is constantly changing. Especially strong has been the decrease of dominant D in the
global population. Later in the study it can be found that these trends are not the same in every
country, but there are regional variances.
The gender differences
Although there is no major gender distribution between the four dominant styles, the minor I and
S domination in female population seems to be consistent, with D and C dominating in male
population.
Overall conclusion from the global comparison
The results show that the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis worked the same way in 2022 as it
has done in the previous years. All the distributions are similar to what they’ve previously been,
and all trends have continued to develop the same way as they have done in the past.
The results support the claim that Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis was in 2022 a valid
instrument, and that the environment has not changed in any direction that would require
adjustment in the basic construct of the instrument.
More detailed information and analysis of the research finding can be found in the rest of the 2022
validation report.
Number formatting
This report uses European number formatting. Thousand separator: “.”. Decimal separator: “,”.

2 Preface
Extended DISC® assessments are based on concepts of human behavior accepted widely all
around the world. They are not, however, purely psychological tools. They are also
management’s tools in efforts to increase the efficiency of an organization. Today, Extended
DISC® Analyses are a part of the daily management system in thousands of organizations all
around the world. They give the decision maker extremely important information about people
involved in the organization – information that would otherwise be very much more expensive and
time consuming to acquire.
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is the origin of the Extended DISC® System. It was
developed between 1991 and 1994 and is today the starting phase in many different training and
consultancy projects. Learning the Extended DISC® System typically begins with completing the
Behavioral Analysis Questionnaire and participating in the Behavioral Analysis Certification
Training.
Extended DISC® System was among the first ones to offer web based solution for completing
assessments and managing the whole process. The first web applications were launched to users as
early as 1998.
Behavioral Analysis is the most commonly used Extended DISC® assessment because of its many
applications; it is also the foundation for the other assessments. Behavioral Analysis is a
behavioral inventory based on self-evaluation. There are no right or wrong answers in the
instrument questionnaire. It does not give a high or low score or by any other means classify
people into better or worse. The Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis does not measure
intelligence, professional skills, or attitudes - it purely concentrates on measuring natural
behavioral styles.
Behavioral Analysis is a useful tool for not only the individual him/herself but also for everyone
communicating with the person. Its main purpose is to increase understanding of human behavior;
our own and others’.
Compared to other Disc Theory based tools Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis goes more
deeply into the person’s personality, measuring something much more unconscious, stable and
natural than Disc tools traditionally have done.
Extended DISC® System has been administered since 2011 as part of the FinxS® System. FinxS®
System includes also other, non-DISC, tools, like Sales Capacity Assessment and Reasoning Test
Battery that are now also part of this study.
I am very happy to offer you the opportunity to use this tool that we believe is the most
comprehensive behavioral assessment tool available. It can help you both in your business and
private life. Thank You for being part of our life! Follow us on Instagram - @FinxSBackStage.
Jukka Sappinen
Managing Director
Founder of the Extended DISC® and FinxS® Systems

3 Introduction
3.1 Purpose of the Validation Report
This report is a publication of the on-going process that aims to provide the users of the Extended
DISC® and FinxS® Systems with the most updated and valid assessment instruments.
This version focuses on the data population collected in 2022. The study compares the recent data
to previous data and the theoretical model behind Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis.
The report is based on the initial validation study by University of Oulu (in Finland) and is
updated by Extended DISC International and FinxS Ltd.
The purpose of the report is to make sure Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is still a valid tool
to be used in the next years.
This report is protected by copyright against any type of copying or reproduction.
3.1.1 Research coverage and use
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis and FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery as well as FinxS® Sales
Capacity Assessment are designed to be used for individual and organizational development. The
most common target group is, as a result of that, adult population currently employed or seeking
for employment in both public and private sector.
The instruments are applicable in all levels of an organization and in all areas of the world.
The sample populations used in this study are collected from the target group of the instruments
representing well all age groups, sexes, different races, all types of organizations and all
organizational levels that we would recommend would be the respondents of the questionnaires.
The study is limited to a number of language areas that are listed later in this document. There is
no reason to believe the instrument would not work in other languages.
3.1.2 Data Collection
To achieve the best representation of the target group of the tools in this study, the validation
sample was randomly selected among the real-life inventory results collected by the online system
of Extended DISC® and FinxS® and their partners.
The comparison material used for this study was collected in 2002 and after. In addition, material
collected for the original validation studies of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis was used for
comparison. The original material was collected on paper questionnaire, similar method to the
rest of the comparison population from 1998 – 2002.
All the comparison populations consist of randomly selected persons representing well the normal
target group of the tools.
3.2 History of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis
The Extended DISC®-system is based on a psychological theory developed in the 1920's. Carl G.
Jung created the foundations for the theory in his book The Psychological Types (Die
Psychologische Typen). His ideas were based on defining two behavioral axes; sensation-intuition
and thinking - feeling, and the four main behavioral traits that they composed. The work of Jung
was further developed by William Moulton-Marston who defined a four dimensional behavioral
map.
As a result, the four-quadrant thinking of human behavior was developed. It is still popular and is
used in many management, sales and leadership training techniques. A few variations of the
theory also exist that use, for example, eight or sixteen categories of behavioral styles. The over-
simplification of behavior and its classifications have proven to be a weakness of these systems.
The original DISC reference framework was developed at the end of the 1940's and the beginning
of the 1950's to eliminate these problems. It uses regression analysis to separate the combined four
basic behavioral styles from each other and makes them into independent and even interdependent
behavioral styles. This also makes it possible to have a framework of millions of human reaction
modes that can be transformed by using different techniques, into a smaller, more usable quantity.
Milestones of development of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis:

1921 Carl G. Jung: Die Psychologische Typen
1928 William Moulton-Marston: Emotions of Normal People
1951 DISC System (several individuals in the USA)
1991 - 1994 Development of the questionnaire design - Early validations
1991 - 1996 The report design - Writing the text contents
1994 Launch of the Extended DISC® System (Jukka Sappinen, Finland)
1994 First validation study of a published product
1995 First software application
1995 - 2001 Questionnaire translations
1997- Annual questionnaire validation studies begin
1998 Web application – ExtDISC Online Master
1999 Web application - eDISC Online
2004 Web application – Extended DISC® Online System
2011 Partnership with FinxS Ltd allowing the tool to be used within the FinxS® System
2019 FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment
2020 FinxS® Sports Capacity Assessment
Questionnaire Design and Validation:

1991-1994
1. Selection of a target group
2. Draft Questionnaire testing
3. Comparison of the results to other instruments
4. Repeating steps 1 and 2 required many times
1994-1996
5. Feedback validation
6. Test-retest validation
1997-
7. Annual language development validation

4 Original Validation Study
Extended DISC® Persona Management System

Validation Report
Petri Kauppinen, University of Oulu

4.1 Summary
A Validation process is an important part of the development process of a behavioral profile

analysis or any psychological profiling method. Many strategies have evolved for validation.
This report is part of an ongoing and long-term validation process of the Extended DISC®
Persona Management System. Extended DISC® Persona Management System was developed
by Extended DISC International Ltd. in Finland. This report summarizes a study of the
Extended DISC® instrument and the four key dimensions which it assesses (Dominance,
Influence, Steadiness and Compliance). Reliability and validity characteristics of the
Extended DISC® Persona Management System are analyzed by using various statistical
methods. The results, methods and basic theory are also briefly discussed and compared with
some related earlier reports. This report is based on data collected in both normal training
and consultancy situations and during special data collection processes conducted by
Extended DISC International Ltd. and its associate consultants.
In this report it is demonstrated that the Extended DISC® Persona Management System has
adequate reliability and validity for its applied use in a number of areas. The first steps along
the long validation process have been taken by doing these analyses. The process will
continue to show the usefulness of the Extended DISC® Persona Management System in
different kinds of situations and applications.
According to the results of this report, the Extended DISC® Persona Management System has
both high validity and reliability.
4.2 About the Extended DISC® Persona Management System
Extended DISC® Persona Management System is based on the concepts of human behavior
and over 75 years of behavioral studies. The foundation for the Extended DISC® system is a
psychological theory developed in the 1920’s by Carl G. Jung in his book ”Psychological
Types”. The next step towards the profiling system was the work of W. Moulton-Marston
(1928, 1931). He postulated a theory of human behavior as a function of the environment and
the individuals’ reaction. He formulated a method to describe individuals’ typical pattern of
interaction through four characteristics:
Dominance (D) - active

Inducement (I) - active
Submission (S) - passive
Compliance (C) - cautious
It is obvious to think that each individual can show all four dimensions in their normal
interactive way of living. According to Marston, people tend to learn a self-concept, which is
basically in accord with one of the four just mentioned key dimensions. As based on the
Marston’s scientific work and theory, the use of the behavioral profiling method gives us a
good possibility to be objective and descriptive rather than subjective and judgmental.
The first steps toward the Extended DISC® System were taken in the 1950’s when the DISC
profile framework was developed. The impetus for developing a new way of characterizing
human behavior came from the increasing need of the business world to apply psychological

information in organizational development. The guiding principle was to design frameworks

and methods that would be understandable also by people with limited psychological
background and training.
From the original DISC framework and approach several independent paths were taken by
individual psychologists who wanted to develop the original theory further to better suit their
customers’ needs. Among those was, e.g., Elizabeth Briggs-Meyers who was the originator of
the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
These early tools, however, did not quite fulfill the needs of the business life. The need for
even more flexible tools that would still retain the simplicity of the MBTI was obvious and
still existent.
Several consulting and publishing companies and individuals made an effort to give their
contribution to the further development of the DISC theory. They all came up with a system
that would produce a report based on the original DISC questionnaire. The computerization
of the world also made its mark on the development of DISC theory based tools. It now
became possible to sell the system to end-users and still give them the possibility to get the
full report.
The flow of ‘psychology in business’ from North America to Europe and the rest of the world
widened the operations of some of the companies selling DISC theory based tools to cover the
whole world.
The computerization and globalization of the business combined with the aging of most of the
business owners caused the actual DISC theory to remain to be untouched – and undeveloped.
The competition in the world market was battled with more complicated analysis reports and
also price as the arms of the war.
This situation created a possibility for smaller and more flexible companies to develop the
original DISC theory further. Perhaps the most successful of them was Extended DISC®
International, Ltd. in Finland. Its mission was to develop a full system were the original DISC
system was applied to different applications. The Extended DISC® Persona Management
System was created by Jukka Sappinen in 1994.
It was based on the original work of Jung and Moulton-Marston but also on the theories of
business management. The original questionnaire and scoring system were reconstructed.
The results frameworks as well as analysis reports were redesigned. That was the first system
to be developed for computer use from the beginning. The system was developed in close co-
operation with not only psychological experts but also business experts – trainers, consultants,
managers and even blue-collar workers.
The Extended DISC® Persona Management System contains many special characters that
make it a unique tool. The original profiling system was restructured. New methods or
frameworks for describing the analysis results, like the Extended DISC® Diamond and the
Extended DISC® Percentages, were developed. Originally a DISC tool has always meant a
self-assessment forced-choice behavioral inventory. The Extended DISC® System was
constructed to include several other tools to provide the user with a possibility to receive even
more accurate and purposeful but also more wide-angled information.
The uniqueness of the Extended DISC® System causes not only benefits but also requires
much more from the developers of the system. The old validation data from the older DISC

theory based tools can not any more be used as such – but only for comparison purposes. The
translation of the tool to different languages requires special effort. Also the development of
new tools, like the Extended DISC® Team Analysis, Team Assessment, Team Roles, Job
Analysis, Team Alignment etc. required special effort on product validation.
Since the special characters of the Extended DISC® system are not familiar for the users of
older DISC tools, more effort also needs to be put into training the users and producing new
manuals to support the use of the system.
The validation need was tackled quite extensively at the early stages of the system
development. Results from studies made with other DISC theory based tools were used to
compare the early results from the Extended DISC® System. The different steps in the
development process required different types of validation data. In total over 10.000 analysis
were used in the internal validation and development process of the Extended DISC® System.
The need to show validation results to the users of the Extended DISC® System caused
Extended DISC International to contact me. They asked me to conduct a validation study for
them. This report is the result of that study.
Figure 1. Extended DISC® Diamond
C CD DC D
CDI DCS
CDS DCI
CID DSC
CS CSD DIC DI
CI DS
CSI DIS
CIS DSI
SDC ICD
SCD IDC
SD IC
SCI
SDI ICS IDS
SC ID
SIC
ISD
SID ISC
S SI IS I

Figure 2. Extended DISC® Profiles and Percentages
D I S C D I S C
Upper
Zone
Normal
Zone
Neutral
Zone
Normal
Zone
Lower
Zone
40 60 00 00 70 30 00 00
00 00 50 50 00 00 60 40
9 7 1 1 2 3 8 8
4.3 About the Validation Process
The measurements of all psychological phenomena, like work preferences, are much more
difficult to study than to observe and measure phenomena that exist in the physical world.
Such concepts as personality, ability, attitudes and cognitive style are latent and cannot be
measured directly. Thus, persona profiling tools can also be seen as indicators of different
aspects of persona - environment system rather than exact measurements of one particular key
dimensions of that particular persona - environment relationship.
When assessing the adequacy of the Extended DISC® Persona Management System at least
two questions are often asked: ”how well does this tool minimize error in measuring actual
and the most probable behavioral style of an individual?” and ”how well does the score
measure that actual phenomena that they are actually meant to measure”? The first question is
related to the concept of reliability and the second to the concept of validity. The reliability
concerns the association between different measurements of the same concept using the same
indicator (in this case the Extended DISC® Persona Management method). Validity concerns
the association between the indicator and the concept under the interest of the measurements.
Validation for purposes of law is the process that guarantees to the user of Extended DISC®
Persona Management System that when properly used, it doesn’t discriminate against any
individual or groups of individuals and gives a proper image of the analyzed person in terms

of observed or measured key dimensions by that particular profiling tool. We also like to now
and then illustrate how well this tool actually indicates those properties it is meant to measure.
Validity of an indicator can be based upon the analysis of external criteria. These are other
indicators (tools) or more direct measures that have been found from past experience or
studies to be strongly related to the concept the tool under validation is actually trying to
measure. If our indicator shows a strong and consistent relationship to appropriate external
criteria, we say that it has some degree of validity.
The profiling system based on the DISC theory is at the moment more and more recognized to
be a valid analyzing system of human behavior and the surrounding environment. This also
involves all kinds of human interaction in the work place (teamwork, leadership,
management) and also the relationship to clients (sales work, quality of service etc.). The
Extended DISC® persona profiling system is not meant to be a personality test that would
require a tighter and higher relationship between the observed scores and external criteria.
Rather it must be seen as an indicator of human behavior, thus, various data collecting
systems (ratings, other similar tools, personnel files, assessment center method, peer
assessment) can be used to indicate the validity of the Extended DISC® Persona Management
System. It is obvious that we have to recognize not only how well the used external criteria
are actually measured, but how the results of the analyzed tool have been received.
To test the psychometrics of a given instrument, the following must be evaluated
 Item Internal Consistency: Item’s correlation with its own scale is at least 0.40.
 Item discrimination validity: Item’s correlation with its own scale is greater than with
any other scale.
 Scale level reliability: Chronbach’s alpha is at least 0.70. Test-retest correlation is high
enough and statistically significant.
 Homogeneity: Item-scale correlation is approximately equal in a scale.
 Criterion Validity: Correlation between a given scale and a chosen standard are high.
 Construct Validity: Correlations between a given scale and related scale are moderate to
high; correlation between a given scale and non-related scale are low. This also considers
the relationship of the observed profile with related assessments of behavioral style. It
relates various attributes to test scores through evidence, argument and judgment.
 Conceptual Validity: Items, when properly interpreted, are measuring what they are
supposed to measure. This means not only major scales of the tool but also country,
language, culture related matters.
 Face validity: refers to whether the test ”looks valid” to the people who take it and to
untrained colleagues
 Predictive validity: Individuals own prediction of the dominant scale hits the results of the
instrument (face validity).

4.4 Descriptive Statistics
Extended DISC® Persona Management System is based on a forced-choice checklist with 24

sections. Each of sections consists of four lines of descriptive words. The data analyzed here
is collected for normal consulting and training purposes in various occasions. The sample
consists of people aged between 18 and 60, in working life, in all types of organizations at all
levels. This secures that the sample is not biased but well represents the average background
population. The study concerns 5270 questionnaires. When compared to the results of the
other studies, the characteristics and the size of the used sample are reported separately. We
first give detailed frequency distributions of the original questionnaire sections of Finnish data
(N=555) (Table 1).
Table 1. Original answers and distributions

M L
1. Carefree, positive 30.5 10.6 M L
Flexible, yielding 18.2 24.0 13. Amusing, witty 31.0 9.4
Argumentative, speaks out 16.0 51.0 Punctilious, punctual 24.5 15.5
Stable, relaxed 30.3 14.4 Tough, brazen 2.2 68.8
Unruffled, calm 42.3 6.3
2. Optimistic, positive attitude to live 46.1 6.5
Adjustable, adaptable 16.6 27.7 14. Disciplined, self-controlled 15.0 34.8
Respectful, obedient 4.0 50.1 Lively, energetic 15.5 31.5
Shows initiative, wants change 33.3 15.7 Ready to help, well-meaning 48.5 2.3
Doesn’t give in, stubborn 21.1 31.4
3. Sociable, loves company 21.8 17.3
Conscientious, balanced 33.0 5.8 15. Relies on and trusts in people 45.2 10.5
Independent, own initiative 41.8 4.5 Peaceful, satisfied 15.1 16.9
Mild, reserved 3.4 72.4 Confident, leaves no room for doubt 25.8 23.2
Thorough, quiet 13.9 49.4
4. Well-meaning, pleasant 27.6 11.4
Careful, cautious 19.8 47.7 16. Wants to win, competitive 30.8 42.9
Decisive, not easily shaken 20.4 22.7 Sensitive, empathic 24.9 11.5
Convincing, inspiring 32.3 18.2 Sociable, likes company 31.7 10.5
Adaptable, compliant 12.6 35.1
5. Kind, eager to help 49.0 1.4
Subdued, tends to give in 0.9 73.7 17. Willing, helpful 21.6 9.7
Earned attention, admirable 5.4 15.3 Adjustable, adaptable 25.2 16.8
Strong willed, firm 44.7 9.5 Enthusiastic, goes along 44.7 11.0
High flier, self-confident 8.5 62.5
6. Genial, makes friends easily 31.0 21.1
Restrained, holds back 15.3 41.3 18. Follower, obeys instructions 21.1 24.9
Exact, precise 31.9 7.4 Daring, unscrupulous 10.5 62.5
Straightforward, outspoken 21.8 30.3 Delightful, refreshing 15.0 11.2
Faithful, refreshing 62.5 1.4
7. Values information, specialist 27.7 25.0
Team-oriented, holds back 41.6 7.9 19. Risk-taker, over-confident 11.5 63.8
Temperamental, energetic 10.8 55.3 Friendly, open 44.7 2.2
Easy-going, tolerant of others 19.8 11.7 Adjustable, flexible 30.3 4.0
Moderate, careful 13.5 30.1
8. Bold, strong-willed 32.6 16.0
Considerate, well-mannered 32.1 25.2 20. Chatty, extrovert 50.1 19.3
Contended, happy 18.6 18.0 Restrained, moderate 28.3 19.6
Smooth-talking, good speaker 16.8 40.7 Organized, follows tradition 16.0 20.2
Uncompromising, firm 5.6 40.9
9. Avoids extremes, sensitive 33.7 18.7
Easily used, self-sacrificing 11.7 34.1 21. Restless, seeks change 16.2 58.0
Center of the group, lively 39.5 11.5 Reliable, forward looking 31.0 6.5
Overwhelming, aggressive 15.1 35.7 Popular, generally liked 12.6 18.7
Well-organized, thorough 40.2 16.8
10. Inquiring, observant 22.2 41.1
Thoughtful, service-minded 38.7 6.7 22. Persuasive, convincing 40.7 14.1
Strong-willed, goal-oriented 29.2 18.0 Reserved, shy 5.4 60.9
Cheerful, good tempered 9.9 34.2 Gentle, kind 21.3 10.6
Individual, a ‘character’ 32.6 14.4
11. Humble, a follower 8.5 44.7
Self-conscious, shy 7.7 40.0 23. Conciliatory, agreeable 64.9 2.7
Confident, bold 28.5 12.4 Stubborn, unshakable 15.7 52.8
Enthusiastic, supportive 55.3 2.9 Delightful, attractive 14.4 6.1
Arouses sympathy, sweet 5.0 38.4
12. Aggressive, absolute 4.9 83.4
Trusts people, good speaker 29.7 9.2 24. Sense of responsibility, obedient 43.6 6.7
Understanding, sympathetic 38.4 3.2 Thoughtful, restrained 22.9 15.9
Tolerant, accepting 27.0 4.1 Fun-loving, unruly 8.1 64.1
Decisive, headstrong 25.4 13.3

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of scales
Variable N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominance (Graph I) 555 4.32 3.844 0 20.00
Influence (Graph I) 555 4.83 3.312 0 14.00
Steadiness (Graph I) 555 5.98 3.180 0 18.00
Compliance (Graph I) 555 3.50 2.385 0 11.00
Dominance (Graph II) 555 8.16 4.462 0 19.00

Influence (Graph II) 555 3.61 3.237 0 16.00
Steadiness (Graph II) 555 3.43 2.327 0 11.00
Compliance (Graph II) 555 4.68 2.937 0 13.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correlation measures the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. Strength of
correlation is indicated by the size of the coefficient. The coefficient can vary from - 1.0 to
1.0. If variable X can be expressed exactly as a linear function of variable Y, then the
correlation is 1.0 or -1.0, depending on whether X and Y are directly related or inversely
related. A correlation of zero between two analyzed variables means that each variable has no
linear predictive ability for the other. If the variables are normally distributed, then a
correlation of zero means that the variables are independent of one another. According to the
observed correlation coefficient the following interpretations can be made:
+/- 1.0 Perfect correlation

+/- 0.80 to 0.90 Unusually high correlation
+/- 0.70 to 0.79 Very high correlation
+/- 0.60 to 0.69 High correlation
+/- 0.30 to 0.59 Moderate high correlation
+/- 0.20 to 0.29 Very low correlation
+/- 0.00 to 0.19 No correlation
Table 3. Inter-correlations of the scales
GRAPH I
Dominance Influence Steadiness Compliance
Dominance 1.000 - 0.028 - 0.705 - 0.433
Influence 1.000 - 0.410 - 0.619
Steadiness 1.000 0.372
Compliance 1.000

GRAPH II
Dominance 1.000 - 0.188 - 0.757 - 0.614
Influence 1.000 - 0.144 - 0.476
Steadiness 1.000 0.465
Compliance 1.000
The results indicate high negative correlation between dominance and both steadiness and
compliance. This is in accordance of the theory background (see Extended DISC® Diamond in
previous pages). Influence is slightly negatively correlated with both dominance and
steadiness and more negatively correlated with compliance. Steadiness and compliance are
moderately high positively correlated. The results indicate that different dimensions of
Extended DISC® Theory are quite well indicated by the Extended DISC® profiling method.
4.5 Validity
As a next step of the validation process, the results are compared to the following four
different patterns of interaction:
1) Dominance - produces activity in an antagonistic environment

2) Influence - produces activity in a favorable environment
3) Steadiness - produces passivity in a favorable environment
4) Compliance - produces passivity in an antagonistic environment.
The purpose of this procedure is to seek how well each item of the questionnaire actually
correlates with the particular dimension it is meant to measure. In the following table we give
the proportion of the correct answers of each item as compared to particular key dimensions.
Items are assigned to each key dimension by comparing the background of the Extended
DISC® Theory and properties of each main style.
We concentrate on Graph II. We first observe distributions of items of the questionnaire

related to each item. In table 4 are the proportions of those who actually are not marked that
particular item as ”less” answers. Thus this means that those who have marked that particular
item as ”less” answer fight against their scored style.
The average percentage related to high dominance is 84 %, to high influence 91 %, to high

steadiness 79 % and to high compliance 84 %. By saying ”high” we mean that the particular
dimension is above the midline in the graph II. It can be said that the internal consistency of
the questionnaire is good. There are few items that cannot differentiate characteristics of the
individuals as well as the others do, but as far as the percentages related to each key
dimension are concerned, they are high enough to make this kind of conclusion.

TABLE 4. PROPORTION OF CORRECT ANSWERS (GRAPH II)
1. Carefree, positive 96 13. Amusing, witty 98

Flexible, yielding 82 Punctilious, punctual 93
Argumentative, speaks out 84 Tough, brazen 63
Stable, relaxed 88 Unruffled, calm 96
2. Optimistic, positive attitude to live 97 14. Disciplined, self-controlled 75

Adjustable, adaptable 75 Lively, energetic 88
Respectful, obedient 52 Ready to help, well-meaning 98
Shows initiative, wants change 100 Doesn’t give in, stubborn 81
3. Sociable, loves company 96 15. Relies on and trusts in people 93

Conscientious, balanced 96 Peaceful, satisfied 84
Independent, own initiative 100 Confident, leaves no room for doubt 98
Mild, reserved 29 Thorough, quiet 65
4. Well-meaning, pleasant 90 16. Wants to win, competitive 87

Careful, cautious 70 Sensitive, empathic 90
Decisive, not easily shaken 96 Sociable, likes company 97
Convincing, inspiring 90 Adaptable, compliant 78
5. Kind, eager to help 99 17. Willing, helpful 92

Subdued, tends to give in 34 Adjustable, adaptable 93
Earned attention, admirable 86 Enthusiastic, goes along 90
Strong willed, firm 99 High flier, self-confident 73
6. Genial, makes friends easily 94 18. Follower, obeys instructions 89

Restrained, holds back 63 Daring, unscrupulous 80
Exact, precise 96 Delightful, refreshing 96
Straightforward, outspoken 95 Faithful, responsible 99
7. Values information, specialist 83 19. Risk-taker, over-confident 76

Team-oriented, fits into group 97 Friendly, open 100
Temperamental, energetic 75 Adjustable, flexible 96
Easy-going, tolerant of others 94 Moderate, careful 80
8. Bold, strong-willed 98 20. Chatty, extrovert 96

Considerate, well-mannered 84 Restrained, moderate 85
Contended, happy 84 Organized, follows tradition 80
Smooth-talking, good speaker 70 Uncompromising, firm 94
9. Avoids extremes, sensitive 89 21. Restless, seeks change 69

Easily used, self-sacrificing 70 Reliable, forward looking 96
Center of the group, lively 97 Popular, generally liked 91
Overwhelming, aggressive 90 Well-organized, thorough 92
10. Inquiring, observant 69 22. Persuasive, convincing 92

Thoughtful, service-minded 96 Reserved, shy 39
Strong-willed, goal-oriented 98 Gentle, kind 89
Cheerful, good tempered 85 Individual, a ‘character’ 98
11. Humble, a follower 56 23. Conciliatory, agreeable 98

Self-conscious, shy 50 Stubborn, unshakable 79
Confident, bold 98 Delightful, attractive 98
Enthusiastic, supportive 99 Arouses sympathy, sweet 67
12. Aggressive, absolute 37 24. Sense of responsibility, obedient 97

Trusts people, good speaker 95 Thoughtful, restrained 88
Understanding, sympathetic 99 Fun-loving, unruly 47
Tolerant, accepting 97 Decisive, headstrong 98

Extended DISC® Persona Management System questionnaire is designed according to the Extended
DISC® Theory described in (Graph 1. Extended DISC® Diamond) this report. Another way to look
at item internal consistency or item discriminant consistency is to compare how individuals have
answered in each of the items in each section to observed Extended DISC® major scales. According
to Extended DISC® Theory those individuals who have opposite “high” scales also answer
differently in each section. In sections there are a certain amount of the items linked with each of
the four scales. Those who, e.g., mark items related to Dominance factor as “B” (best describing) in
each section get high Dominance factor in final results of the Extended DISC® Persona
Management System. Those individuals who don’t respond positively to Dominance factor mark
some other item as “B” item in this section. Here we compare opposite scales and answers in each
section. Thus if individual’s final dominant scale is Steadiness (opposite to Dominance in the
Extended DISC® Diamond), as an example, he or she is not supposed to respond positively to many
items related to dominance factor. If he or she does mark Dominance item, it is considered to be a
“wrong” answer in this part of the analysis. Otherwise, we consider the answer to be correct.
When analyzing the results we noticed high percentages of correct answers in each of the 24
sections. Total percentage of the correct answers indicates that not only do the questions cause the
required negative response, but also the positive response to each question seems to follow the
assumptions based on the Extended DISC® Theory and Extended DISC® Diamond.
TABLE 5. PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES (BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE) IN EACH

QUESTION
Question Correct Question Correct

1 83% 13 100%
2 100% 14 83%
3 67% 15 88%
4 75% 16 100%
5 100% 17 75%
6 100% 18 88%
7 100% 19 100%
8 100% 20 100%
9 100% 21 88%
10 100% 22 100%
11 75% 23 88%
12 83% 24 100%
TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES IN TOTAL (N=183)
The relative highest negative response 95%

The relative highest positive response 85%

4.6 Criterion Validity
The following part includes the comparison of distributions of the scales and profiles in three
different studies: Finland, Estonia (the Extend DISC Persona Management System) and United
States (Target Training: DISC study). It has to be mentioned that these studies are not strictly
related to each other. All of them have the DISC theory as their background, but they are collected
in various different situations and concern various different groups of employees and individuals.
The purpose of this section is to analyze whether or not we can find statistically significant
differences between the results of each of the previous studies. If statistically significant differences
are found, it definitely doesn’t mean that the analyzing tools used in the previous three studies are
invalid. Rather the results indicate the differences of each background population.
We first compare Target Training study and the results of the Extended DISC® Persona
Management System in Finland. Tables 7 and 8 show the results and the distributions of each study
concerning Graph I and Graph II distributions respectively.
TABLE 7. GENERAL POPULATION N=679. STYLE ANALYSIS GRAPH I. RESPONSE TO THE

ENVIRONMENT. COMPARED WITH THE TARGET TRAINING STUDY (1993).
Target training study DISC study

Combinations Number Percent Number Percent
Dominance only 87 3.1 33 4.9
Influence only 107 3.9 63 9.3
Steadiness only 49 1.8 33 4.9
Compliance only 38 1.4 10 1.5
Dominance and influence 224 8.1 93 13.7
Dominance and steadiness 38 1.4 11 1.6
Dominance and compliance 134 4.8 18 2.7
Influence and steadiness 194 7.0 130 19.1
Influence and compliance 246 8.9 26 3.8
Steadiness and compliance 637 23.0 139 20.5
Dominance, Influence and steadiness 36 1.3 10 1.5
Dominance, Influence and compliance 211 7.6 10 1.5
Dominance, steadiness and 55 2.0 12 1.8
compliance
Influence, steadiness and compliance 678 24.5 89 13.1
All above 36 1.3 2 0.3
All below 0 0.0 0 0.0
While investigating the results concerning Graph I, we can note larger proportions in DISC study in
those classes where influence is present such as influence only (3.9 % - 9.3 %), Dominance and
Influence (8.1 % - 13.7 %) and Influence and Steadiness (7.0 % - 19.1 %). On the other hand in
those classes where more characteristics are present, we can observe higher proportions in Target
training study. The distributions differ from each other statistically significantly (p<0.0001).

Distributions in these two tables cannot be compared by using the normal chi-square test because
there are empty cells in the tables. It is also meaningless to combine different cells because of the
classifying criteria used according to background theory. By simply looking at the percentages and
proportions it can be said that both tools give similar kind of distributions with only minor
differences.
TABLE 8. GENERAL POPULATION N=679. STYLE ANALYSIS GRAPH II. RESPONSE TO THE
ENVIRONMENT. COMPARED WITH THE TARGET TRAINING STUDY (1993).
Target training study DISC study

Combinations Number Percent Number Percent
Dominance only 32 1.2 0 0.0
Influence only 28 1.0 1 0.1
Steadiness only 26 0.9 3 0.4
Compliance only 8 0.3 0 0.0
Dominance and influence 356 12.8 43 6.3
Dominance and steadiness 87 3.1 24 3.5
Dominance and compliance 71 2.6 11 1.6
Influence and steadiness 334 12.1 56 8.2
Influence and compliance 59 2.1 3 0.4
Steadiness and compliance 477 17.2 133 19.6
Dominance, Influence and steadiness 203 7.3 87 12.8
Dominance, Influence and compliance 97 3.5 25 3.7
Dominance, steadiness and 178 6.4 42 6.2
compliance
Influence, steadiness and compliance 791 28.5 250 36.8
All above 24 0.9 1 0.1
All below 0 0.0 0 0.0
The number of the observations In the DISC study may not be high enough to indicate whether
actual differences occur or not. The observed differences in the previous two tables can be
explained by the characteristics of the analyzed groups of people.
We also can compare distributions in Finland and Estonia as well as distribution in the USA. The
following figure shows the distributions in Finland and Estonia by using the Extended DISC®
Diamond presentation method.

FIGURE 3. EXTENDED DISC® DIAMOND PRESENTATION, FINNISH POPULATION (N=5270)
C D
0.6 0.8
0.2 0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4 0.9
0.7 0.9
3.4 1.5
0.4 1.5
4.7 2.3
4.7 1.9
6.1 0.9
12.1 2.0
3 1.8 1.3
11.7 7.2
2.2 1.8
2.6 8.4
1.4 2.4
1.2 3.3 6.4 0.6
S I
FIGURE 4. EXTENDED DISC® DIAMOND PRESENTATION, ESTONIAN POPULATION (N=550)
D
C 0.5 0.4
1.3 0.5
10.2 2.7
0.9
0.5 1.6
2.2 1.1
5.6 1.5
0.9 1.1
4.9 2.0
6.0 2.0
4.4 1.8
8.9 0.7
2.0 2.9
11.8 5.8
2.7 2.0
0.7 8.4
2.7 3.5
0.7 2.4 2.5 0.2
S I
We compare now the distributions of the Finnish and Estonian population by using the normal Chi-
square test. First we analyze the most dominant factor, dominance, influence, steadiness or
compliance. Then, as in previous figures we divide the Extended DISC® Diamond into four
separate areas respectively. We include also results of Target Training -study and get the following
distributions and table:

TABLE 9. THE PROPORTIONS OF THE DOMINANT SCALES IN FINNISH AND ESTONIAN

POPULATIONS.
N % N % N % N %
Finland 569 10.8 1634 31.0 2234 42.4 812 15.4
Estonia 71 12.9 153 27.8 200 36.3 125 22.8
United States 349 18.0 544 28.0 776 40.0 272 14.0
Total 989 12.8 2331 30.1 3210 41.4 1209 15.6
p-value: <0.0001
It is impossible to say definitely whether or not there actually are differences in background
populations. According to the results and data the following interpretations can be made. The
interpretation of previous result is not so evident. The count of each population varies quite a lot.
In the United States the dominance factor is more usual than in the other two populations. On the
other hand in the Estonian population the compliance factor is more usual than in Finland or in the
United States.
The next step of this analysis is to compare individuals own predictions of their profiles to the
actual results of the Extended DISC® Persona Management System. By this we measure the
predictive validity of the Extended DISC® tool. The setup of the test is as follows. Individuals are
asked to fill out the Extended DISC® questionnaires which are then analyzed by the Extended
DISC® Personal Software system. The Extended DISC® Theory is then explained to individuals and
they are asked to define their own major scale or scales (profile) according to their self-knowledge
and experiences. After this the results given by the Extended DISC® Professional Software System
are compared to the evaluations of each individual. All scales (D, I, S and C) are compared
separately. The following table shows the results of this test. In the table ‘C’ denotes a correct
answer (own evaluation is the same as the result from the software program) and ‘W’ denotes a
wrong answer (own evaluation is different from the software result).
TABLE 10. INDIVIDUALS OWN ASSUMPTIONS COMPARED TO EXTENDED DISC® PERSONA

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RESULTS.
High D High I High S High C

Number of C’s 37 121 190 141
Number of W’s 10 11 7 52
Proportion of the C’s 78.7 91.7 96.5 73.1
Low D Low I Low S Low C

Number of C’s 148 65 17 26
Number of W’s 25 23 6 1
Proportion of the C’s 85.5 73.9 73.9 96.3

According to these results the proportion of the ‘hits’ between the individuals own evaluations and
the results of the Extended DISC® tool is 83.7 %. Both high and low scales are well evaluated by
the individuals. The results show high predictive validity of the Extended DISC® Tool.
4.7 Reliability
In this section the reliability of the Extended DISC® scales is analyzed. The data of this section
concerns 124 individuals that have completed the Extended DISC® questionnaire twice. The time
lag between these two experiments varies individually from between three to 24 months. The basic
idea of reliability measurement is to estimate the variation of different scales between two samples
of the same individual. If the first results of the system showed that he/she is dominant and
influencing and the next that he/she is steady and compliant and if the profiling system is meant to
measure consistent and ”relatively enduring” predispositions, we would claim that the Extended
DISC® is doing a poor job of measurement.
As described earlier, there are many tools based on a similar kind of structure; 24 sections and all
together 96 items or adjectives.
The reliability of an analyzed scale is a measure of the extent to which an individual would get
similar scores on parallel forms of the same test. When we measure a group of individuals at
different times and compare the scores, we are assessing test-retest reliability.
The idea behind test-retest is that one should get the same score on test 1 as on test 2. The three
main components to this method are as follows:
1) Implementation of measurement instrument at two separate times for each subject.

2) The correlation between the two separate measurements of each scale is computed.
3) The assumptions that there is no change in the underlying condition (or trait to be measured)
between test 1 and test 2.
We can measure reliability by giving the same analysis questionnaire more than once to the same
individuals. It is also possible to measure reliability by measuring the similarity between items in
the scale. When the analyzed scale is reliable, the items must have some degree of similarity to
each other. Also, if more items are present, the closer we get to the true score. This kind of
reliability is called internal consistency.
The following results concern test-retest validity and also basic results of reliability. The count of
the used observations is 124.

GRAPH 1. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS: SCATTER PLOT DOMINANCE (TEST 1) VS. DOMINANCE (TEST
2).
Graph 2. Reliability analysis: Scatter plot Influence (Test 1) vs. Influence (Test 2).

GRAPH 3. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS: SCATTER PLOT STEADINESS (TEST 1) VS. STEADINESS (TEST
2).
Graph 4. Reliability analysis: Scatter plot Compliance (Test 1) vs. Compliance (Test 2).
Figures shown above illustrate high positive correlation between the scales when comparing the
results of Test 1 and Test 2. Steadiness varies most between these two tests. This result is in
accordance to the Extended DISC® theory. Steadiness measures stress factors and thus it is natural
to note even high differences between the two observed tests. In the following table the correlation

between two tests are shown for all the four scales in Graph 1 and Graph 2 of the Extended DISC®
tool.
We can make the following notes on the results of the test-re-test analysis. The Extended DISC®
Persona Management System seems to measure quite stable dominance and compliance factors in
Graph I and Graph II. The most significant differences between the first and second measurements
can be found in the factors Influence and Steadiness. According the Extended DISC® theory, the
Steadiness factor measures individually stability and stress-related factors. Thus, it is obvious that
it may vary according to individual situations and in whole population more than the other factors.
The influence factor measures can also vary a lot according the personal situation. Thus we can
state as an implication that the observed differences in the correlation of these two scales are
natural. The fact that the Dominance and Compliance factors are quite stable can be interpreted by
the high value of the correlation coefficient. In order to look at how significantly the scores of each
factor vary from one test to the other we can also analyze the differences in the mean of original test
cores by using the normal t-test method.
TABLE 11. CORRELATION OF THE TEST-RETEST ANALYSIS.
Second test
First test
Graph I
Dominance r= 0.7364 - 0.1105 - 0.6229 - 0.3924
p= 0.0001 0.2219 0.0001 0.0001
Influence r= - 0.1223 0.5433 - 0.1062 - 0.1567
p= 0.1760 0.0001 0.2406 0.0822
Steadiness r= - 0.5563 - 0.1566 0.7150 0.3078
p= 0.0001 0.0824 0.0001 0.0005
Compliance r= - 0.3524 - 0.2379 0.3388 0.5252
p= 0.0001 0.0078 0.0001 0.0001
Graph II
Dominance r= 0.7955 - 0.0816 - 0.6129 - 0.4614
p= 0.0001 0.3674 0.0001 0.0001
Influence r= - 0.0369 0.7201 - 0.1254 - 0.4251
p= 0.6841 0.0001 0.1654 0.0001
Steadiness r= - 0.6030 - 0.1446 0.5859 0.4176
p= 0.0001 0.1091 0.0001 0.0001
Compliance r= - 0.4857 - 0.4500 0.3846 0.7267
p= 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
In test one the average score of the Dominance factor is 6.14 and in the second test 6.03. The
difference is not statistically significant (p=0.8208). The Influence factor has the average score of
3.81 in the first test and 3.41 in the second one. Once again the difference is not statistically
significantly different (p=0.2747). The Steadiness factor has the average of 4.11 in the first test and
4.44 in the second one. According to the t-test no statistically significant differences can be
observed (p=0.2887); finally the average score of the Compliance factor in the first test is 6.22 and
in the second test 6.34. Again, in the last factor no statistically significant differences can be
observed (p=0.7444). The variation between the first and the second tests is largest in the Influence
and Steadiness factors according to mean value analysis.

5 Behavioral Analysis - Overall Results
5.1 Global Population
The global population consisted of 1.237.505 persons. Above data is representing 86 native
languages and 70 countries.
The comparison populations used in this study are:

- Extended DISC® Global validation 2020 population (n=1.005.404)
- Extended DISC® Global validation 2019 population (n=886.943)
- Extended DISC® Global validation 2013 population (n= 144.703)
The following language versions of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis were included in the
validation study (the language codes used in this study).
- Afrikaans (AFR) - English (Southern Africa) (RSA)

- Albanian (ALB) - English (US) (ENG)
- Arabic (ARA) - English (UK) (EUK)
. Basque (BAQ) - Estonian (EST)
- Bengali (BEN) - Filipino / Tagalog ( FIL)
- Bosnian (BOS) - Finnish (FIN)
- Bulgarian (BUL) - Flemish (FLE)
- Burmese (BUR) - French (Canada) (FCA)
- Catalan (CAT) - French (Caribbean) (FRR)
- Chinese (Hong Kong) (CHK) - French (France) (FRA)
- Chinese Simplified (CHI) - Galician (GLG)
- Chinese (Traditional) (TWN) - German (Austria) (GEA)
- Croatian (CRO) - German (Germany) GER)
- Czech (CZE) - German (Switzerland) (GES)
- Danish (DAN) - Greek (Cyprus) (GRC)
- Dutch (HOL) - Greek (Greece) (GRE)
- English (Australasia) (AUS) - Gujarati (GJR)
- English (Canada) (ECA) - Hebrew (HEB)
- English (Caribbean) (ENC) - Hindi (HIN)
- English (India) - Hungarian (HUN)
- English (Ireland) (EIR) - Icelandic (ICE)
- English (East/West Africa) (NIG) - Indonesian (IND)
- Italian (ITA) - Russian (RUS)

- Japanese (JAP) - Serbian (SER)
- Kannada (KAN) - Sinhala (SIN)
- Khmer (KHM) - Slovak (SLK)
- Korean (KOR) - Slovene (SLN)
- Kurdish (KUR) - Somali (SOM)
- Latvian (LAT) - Spanish (Caribbean) (SPC)
- Lithuanian (LIT) - Spanish (Spain) (SPA)
- Macedonian (MAC) - Spanish (Latin America) (SPL)
- Malay (MAL) - Swahili (SWA)
- Maori (MAO) - Swedish (Finland) (SWF)
- Marathi (MAR) - Swedish (Sweden) (SWE)
- Montenegrin (MNE) - Tamil (TAM)
- Molu (MEU) - Thai (THA)
- Nepalese (NPL) - Tok Pisin (TPI)
- Norwegian (NOR) - Tongan (TON)
- Persian (PER) - Turkish (TUR)
- Polish (POL) - Ukrainian (UKR)
- Portuguese (Brazil) (POB) - Urdu (URD)
- Portuguese (Portugal) (POR) - Vietnamese (VIE)
- Romanian (ROM) - Yoruba (YOR)
- Russian (Kazakhstan) (KAZ) - Zulu (ZUL)
The material was collected from the same countries as the language indicates. For Spanish (Latin
America), the population represents well all the bigger Latin American countries. Spanish
(Caribbean) is collected mostly from Dominican Republic. English (Australasia) represents equally
Australia and New Zealand. Russian material is excluded from the study. English (Caribbean) data
is collected mostly from different Caribbean island countries.
5.1.1 Global Distribution – DISC
The following table compares the global DISC distribution between 2002 and 2022.
Table. Global DISC Distribution – Annual Comparison
2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2008 2007 2006
D 7,7 7,8 9,0 9,0 9,1 9,1 12,3 11,8 13,2 12,1 12,8 12,3 12,0
I 25,3 25,4 27,9 28,4 28,3 29,0 26,4 29,8 29,6 31,3 31,4 31,5 30,9
S 33,7 33,6 32,6 32,2 32,0 30,8 30,9 29,9 28,9 30,4 30,2 30,8 31,6
C 33,4 33,2 30,4 30,4 30,6 31,1 30,4 28,5 28,2 26,2 25,6 25,4 25,4
0,988 F -test
1 Correlation
2005 2004 2003 2002

D 13,1 13,0 13,0 14,0
I 31,0 29,0 29,0 27,0
S 30,9 29,0 32,0 31,0
C 25,0 29,0 26,0 28,0

The following table shows the global DISC distribution on the Extended DISC® Diamond in 2022.
Table: Extended DISC® Diamond – Global Distribution 2022
The following table compares the distribution of results in the different areas of the Extended
DISC® Diamond and shows their correlations.
D 2022 0,2 1,8 0,8 0,6 0,5 0,2 0,5 1,4 0,5
0,999 2021 0,2 1,8 0,8 0,7 0,5 0,2 0,5 1,4 0,5
I 2022 1,2 0,3 1,9 2,0 0,7 3,9 1,2 6,8 1,7
1,000 2021 1,2 0,2 2,1 2,0 0,7 3,9 1,3 6,9 1,7
I 2022 0,8 5,9 0,1 0,4 0,2 0,5 1,3 0,5 5,6
1,000 2021 0,8 5,9 0,1 0,4 0,2 0,5 1,3 0,5 5,7
C 2022 12,2 1,9 10,9 0,4 1,6 0,4 2,8 1,1 0,7
1,000 2021 12,1 2,0 10,8 0,4 1,7 0,4 2,8 1,1 0,7
Conclusions: There are no signs of anything changing in the instrument or the environment where it
has been used. This supports the claim that the instrument was working with the same high validity
as it did in the previous year.
5.1.2 Global Distribution – DISC by Age Group
The results (DISC distribution) were compared against the age of the respondents.
All the previous studies (since the Student Research in 1994) have supported the claim that the
global population is changing its most preferred natural response style 1 from left to right on the
Extended DISC® Diamond, and especially to the lower right corner (I style) of the Extended DISC®
Diamond. The most dramatic change in the recent populations has been the smaller amount of D
style in the 1980 and younger populations. The 2000 population is too small to draw any final
conclusions on it.
D <1950's <1960's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's

Average 12 10 11 12 9 7 8
2022 7 8 9 8 6 8
2021 7 8 9 8 6 8
2020 8 9 11 9 7
2019 8 9 11 9 7
2018 8 9 11 9 7
2017 8 10 11 9 7
2015 10 11 12 10 8
2013 10 11 13 14 11 8
2011 10 12 13 14 10 10
2010 11 10 8 11 7 5
2009 10 12 14 13 11 7
2008 13 12 13 15 12
2007 16 12 14 14 9
2006 12 13 13 12 10
2005 11 14 14 12
I <1950's <1960's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's

Average 27 27 29 30 32 32 26
2022 27 26 25 26 26 25
2021 25 26 24 26 26 27
2020 26 27 27 28 29
2019 26 28 27 29 30
2018 27 28 28 29 30
2017 27 29 29 30 30
2015 26 29 29 32 33
2013 27 26 29 30 34 38
2011 31 28 30 31 37 36
2010 27 28 32 32 36 40
2009 28 29 30 32 33 38
2008 28 29 30 33 35
2007 26 30 32 33 37
2006 26 28 30 34 38
2005 24 28 31 36

S <1950's <1960's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's

Average 34 35 32 30 30 32 37
2022 36 34 33 32 33 37
2021 37 34 33 32 33 37
2020 38 35 33 31 33
2019 38 34 32 31 33
2018 37 34 31 30 32
2017 35 32 30 29 32
2015 36 32 30 29 30
2013 35 34 31 28 28 30
2011 35 34 30 27 27 32
2010 35 35 32 29 29 29
2009 34 34 31 29 30 33
2008 32 33 31 29 30
2007 33 31 28 29 29
2006 34 33 31 30 29
2005 36 34 30 28
C <1950's <1960's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's

Average 27 28 28 28 29 29 30
2022 30 32 33 35 35 31
2021 31 31 34 35 35 28
2020 28 29 30 32 31
2019 28 29 30 31 31
2018 28 29 30 32 31
2017 30 30 30 32 32
2015 28 28 29 30 29
2013 28 29 27 28 27 25
2011 25 27 27 27 26 21
2010 28 27 28 28 28 26
2009 28 26 25 26 26 22
2008 26 26 25 25 23
2007 26 27 27 25 24
2006 28 27 28 24 23
2005 30 24 25 24
The size of a population when the age group was first included in the study may be too small to
produce statistically reliable data.
Conclusions: The findings continue supporting the claim that the instrument is measuring the same
phenomenon as it has done in the past.
5.1.3 Global Distribution – DISC vs. Gender
The results (DISC distribution) were compared against the gender of the respondents. All the
previous studies have shown a small difference between female and male population.
Table: DISC Distribution vs. Gender

Male 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

D 9 9 10 11 11 11 11
I 24 24 26 27 27 28 29
S 32 32 31 31 30 29 29
C 35 35 32 32 32 32 31
Male 2015 2014 2013 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
D 13 13 14 14 17 14 15 15 13
I 28 28 28 30 29 29 29 30 29
S 29 28 28 27 29 29 28 28 32
C 30 31 30 29 28 28 27 27 26
Female 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

D 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
I 26 27 30 30 30 30 31
S 36 36 35 34 34 33 32
C 31 31 29 29 29 30 29
Female 2015 2014 2013 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
D 8 8 9 9 9 8 10 9 10
I 32 32 32 34 34 35 35 34 34
S 33 32 32 31 32 32 33 32 31
C 28 28 25 25 24 25 23 25 24
Table: DISC Distribution vs. Gender - 2021
Table: DISC Distribution vs. Gender - 2022
Conclusions: The finding supports the outcome of previous studies: D and C are more common in
the male population, whereas I and S are more common in the female population.

Overall conclusion from the global comparison
The results clearly prove that the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis worked with the same high
validity in 2022 as it has done in the previous years. All the distributions are similar to what they
have previously been, and all the trends have continued to develop the same way as they have done
in the past.
The results support the claim that Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis was in 2022 as good
instrument as it has previously been, and that the environment has not changed in any direction that
would require adjustment in the basic construct of the instrument.
5.2 Language Distribution

5.2.1 DISC Distribution by Language
To check the consistency of the results by each questionnaire language, each language was analyzed
separately and, if available, compared to previous studies. Sample size in each language is more
than 500 persons.
Below is a geographical language map of selected languages (latest results). More detailed
comparison between different years can be found in an appendix.
The inter-language correlations are:

2022 2020
D <=> I Correlation -0,1012 -0,0656
D <=> S Correlation -0,2084 -0,2240
D <=> C Correlation 0,1464 0,1787
I <=> S Correlation -0,1503 0,1242
I <=> C Correlation 0,1587 -0,1774
S <=> C Correlation -0,0160 0,0521
Average -0,0285 -0,0187
5.2.2 “Sister language” Comparison – DISC Distribution
As different regional versions of the same language were involved in the study, the inter-language
correlation between them was analyzed.
A. English
The following versions of English language were part of the study; US, Australasia, Canada, India,
Caribbean, Ireland, UK and East/West Africa.
ENG AUS ECA EIN EIR ENC EUK NIG D <=> I Correlation -0,4121
D 9,1 8,0 7,7 9,4 13,8 11,3 8,3 16,0 D <=> S Correlation -0,7663
I 19,4 30,7 23,6 31,0 24,5 35,1 26,8 16,3 D <=> C Correlation 0,6571
S 32,9 37,4 47,7 31,3 31,5 27,9 35,5 23,6 I <=> S Correlation 0,0878
C 38,5 24,0 21,0 28,4 30,2 25,6 29,4 44,1 I <=> C Correlation -0,7383
S <=> C Correlation -0,7019
Average -0,3123
Average on previous years:

2020 -,3112
2019 -,3152 2009 -,2870
2015 -,3243 2008 -,3009
2013 -,3199 2007 -,3291
2011 -,2980 2006 -,1928
As the above table shows, results from the different English language versions and areas do not
correlate with each other, indicating and supporting clearly the decision to develop and the need to
maintain a different version of the questionnaire for each of the languages.
B. Chinese
The following versions of Chinese language were part of the study; Simplified and Traditional.
CHI TWN
D 11,7 7,7
I 16,5 17,6
S 448 46,3
C 27,0 28,4
Correlation
0,9923
Correlation on previous years:
2020 ,9923 2011 ,9898

2019 ,9923 2009 ,9544
2017 ,9935 2008 ,9797
2015 ,9925 2007 ,9183
2013 ,9807 2006 ,8959
The results show a high correlation between the DISC distributions in the two languages. As the
languages are two different languages (not dialects of one language), it shows evidence that the
distribution of the behavioral preferences in the two Chinese language areas are very close to each
other.
C. Spanish
The following versions of Spanish language were part of the study; Spain, Latin America and
Caribbean.
SPA SPC SPL D <=> I Correlation 0,3380

D 19,2 8,7 15,9 D <=> S Correlation -0,9926
I 19,7 17,4 33,9 D <=> C Correlation 0,3891
S 25,4 50,7 36,0 I <=> S Correlation -0,2215
C 35,7 23,2 14,1 I <=> C Correlation -0,7355
Average -0,2867
Average on previous years:

2020 -,1087
2019 -,3288 2009 -,2460
2015 -,2413 2008 -,1436
2013 -,1622 2007 -,1910
2011 -,2186 2006 -,1060
As the above table shows, results from the different Spanish language versions do not correlate with
each other, indicating and supporting clearly the decision to develop and the need to maintain a
different version of the questionnaire for all of the language areas.
D. Portuguese
The following versions of Portuguese language were part of the study; Portugal and Brazil.

POB POR
D 9,2 2,9
I 21,9 29,4
S 32,3 44,1
C 36,6 23,5
Correlation
0,7324
2020 ,9949 2011 ,6715

2019 ,9922 2009 ,7054
2017 ,9806 2008 ,6185
2015 ,9858 2007 ,5995
2013 ,6737 2006 ,6329
The above table shows, results from the different Portuguese language versions do correlate with
each other. The decision to develop and maintain a different version of the questionnaire for both of
the languages is still valid due to slightly different terminology in the two languages.
E. Swedish
The following versions of Swedish language were part of the study; Sweden and Finland.
SWE SWF
D 5,4 5,3
I 26,0 27,0
S 38,1 27,3
C 30,5 40,4
Correlation
0,8228

2020 ,9889
2019 ,9863 2009 ,9674
2015 ,9935 2008 ,9933
2013 ,9847 2007 ,9912
2011 ,9877 2006 ,9655
Although the above table indicates there being a high correlation between the two Swedish
language versions, it is not recommended to combine the questionnaires in one that would be used
in both areas. The F-test value is .7150 indicating there is a chance for variance between the two
distributions.
An interesting addition to the analysis was found when Finnish language was added to the
correlation analysis.

SWE SWF FIN D <=> I Correlation 0,9800

D 5,4 5,3 8,1 D <=> S Correlation 0,7885
I 26,0 27,0 31,7 D <=> C Correlation -0,9246
S 38,1 27,3 44,0 I <=> S Correlation 0,6503
C 30,5 40,4 16,3 I <=> C Correlation -0,8302
Average -0,0499
5.2.3 DISC Distribution by Language vs. Age Group
To check the consistency of the results in each age group for each language, the following analyses
were made.
The finding that the “global person” is changing toward having more I and less C is supported in
many of the languages that have big enough population to support this type of multi-level
comparison. Only some examples are presented here.
World
Asia

Australasia
Europe
Latin America

North America
5.2.4 DISC Distribution by Language vs. Gender
To check the consistency of the results for both genders for each language, the following analyses
were made.
Male Female
D I S C D I S C
AFR 6 20 27 46 4 31 28 37
ALB 14 13 29 45 12 16 33 39
ARA 9 23 31 37 6 27 30 36
AUS 10 28 37 25 6 34 37 23
BEN 5 21 36 38 12 22 46 20
BUL 26 24 21 29 22 30 22 27
BUR 14 26 21 40 15 24 17 44
CAT 8 26 38 28 8 27 41 25
CHI 12 14 45 29 10 19 47 24
CHK 5 16 48 31 9 20 48 22
CRO 23 20 20 36 18 23 24 35
CZE 21 28 25 25 13 38 27 22
DAN 9 24 44 22 6 23 52 19
ECA 12 30 29 29 7 32 34 27
EIN 14 23 31 31 12 28 33 27
EIR 14 34 27 26 8 37 29 25
ENC 10 20 32 38 8 19 34 39
ENG 12 26 31 31 7 27 36 30
EST 11 23 31 34 6 30 39 25
EUK 16 28 30 27 10 31 33 26
FCA 9 39 33 20 5 37 40 18
FIL 4 18 41 37 5 14 44 37
FIN 10 28 44 18 6 34 46 14
FLE 10 26 35 30 6 37 45 13
FRA 10 35 35 20 7 33 42 19
GEA 9 50 17 24 7 51 20 23
GER 8 45 19 28 5 42 27 26
GES 7 48 19 26 4 44 29 23
GJR 8 14 30 48 8 15 37 40
GRE 8 22 33 37 7 31 37 25
HEB 17 23 35 25 11 26 42 21
HIN 8 29 18 46 5 43 21 31
HOL 12 31 34 22 8 37 40 15
HUN 23 28 25 24 18 31 29 21
IND 12 22 30 35 7 25 34 33
ITA 4 47 34 15 2 48 35 15
JAP 7 26 44 23 6 23 45 26
KOR 13 24 41 23 11 32 40 17
LAT 38 18 19 26 26 24 26 24
LIT 26 21 29 23 16 26 34 24
MAC 32 18 13 37 4 24 26 46
MAO 6 27 40 27 2 28 30 41
MAR 17 16 22 46 11 19 36 34
MAY 8 13 32 47 4 19 37 40
NIG 10 21 32 37 8 23 33 36
NOR 4 28 43 26 3 34 43 20
PER 15 16 33 35 10 21 44 25
POB 13 13 19 54 11 18 27 45
POL 15 18 40 27 9 21 49 21
POR 18 16 21 45 12 16 29 44
ROM 23 29 18 30 19 31 20 30
RSA 12 21 29 37 9 26 33 32
SER 21 18 24 37 16 22 28 34
SLK 21 32 33 14 10 36 40 14
SPA 6 25 36 32 4 27 40 28
SPC 7 26 26 41 4 28 28 40
SPL 5 23 26 46 3 26 28 44
SWE 8 40 32 21 6 48 31 16
SWF 6 46 29 20 3 58 27 12
THA 13 21 40 26 12 23 41 24
TUR 14 15 44 27 9 19 47 25
TWN 8 15 47 31 8 23 46 24
UKR 13 10 38 39 8 19 42 31
VIE 14 21 39 27 12 24 40 24

Table: Male vs female correlation by DISC by country
D Male <=> Female 0,5225

I Male <=> Female 0,3828
S Male <=> Female 0,5481
C Male <=> Female 0,3571
‘
The table above shows that there are bigger differences in DISC distribution by country than
between the two genders.
Table: DISC correlation by gender be country
Male Female
D <=> I -0,2016 -0,2114
D <=> S -0,0920 -0,1510
D <=> C -0,1514 -0,1837
I <=> S -0,0482 -0,2918
I <=> C -0,5108 -0,5901
C <=> S -0,4423 -0,4513
The above table shows that there is no correlation between the four behavioral traits (DISC) across
countries, measured separately in male and female populations. There is a very small negative
correlation between I and C (if I is higher in the population, it is compensated by lower C) and C
and S (if S is higher in the population, it is compensated by lower C).

6 Validity and Reliability

Fundamental to the evaluation of any instrument is the degree to which test scores are free from
various sources of measurement error and are consistent from one occasion to another. Sources
of measurement error, which include fatigue, nervousness, content sampling, answering mistakes,
misinterpretation of the instructions, and guessing, will always contribute to an individual's score
and lower the reliability of the test.
6.1 Test-retest
The results below are from the 2006 validation study.
To test the reliability of the current version of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis, a test-retest
study was organized. To put the instrument to a true test, only individuals who expressed self-
interest in re-taking the questionnaire were selected to the study. This means that only people who
were either unhappy with the results or wanted to check if the environment in which they completed
the questionnaire had initiated any effect on the results were included.
The above was expected to produce a lower correlation in the results than if the people who were
happy with the results were to be asked to re-take the questionnaire. However, it is felt that, in
order for a tool to truly measure the subconscious response, it should not be affected by either
situational factors or the person’s knowledge or preference of oneself. Most of the other test-retest
studies have not taken this approach but have preferred to include people who have no problems or
concerns with the initial results.
The Profile Points 2 were used in this study to compare the first and the second result of the same
person. The following chart shows the results of the 120 persons selected to the study.
1st 2nd
Profile I Profile II Profile I Profile II Correlation

Profile
D I S C D I S C D I S C D I S C I Profile II
1 6 7 4 11 1 3 3 3 3 8 5 10 2 3 2 0,6132 0,9828
1 12 4 1 8 0 5 7 0 13 4 1 12 0 3 5 0,9976 0,8449
3 10 6 2 3 5 9 4 5 10 4 2 3 5 8 6 0,8925 0,8829
7 6 6 4 4 4 7 6 8 5 5 3 6 0 7 8 0,9316 0,6647
15 3 1 0 2 1 7 9 13 6 0 0 0 1 7 9 0,9524 0,9800
8 9 2 2 4 4 6 6 11 5 2 2 2 4 6 9 0,7493 0,8701
5 5 7 2 7 9 1 4 6 4 7 4 9 6 5 3 0,7815 0,5048
1 7 8 1 14 0 2 6 1 7 10 2 14 2 1 2 0,9782 0,9184
0 7 8 2 7 3 4 4 3 6 8 0 10 2 2 4 0,8322 0,9658
6 3 7 3 6 7 3 2 9 1 8 2 3 7 5 5 0,9505 0,1715
7 3 3 5 2 4 8 4 5 3 7 6 1 8 9 1 0,0510 0,7461
3 4 6 3 5 0 6 3 0 7 4 4 12 1 3 5 0,3282 0,5132
2 6 8 5 9 3 3 4 2 4 8 5 6 4 4 4 0,9200 0,9864
2 5 9 5 2 1 6 6 4 5 8 3 2 0 5 10 0,8058 0,8815
3 1 10 4 12 4 1 2 1 2 10 3 10 5 0 1 0,9487 0,9695
8 1 7 3 4 5 7 6 11 2 5 2 2 8 5 5 0,8561 0,3162
7 5 7 0 5 4 5 5 4 9 7 0 7 1 4 8 0,6956 0,8433
10 7 2 0 8 1 5 7 7 9 2 1 7 0 6 6 0,8822 0,9501
9 8 2 1 4 4 7 6 13 6 0 1 1 1 9 7 0,9066 0,9971
3 5 8 4 12 4 2 4 2 6 7 3 10 1 4 6 0,9075 0,8064
3 10 3 1 5 2 4 6 2 11 4 1 8 0 4 8 0,9831 0,9683
8 5 3 2 9 1 3 7 6 8 2 1 9 1 4 7 0,7436 0,9911
7 3 4 2 9 3 6 4 1 6 11 0 11 2 2 5 -0,0914 0,8018
6 3 3 9 4 6 7 6 5 2 5 7 4 5 7 5 0,8022 0,8947
6 3 4 6 3 9 5 2 6 2 3 10 3 10 4 3 0,8811 0,9595
2 1 10 6 12 7 0 2 0 0 11 5 14 5 0 2 0,9921 0,9697
0 2 11 7 14 7 0 0 0 2 10 6 13 3 1 4 0,9989 0,8679
0 3 5 9 16 1 1 1 1 0 6 11 16 4 0 0 0,9151 0,9685
0 11 6 4 15 0 2 5 0 4 10 5 14 3 4 1 0,4297 0,8801
1 0 10 6 18 3 0 0 1 0 6 11 4 13 3 0 0,7152 0,0415
1 0 10 6 18 3 0 0 1 0 6 11 4 13 3 0 0,7152 0,0415
1 1 11 4 10 7 0 4 1 1 11 4 12 7 1 2 1,0000 0,9472
3 7 7 3 6 1 7 5 0 0 9 10 19 2 0 0 -0,0525 0,2235
2 4 9 4 11 1 0 5 0 1 11 7 14 6 0 0 0,8768 0,7550
1 3 5 7 10 7 0 2 7 3 9 2 8 2 4 5 -0,3517 0,4009
4 9 5 2 7 2 3 3 0 3 6 8 12 5 2 2 -0,3882 0,8685
2 2 4 7 14 5 1 2 2 5 2 7 10 6 3 1 0,6335 0,9353
1 0 5 8 13 6 1 0 1 0 6 8 14 4 1 0 0,9922 0,9819
0 1 8 9 11 7 0 1 0 3 11 2 11 1 3 3 0,5485 0,6592
5 3 8 3 6 10 1 3 0 1 11 6 17 0 0 2 0,6544 0,1346
3 1 9 7 11 4 3 3 0 1 8 9 15 4 0 2 0,9021 0,9884
0 7 8 3 15 1 0 5 1 6 9 3 13 0 0 6 0,9661 0,9855
5 3 5 6 3 4 8 4 9 4 2 5 3 4 9 5 0,1800 0,9860
0 0 8 9 16 5 0 0 1 2 9 5 12 5 3 2 0,8428 0,9945
0 2 8 8 16 3 2 3 2 6 4 7 10 1 4 6 0,5287 0,8324
3 1 7 6 10 4 4 5 2 3 9 4 11 2 4 5 0,7592 0,9738
0 2 9 7 18 2 0 1 4 1 7 7 5 6 5 7 0,7869 -0,4791
19 1 0 0 0 1 8 9 17 2 1 0 1 3 4 11 0,9980 0,7986
0 4 7 6 17 2 1 1 2 3 8 6 13 3 3 2 0,9091 0,9968
16 3 1 1 1 4 7 9 12 4 2 2 1 2 10 6 0,9977 0,7699
2 5 6 5 13 1 2 3 0 7 6 2 14 0 1 5 0,7863 0,9777
3 3 11 2 10 2 3 6 1 5 7 3 11 4 2 3 0,7697 0,8406
0 1 6 13 17 4 1 1 0 2 5 10 20 0 0 0 0,9928 0,9827
2 0 11 5 13 2 3 3 0 2 7 9 17 0 1 2 0,6780 0,9987
4 6 8 1 6 2 4 5 5 4 6 0 7 2 3 8 0,8807 0,8619
12 6 3 0 1 0 8 11 7 10 2 0 1 1 9 10 0,7148 0,9861
6 1 6 7 3 12 0 3 7 2 5 5 4 10 3 2 0,8359 0,9371
0 9 4 2 11 0 3 5 1 9 3 1 12 0 2 4 0,9689 0,9890
4 3 3 8 11 5 4 1 0 3 7 7 15 2 1 1 0,3909 0,9313
11 3 2 2 0 11 6 3 9 3 4 1 2 9 5 4 0,9325 0,9897
7 3 7 2 0 3 8 6 4 4 7 1 3 2 5 7 0,7762 0,6765
12 6 1 0 0 1 9 10 14 6 0 0 0 1 9 7 0,9959 0,9653
1 3 5 11 9 5 4 1 1 3 5 11 9 5 4 1 1,0000 1,0000
3 10 4 0 10 1 6 5 2 10 4 2 11 0 3 9 0,9554 0,8183
0 0 11 5 14 5 1 0 0 0 12 8 16 2 1 0 0,9776 0,9700
3 9 5 2 5 1 6 7 1 7 9 2 9 1 3 5 0,6900 0,5009
13 3 2 0 0 12 6 4 12 3 1 1 1 10 4 5 0,9899 0,9621
13 3 1 1 0 13 2 6 13 3 2 0 0 12 6 4 0,9900 0,8889
1 6 6 5 12 4 2 3 2 5 7 5 10 3 3 5 0,9170 0,9430
12 2 0 4 2 13 4 2 13 1 1 4 1 14 4 1 0,9876 0,9987
2 0 9 7 7 9 4 1 3 0 9 6 8 8 3 1 0,9829 0,9633
8 6 2 2 2 3 8 3 10 5 1 3 1 9 7 3 0,9350 0,4719
1 9 6 2 5 1 6 9 6 7 7 1 4 2 6 8 0,5808 0,9768
11 4 4 0 1 3 5 9 14 3 4 0 0 1 7 12 0,9866 0,9763
5 4 5 2 8 4 3 4 5 4 7 2 9 3 3 5 0,9058 0,9567
1 6 8 4 7 5 5 3 2 4 6 5 12 7 3 0 0,8661 0,9428
6 4 7 4 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 6 4 7 5 0,6025 0,8779
12 4 1 1 1 3 10 7 16 3 0 3 1 4 9 6 0,9701 0,9825
7 3 7 5 8 3 6 4 3 2 8 6 13 4 2 1 0,5373 0,7410
4 3 10 4 5 12 3 0 4 2 7 6 5 10 4 0 0,7630 0,9854
3 5 9 2 9 2 2 7 1 9 4 3 9 1 2 6 0,2926 0,9881
4 10 3 2 6 1 8 5 6 10 2 1 6 2 7 5 0,9415 0,9959
10 4 1 1 1 8 7 2 9 1 3 3 0 12 4 2 0,8165 0,8481
8 1 4 6 5 7 7 2 12 2 2 7 1 7 11 1 0,9036 0,8063
0 3 16 2 12 7 0 0 2 2 14 3 14 6 0 1 0,9846 0,9817
1 4 8 5 10 2 4 3 1 5 6 6 10 5 1 3 0,8731 0,7865
12 4 3 1 2 3 7 7 10 2 4 3 3 2 7 6 0,9216 0,9318
5 9 4 3 7 8 2 4 5 9 4 3 8 7 2 4 1,0000 0,9560
7 4 4 5 6 4 7 5 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 0,5774 0,7746
1 3 11 5 12 4 0 2 3 3 8 4 12 4 1 3 0,9723 0,9971
0 1 11 6 17 4 0 0 0 1 13 6 19 2 1 0 0,9962 0,9866
10 8 1 0 0 0 9 12 6 11 1 0 1 0 7 12 0,8370 0,9821
5 10 2 1 1 2 7 9 5 11 1 0 0 0 7 11 0,9997 0,9903
2 6 5 4 12 2 3 4 3 6 2 5 13 2 2 5 0,4276 0,9889
0 3 10 4 13 3 2 0 1 5 5 6 12 5 2 0 0,6005 0,9790
11 1 3 3 3 17 0 0 7 3 4 6 3 17 0 1 0,8234 0,9983
4 1 9 6 7 9 0 1 6 1 6 4 6 9 1 2 0,7543 0,9882
6 5 9 1 4 6 5 8 11 3 5 0 1 5 7 9 0,5700 0,8286
1 2 7 7 12 3 3 1 0 3 10 8 14 4 1 4 0,9732 0,9267
10 3 7 2 3 9 5 2 11 3 3 4 5 11 2 3 0,7587 0,8080
1 8 5 1 9 2 2 7 0 6 8 2 8 2 3 7 0,8047 0,9862
11 5 2 0 2 4 6 7 9 6 1 2 3 3 6 8 0,9401 0,9206
4 7 5 1 5 3 4 9 2 8 6 5 5 2 6 7 0,5200 0,7627
2 1 5 8 6 11 2 0 0 1 4 7 8 9 2 1 0,9667 0,9415
1 12 6 1 8 0 3 7 1 12 5 0 9 1 6 6 0,9950 0,8971
1 11 7 1 9 0 5 7 1 8 9 2 9 1 2 5 0,9000 0,8825
0 5 7 8 12 3 2 2 1 3 8 7 12 1 3 3 0,9071 0,9583
0 7 8 1 14 4 1 2 0 5 7 4 18 2 2 0 0,8598 0,9761
2 7 6 4 8 1 6 7 3 5 7 5 9 1 4 8 0,7365 0,9280
5 6 7 2 4 1 6 7 4 6 8 3 6 1 5 7 0,9047 0,8862
2 5 6 5 8 3 5 3 2 7 6 6 9 4 3 6 0,9113 0,6665
0 2 9 7 14 4 1 1 1 1 10 8 9 5 2 3 0,9807 0,9782
2 5 8 3 10 3 5 3 5 6 6 3 7 3 5 4 0,6236 0,9599
3 12 3 1 9 1 3 7 4 9 5 1 10 0 4 6 0,9373 0,9648
0 3 11 2 17 1 1 0 0 7 10 3 15 0 1 4 0,8946 0,9536
8 7 2 3 10 2 3 6 7 6 3 6 11 1 4 5 0,7845 0,9677
3 3 6 2 2 8 3 8 4 3 5 3 1 7 6 6 0,9045 0,7305
0 1 10 6 13 4 2 2 0 6 10 3 16 0 1 3 0,7264 0,9471
6 9 5 0 4 3 7 7 6 8 4 1 3 3 5 10 0,9845 0,7708
1 10 7 2 14 0 1 4 2 10 7 1 10 0 0 7 0,9815 0,8989
The overall correlations are:
Test-Retest
Overall correlations
Profile I 0,8136
Profile II 0,7991
To test the results further, a random selection of 240 persons’ Profile Points was taken from the
database. Half of them were positioned in the “1st” column and the other half in the “2nd” column.
The correlation chart looked now like this:
Random Selection
Overall correlations
Profile I 0,1180
Profile II 0,1787
The high correlation from both this and the previous studies prove clearly that Extended DISC®
Behavioral Analysis continues to be a reliable tool that is not influenced by situational factors to the
extent that affect the results.
6.2 Invalid Profiles
Another method of monitoring the influence of the environment to the results is to follow the
percentage of Invalid Profiles3. Extended DISC® System has the strictest internal rules for
identifying and not processing further the results that do not carry the required reliability.
The amount of Invalid Profiles in a society is mainly dependent on the skills of the inventory
administrator, the environmental climate of the organization and the stability of the society.
The following shows the amounts of Invalid Profiles in selected countries and continents in 2020
and 2022.

2022 2021
Country Invalid % Invalid %
Albania 9,15 % 6,05 %
Australia 3,00 % 2,58 %
Brazil 6,68 % 6,01 %
Bulgaria 4,29 % 2,66 %
Canada 3,08 % 2,92 %
Chile 3,89 % 4,02 %
China 2,43 % 3,11 %
Colombia 5,36 % 5,05 %
Denmark 3,72 % 3,90 %
Finland 2,85 % 3,39 %
Germany 3,29 % 3,34 %
Greece 3,17 % 1,63 %
India 5,63 % 5,25 %
Italy 1,60 % 2,00 %
Jamaica 2,75 % 2,55 %
Jordan 3,01 % 3,98 %
Korea 2,94 % 2,71 %
Kosovo 4,83 % 8,86 %
Mexico 6,25 % 6,19 %
Myanmar 4,26 % 9,52 %
New Zealand 2,96 % 2,92 %
Panama 5,72 % 4,18 %
Peru 7,15 % 7,27 %
Poland 6,50 % 6,72 %
Singapore 1,49 % 3,22 %
South Africa 2,50 % 4,88 %
Spain 4,09 % 3,70 %
Sweden 3,62 % 4,06 %
Taiwan 2,69 % 2,52 %
Thailand 3,75 % 3,28 %
Trinindad & Tobago 3,56 % 3,32 %
United Kingdom 3,45 % 3,30 %
United States 2,31 % 2,35 %
Vietnam 6,15 % 3,76 %
3,73 % 3,69 %
Continent 2022 2021

Americas 3,09 % 3,15 %
Americas - Latin 4,46 % 4,39 %
Africa 1,87 % 0,00 %
Asia 3,22 % 3,12 %
Australasia 2,98 % 2,68 %
Caribbean 3,02 % 2,93 %
Europe 4,29 % 4,40 %
The next table shows the comparison of Invalid Profiles between different years.

Year Invalid-%
2022 3,73 %
2021 3,69 %
2020 3,89 %
2019 4,13 %
2017 4,27 %
2015 3,93 %
2013 4,09 %
2011 4,37 %
2009 5,65 %
2008 4,40 %
2007 4,20 %
2006 5,90 %
2005 3,80 %
Invalid Profiles are part of the Extended DISC® Trust Indicator, that will be included in the
validation report in coming years.
The results also show that if the instrument does not have proper process for identifying the invalid
results (like in the case of most other instruments – even the globally sold instruments), the overall
validity of the instrument would be significantly weaker.
6.3 Comparison of Random Populations
To check the consistency and representativeness of the population, the population was randomly
divided into two sub-groups of 30.000 persons in each group.
Table: “Least” Hit Rate in 3 randomly selected sub-groups
"Least" Hit Rate

2020 2019
Sub 1 90,06 89,92
Sub 2 89,96 90,40
Sub 3 90,28 89,91
Table: Dominating “Least” response in 3 randomly selected sub-groups
Dominating Least Response

2020 2019
Sub 1 100,0 100,0
Sub 2 100,0 100,0
Sub 3 98,7 100,0
Table: Construct Validity in 3 randomly selected sub-groups

Construct Validity
D I S C
Sub 1 0,85 0,83 0,85 0,79
Sub 2 0,84 0,82 0,84 0,78
Sub 3 0,85 0,82 0,84 0,79
As the above tables clear prove, the population used for the study is not biased. They also show
that Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is not discriminatory since it has been validated using a
population that represents the entire population and is not biased by any specific job category,
gender, age or race.
6.4 Least “Hit-Rate in different languages
For each choice in each question, a behavioral trait that is most likely to respond Least is defined.
By “Least Hit-Rate” is meant the percentage of “theory-expected” choices from all the choices. In
other words, how often is each Least choice selected by a right person in the right question.
Global average for Least Hit-Rate is 90,07 (in previous study it was 89,56). Details of the study are
presented in Appendix 1.
The results do not indicate any change or problems with the overall construct validity of the
instrument.
6.5 Least Hit-Rate in different languages for each DISC trait
The Least Hit-Rate analysis was done separately for each DISC trait. The aim of this analysis was
to find out if the general construct validity is high enough for each of the traits.
Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix 2. As the results show, there are no major
differences or problems with any of the traits in any of the languages. The C trait has a tendency, in
all DISC Theory based inventories, to have the biggest discrepancies.
6.6 Dominating ‘Least’ Response in Each Question
It is assumed that in those questions that are designed to measure the responses of the dominant
DISC characters, there is a certain character that responds most negatively in that particular
question. The following step of the study was to find out how well each of the populations
responded in accordance with that theoretical assumption.
Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix 2. There are no major differences between the
scores. More details between inter-language correlations can be found in Appendix 3.

6.7 Question Validity and Word Choices
The next part of the questionnaire construct validity process concentrates on studying the individual
questions’ validity and word choices. Although the questionnaire in general may be valid and
culture-free, it may be possible to enhance the efficiency and analyzability of the results by
regularly restructuring individual questions and especially their word choices.
The process was conducted by paying attention separately to each individual question and each
individual word pair in each question in all of the language populations. The purpose of the process
was to:
 compare the ‘Least’ Hit Rates in the populations

 compare the theoretical assumptions (theoretically expected results) to actual results
 compare the actual results between the populations
 analyze the individual word pairs to find out if the distribution of responses was not as clear as
they are required to be
 come up with possible suggested word changes for each language (for next language versions).
The above described process is conducted annually as a separate process.
6.8 Construct Validity
Construct validity refers to the extent to which the inventory measures a trait derived from research
or experience that have been constructed to explain observable behavior.
The traits used in Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis are the behavioral traits derived from the
Jungian theory; Dominance, Inducement, Submission and Compliance.
The Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis questionnaire is constructed upon the Jungian theory; the
basic behavioral traits and how they are demonstrated in person’s response and behavior. The four
choices in each of the 24 questions have a predefined “ideal” distribution of responses that is based
on the DISC Theory.
All of the questions are linked to each other, and a high inter-item correlation can prove that the full
questionnaire to work in a designed way. The respondent is expected to establish an answering
pattern and follow that pattern throughout the questionnaire. Both patterns, responses to most and
least questions, need not only to be established and followed but to correlate with each other.
The research process described next aims to measure if the questionnaire and the calculation logic
of the Profiles are valid. Each question is analyzed both individually and as a part of the whole
questionnaire.
The process was conducted by comparing the expected low responses to actual low responses
(“Describes me Least”) in all of the language populations and between the populations. The
purpose of this comparison was to:
1. Find out if there are significant differences between the different cultures and different
populations in the average responses to the questionnaire

2. Find out if there are significant differences between the distributions of the ‘Least’ Hit Rates
between the different populations
3. Find out if there were differences between the populations in which dominant DISC character
responded most negatively in each question
6.9 Internal consistency
As a result of the approach described above, final scores for instrument internal consistency were
achieved, globally and for each language version separately. One of the most popular reliability
statistics in use today is Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha determines the internal consistency or
average correlation of items in a survey instrument to gauge its reliability. Cronbach's alpha
measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single unidimensional latent construct.
Cronbach
D I S C
ALB 0,84 0,79 0,84 0,78
ARA 0,83 0,83 0,88 0,82
AUS 0,81 0,78 0,83 0,77
BUL 0,84 0,84 0,82 0,81
BUR 0,86 0,75 0,86 0,78
CAT 0,81 0,79 0,80 0,76
CHI 0,77 0,78 0,83 0,75
CZE 0,79 0,74 0,77 0,77
DAN 0,80 0,77 0,79 0,77
ECA 0,81 0,79 0,83 0,77
EIN 0,86 0,87 0,88 0,84
EIR 0,77 0,77 0,81 0,79
ENC 0,82 0,84 0,86 0,80
ENG 0,80 0,80 0,83 0,77
EUK 0,81 0,82 0,85 0,78
FCA 0,80 0,76 0,79 0,80
FIN 0,80 0,76 0,79 0,75
FRA 0,81 0,78 0,81 0,81
GEA 0,80 0,77 0,77 0,76
GER 0,80 0,80 0,78 0,77
GES 0,72 0,78 0,75 0,75
GJR 0,81 0,83 0,78 0,87
GRE 0,84 0,80 0,86 0,80
HIN 0,78 0,76 0,73 0,77
HOL 0,82 0,77 0,80 0,74
HUN 0,74 0,70 0,83 0,76
IND 0,81 0,78 0,80 0,77
ITA 0,79 0,77 0,77 0,75
JAP 0,80 0,71 0,78 0,77
KOR 0,77 0,73 0,79 0,79
LIT 0,77 0,76 0,76 0,75
NIG 0,85 0,80 0,85 0,82
NOR 0,81 0,75 0,78 0,75

POB 0,81 0,85 0,85 0,81

POL 0,83 0,80 0,81 0,81
POR 0,83 0,85 0,86 0,79
ROM 0,80 0,81 0,88 0,78
RSA 0,82 0,84 0,85 0,81
RUS 0,81 0,77 0,79 0,78
SPA 0,82 0,81 0,81 0,77
SPC 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,77
SPL 0,81 0,79 0,82 0,75
SWE 0,77 0,76 0,77 0,75
SWF 0,80 0,74 0,78 0,72
THA 0,82 0,80 0,83 0,82
TUR 0,82 0,78 0,82 0,78
TWN 0,82 0,70 0,85 0,75
VIE 0,86 0,83 0,85 0,80
Conclusions: Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis has very high Cronbach’s alpha scores in all
languages. This claim is supported by the 2022 figures alone but also by the consistency of the
figures over the different annual samples and different language versions.

7 Cultural Information
This part of the validation report focuses on other interesting information Extended DISC®
Behavioral Analysis produces. This information is designed more for understanding differences
between different cultures, whether national or corporate. It is macro level information that helps to
understand why business is conducted in certain way in a particular country or company, and
therefore becomes useful information for upper level decisions makers.
7.1 National Stress Indicator™
The National Stress Indicator ™ (NSI) is one outcome of Extended DISC®’s continuous global
research and interest in understanding not only individuals, teams and corporations but also the
whole nations.
In mechanics, stress is defined as the force exerted to an object. If the force (stress) becomes
stronger or lasts longer than what the material of the object can resist, it deforms. Similarly, in
behavioral sense, stress is the external pressure the person feels that forces the person away from
their comfort zone.
A certain amount of stress comes with normal everyday tasks and responsibilities within a work
environment. NSI does not measure a stress that the person is in control over and accepts.
The National Stress Indicator ™ (NSI) measures the amount of negative stress pressure a group of
individuals feels they face. The higher the NSI score, the less balanced, peaceful and secure the
population feels the environment is.
Calculation of NSI
The population data for NSI is collected from the users of the Extended DISC® System around the
world. No identification to an individual is preserved within the data transfer.
The population represents well the average working adult population in each country.
The score is calculated from the Extended DISC® Profiles. Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis
measures not only the most natural behavioral preference of an individual but also how the person
feels the current environment pushes the person to adjust his/her behavior to better adjust to the
requirements of the environment.
Every individual gets a stress score that is based on the size and importance of negatives stress
indications in the Profile. A Profile with no indication of any negative pressure gets a zero score.
The highest possible score is 5.
The following table lists the results from the last few years.

Table: National Stress
The National Stress Indicator ™ (NSI) gives the society a lot to think about and its purpose is to
raise discussion within the country. It clearly reflects not only the stress in work but also the
general attitude towards work and individualism.

7.2 Special Cases
Special cases provide us indication on how comfortable the person feels in the current environment.
The different indicators relate to different types of emotions the person is currently experiencing.
On national level, the results can be assumed to relate to the amount of stability, reliability and
pressure that there is the country.
The Special Cases are available for users with advanced certification to the Extended DISC®
System.

7.3 Device Detection
For the purpose of keeping the instrument valid in the changing environment, special analysis is
regularly made on the validity indicators on different devices the respondents use when completing
the questionnaire.
The following table shows the percentage of people using desktop/laptop, mobile or tablet when
completing the questionnaire. It also indicates the average age of persons using different devices.


Table: Respondent average age on different devices
In most countries, the mobile respondents’ average age is less than desktop and tablet respondents,
giving indication that usage of mobile for responding the questionnaires like Extended DISC®
Behavioral Analysis will be increasing also in the future.
Table: Percentages of respondents by device
The usage of mobile devices has been increasing every year except in 2020 (this may be because of
the covid-19 virus). This increases the importance to guarantee that mobile devices are not
distracting the answering process, but produce similar results as the traditional desktop devices do.
Table: Stress Indicator by device

7.4 Profile II vs. Profile I
This chapter focuses on comparing the results between Profile II and Profile I.
When Profile II describes the natural spontaneous behavioral style of a person , Profile I describes
how well the person feels he/she wants or needs to adjust his/her behavior to the requirements of the
current environment. The more similar the two graphs are, the less the person is expressing any
need to adjust.
The above table shows the results by country. The first four columns with results show the
distribution of dominant traits (D, I, S and C) for persons who had D as the dominant trait in Profile
II. The next sets of four columns show the same for dominant I, S and C.
The table also sums up the Profile I dominant traits, showing in which direction people in each
country feel they want or they need to adjust their behavior.
These results can be assumed to correlate with national business cultures and what type of behavior
is valued most highly in the country.
The last column shows the first version of a BYS Index (Be Your Self) that is aimed to measure the
difference between the national distribution of behavioral traits and national business culture. It is
basically the percentage of people who keep their dominant trait the same in both Profiles.
Interpretation of these results requires minimum basic certification to the Extended DISC® System.
7.5 Country Distribution
Below table provides the DISC distribution statistics from different countries.
Whole Population Male Population Female Population

2022 D I S C D I S C D I S C
Albania 15,1 14,8 29,7 40,4 . 17 13 30 41 14 17 30 40
Australia 7,8 30,5 36,5 25,2 . 9 28 36 27 6 34 37 24
Barbados 14,4 15,3 25,7 44,6 . 17 14 32 38 13 16 23 48
Belgium 9,0 37,5 38,6 14,9 . 13 35 35 17 5 40 42 13
Brazil 12,6 15,4 22,2 49,9 . 14 14 19 53 11 18 26 45
Bulgaria 25,3 28,8 19,8 26,0 . 28 25 20 28 23 32 20 24
Canada 9,4 31,6 31,1 27,9 . 12 31 28 29 7 33 34 27
Chile 3,2 22,8 28,3 45,7 . 4 22 27 47 2 24 30 44
China 12,6 17,9 44,0 25,5 . 13 16 44 28 12 22 44 22
Colombia 5,5 30,1 22,4 42,0 . 7 30 21 42 4 30 24 42
Denmark 8,2 24,8 45,2 21,8 . 10 25 42 23 6 24 50 20
Dominican Republic 9,7 30,7 31,3 28,4 . 10 27 31 32 9 32 32 26
Ecuador 9,3 23,0 26,9 40,9 . 10 20 29 41 8 28 24 41
Finland 8,1 28,8 41,2 21,9 . 10 26 39 26 6 33 44 17
Germany 8,4 40,4 25,2 26,0 . 9 42 22 27 7 37 31 25
Greece 5,7 17,6 35,8 40,9 . 6 16 35 44 6 24 40 31
India 14,8 25,2 29,9 30,1 . 15 24 30 32 14 30 31 25
Iraq 11,4 28,6 23,9 36,1 . 13 27 27 33 10 30 21 40
Italy 3,4 46,2 34,4 16,0 . 4 46 34 16 2 46 35 16
Jamaica 8,6 16,8 33,3 41,4 . 11 17 32 40 7 16 34 42
Jordan 10,4 30,7 25,6 33,3 . 13 26 22 38 9 33 28 31
Korea 11,6 27,2 41,0 20,2 . 12 23 41 23 11 31 41 18
Kosovo 10,5 9,6 34,7 45,2 . 13 8 32 47 8 11 38 43
Malaysia 12,2 22,3 30,4 35,1 . 16 21 30 33 7 24 31 38
Mexico 9,9 24,3 19,5 46,3 . 15 23 15 47 6 25 22 46
Myanmar 16,4 27,1 20,8 35,7 . 16 30 23 32 17 25 19 39
Netherlands 9,2 31,0 42,8 17,0 . 10 29 39 22 8 34 47 11
New Zealand 10,0 31,0 34,4 24,6 . 12 29 33 25 7 34 36 24
Norway 1,5 29,0 41,8 27,8 . 2 27 44 27 1 32 38 28
Panama 11,2 31,7 20,5 36,6 . 13 31 18 37 8 32 23 36
Papua New Guinea 10,0 21,2 29,2 39,6 . 11 20 28 40 6 24 32 37

Whole Population Male Population Female Population

2022 D I S C D I S C D I S C
Peru 5,8 27,9 25,6 40,8 . 7 25 25 43 4 33 26 37
Poland 12,5 19,6 44,0 23,9 . 16 18 39 27 10 21 48 22
Saudi Arabia 8,0 23,8 33,2 35,0 . 9 22 33 35 6 25 33 35
Serbia 16,8 21,3 23,8 38,1 . 20 18 24 39 13 26 24 37
Singapore 11,7 22,6 40,1 25,6 . 13 23 38 26 10 23 42 25
South Africa 15,3 28,0 23,7 33,1 . 17 21 23 40 14 33 24 29
Spain 6,1 29,7 36,7 27,6 . 7 28 35 29 5 32 39 25
Sri Lanka 12,4 18,6 31,5 37,4 . 14 18 31 37 9 21 33 38
Sweden 7,7 41,5 31,8 19,1 . 9 37 32 22 6 46 31 16
Taiwan 8,4 14,9 47,4 29,3 . 8 13 47 31 10 20 47 23
Thailand 12,4 21,8 40,8 24,9 . 13 20 40 26 12 23 41 24
Trinidad & Tobago 9,7 21,8 31,3 37,1 . 11 21 31 36 9 22 31 38
UAE 10,6 29,4 24,2 35,8 . 13 29 22 37 9 30 26 35
United Kingdom 13,5 30,3 31,0 25,3 . 15 29 30 26 11 33 32 24
United States 9,7 26,5 33,6 30,3 . 12 26 31 31 8 27 36 29
Vietnam 13,4 22,3 38,4 25,9 . 13 22 38 28 14 23 39 24

8 Inventory Administration
Although Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is very easy and quick to complete, there are some
precautions that we recommend to guarantee the quality of the process.
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is based on self-assessment. To achieve the best results, it is
best to complete the questionnaire as quickly as possible. Because of this, answering the whole
questionnaire should take only 7-10 minutes.
8.1 Step-by-Step
Respondents always complete the Behavioral Analysis questionnaires online.
The process for administering Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is simple.
1. Open an answering Project on FinxS® platform

2. Send the respondent invitation to answer
3. Use a system report, user created report or the FinxS® Playground to process the results
4. Provide the feedback to the respondent
5. Create a development plan with the respondent to improve their performance
The FinxS® platform allows the facilitator to customize the presentation to address the participant’s
unique needs. Because of its flexibility, the facilitator has a wide range of options in determining
how much time to spend on providing feedback on the results. Obviously, the more time is
available, the more fluent the participants become in applying the concepts in practice. Also, since
Extended DISC® has so many applications, training sessions may be focused on specific
applications, such as communication skills training. In later training sessions the participants are
able to use the same framework in learning new applications.
8.2 General Instructions for the facilitator
 Always send the instructions either via email or other electronic media
 Write the instructions carefully but do not make them too long (most people do not read long
instructions)
 Ask the respondent to log into the online questionnaire only when he/she is sure that there will
be n interruptions during the next 15 minutes
 Do not provide information about the results to unauthorized individuals. Remember that every
user has the right to get feedback on their own results.
 Remember and convey to the participants that Extended DISC® Theory does not classify people
into good or bad. Neither does it attempt in any way to limit the opportunities of an individual.
Extended DISC® Theory describes an individual’s natural reaction mode and behavioral style in
different types of situations. It gives the person a better ability to understand one’s own and
other’s behavior, to adjust one’s own behavior to better suit the situation, to avoid unnecessary
problems in communication, and to point one’s life into the direction where he or she better
succeeds and enjoys it the most.

 Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is a behavioral inventory based on self-evaluation that is

designed to clarify in what order and relation to others an individual prefers the areas of the
four-quadrant model. The analysis has no right or wrong answers. It does not classify people
into good or bad categories or in any other way classify people into better or worse.
8.3 General Instructions for the respondent
 There are no right or wrong answers.

 Do not ponder the questions too much. Answering the whole questionnaire should take only 7-
10 minutes. Select the answer that first feels right.
 Complete the questionnaire without interruptions. Do not do something else or talk with
someone during the process
 Complete the questionnaire quickly, but not hastily
 Do not attempt to influence the results; you will only confuse yourself and invalidate the results
NOTE! Different countries have different laws for collecting and storing individual material.
Check the local legislation and follow it precisely.
Remember! Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis
 Describes the person's natural reaction mode or behavioral style in different situations
 Is a behavioral inventory based on self-evaluation
 Measures natural behavioral styles
 Does not classify people into good or bad
 Does not limit a person's ability to develop in another direction or work environment
 Does not give high or low scores or in any other way classify people into better or worse
 Does not measure intelligence, professional skills, or attitudes

9 Inventory Reporting
The Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis results can be produced multiple different formats. The
users of the FinxS® System can produce the results by using system owned reports, or reports
created by users or by using the FinxS® Playground.
All of these options provide the information in multiple different formats. Results can be produced
using graphics (like Extended DISC® Profiles, Extended DISC® Diamond, Adjusted Profile, DISC
Pie and different 4Q Models). Text format elements in the report designer include information, like
Motivators, de-motivators, strengths, development areas, relationship role, interview questions and
tips. Results can also be produced in numerical format, like the Extended DISC® Percentages and
thermometer values. In addition, users have access to over 1000 behavioral competences and styles
that can be used alone or in combination in Job Templates.
All these options provide the users with the possibility to design the reports to best match with the
intended use of the information.
To get the most out the reports, one should be able to read the graphics (like the Extended DISC®
Profiles and the Extended DISC® Diamond). To learn to use them requires training and experience.
NOTE! We highly recommend that everyone using the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis tool
participates in the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis Certification Training. The graphics in the
report form the basis for all the information, whereas the text parts only describe partially what the
core result means.
Next, some of the elements of the reports are described in more detail.
Extended DISC® Profiles & Extended DISC® Diamond
The Extended DISC® Profile and Extended DISC® Diamond include all the information Extended
DISC® Behavioral Analysis can produce. The graphs all the graphical and numerical information
that has been derived from the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis Questionnaire. The
interpretation of both the Profiles and the Diamond require training. To interpret the results without
a good understanding of how to read the information is not recommended because of the possible
misinterpretations.
Flexibility Zones
The Flexibility Zones demonstrate how much and in what direction the individual’s behavior is the
most flexible to adjust, as well as in what areas the person is the farthest from the natural style.
It is important to note that when we describe an individual’s behavior we cannot say he can do
something and cannot do something. We all have the potential to do everything; it is just that some
things are more natural and some less natural.

Behavioral Descriptors
The Behavioral Descriptors describe the typical behavior of the individual. Read the text as such
and use it to develop an overall picture. In evaluating specific sentences, it is important to consider
a person’s conscious ability to adapt behavior.
The narrative was specifically designed to be concise. Today everyone experiences information
overload – Behavioral Analysis was designed to provide information quickly and in an easy-to-use
format. However, the system’s text bank is so large that it can generate over 115,000,000 different
combinations of Behavioral Descriptors. As a result, the results will be very specific to each
individual.
Motivators
The Motivators describe the individual using four main categories. Go through each line that has
significance in relation to the individual’s job responsibilities. Evaluate if the person is able to use
their strengths and how to work on the development areas. If the requirements of the job position
and the strengths of the individual do not correspond, this provides an opportunity to evaluate the
situation with the employee to enhance performance.
Behavioral Competences
The Behavioral Competences relate the analysis results to different overall work environment
factors and requirements. Do not concentrate on the numerical value of a specific competence, but
focus on the competences that received the lowest and highest scores. The greater numerical values
reflect areas that are most natural to the individual. The lower values correspond to the areas that
require the most effort and energy by the individual.
Styles
The Styles relate to ways of doing things, like natural communication style, natural way of learning
and how stress shows up in one’s behavior. Do not concentrate on the numerical value of a specific
style, but focus on the styles that received the lowest and highest scores. The greater numerical
values reflect approaches that are most natural to the individual. The lower values correspond to
the areas that require the most effort and energy by the individual.
Job Behaviors
The Job Behaviors are much like the behavioral competences except that they focus on specific job
positions and describe how natural different elements of that position are to the person. Do not
concentrate on the numerical value of a specific job behavior, but focus on the behaviors that
received the lowest and highest scores. The greater numerical values reflect elements of the job that
are most natural to the individual. The lower values correspond to the areas that require the most
effort and energy by the individual.
Tip Groups
The Tips provide tips how to better succeed in certain situations or with certain types of people. The
tips are tailored to your Profile.

Validity Fields
The Validity Fields are designed for more advanced user (users who have participated in the
Advanced Certification). They summarize some of the Special Cases that an advanced user can
identify in the Profiles. The purpose of the Validity Fields is not to provide “stand-alone
information” but to indicate where in the Profiles there might be something interesting to look at.
9.1 Other providers
In addition to the original Extended DISC® reports, several other assessment providers use the
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis tool to produce their own reporting and branding.

10 Inventory Bias
The study shows that there are no differences in validity between different nationalities or races.
Cultural, social and anthropological history together with the nature of the economic structure
create different preferences for behavior in different cultures. The cultural distribution maps
(Extended DISC® Diamond) can be used as norms when using the instrument in multi-cultural
environment.
For the purpose of studying inventory bias, two randomly selected sub-populations were created,
and results of those were compared against each other. The study also shows there are no
differences in validity between male and female populations.
Table: Construct validity on this and previous years
c
D I S C
Sub Group 1 0,85 0,83 0,85 0,79
Sub Group 2 0,84 0,82 0,84 0,78
Sub Group 3 0,85 0,82 0,84 0,79
Global
2020 0,85 0,82 0,84 0,79
2019 0,84 0,82 0,85 0,79
2017 0,84 0,83 0,84 0,79
2015 0,83 0,82 0,84 0,79
2013 0,84 0,82 0,84 0,78
2011 0,84 0,82 0,84 0,78
2009 0,84 0,82 0,85 0,79
2008 0,84 0,82 0,84 0,79
2007 0,84 0,82 0,84 0,79
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is designed to be used for adult population. The respondents
need to respond to a questionnaire in their native language. The DISC Theory was originally
described to illustrate the behavior of “normal” people (William Moulton-Marston: Emotions of
normal People, 1927). There is no study to support the use of the instrument among mentally
underdeveloped individuals.
Inventories are not expected to yield equivalent mean scores across population groups. To do so
would inappropriately assume that all groups have had the same educational and cultural
experiences. Rather, inventories should yield the same scores and predict the same likelihood of
success for individual test-takers of the same ability, regardless of group membership. All the
studies show that Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis works equally well for all (studied) races,
all age groups and both genders.

11 Our Ethics
Every person involved with administering Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis, whether
administering the data collection, data processing, data delivering or providing application support,
needs to be trained and certified by a qualified and certified Extended DISC® trainer.
Special attention is always to be paid on local legislation and the ways it requires the data
collection, data storing and data sharing processes to be handled.
Extended DISC® and FinxS® provide high-class validated instruments. All people representing
Extended DISC® and FinxS® must follow the ethics generally accepted in their line of business.
We fully follow the Code of Fair Testing Practices.
11.1 Code of Fair Testing Practices
Citation from:
Dr. William J. Russell
Executive Officer
National Council on Measurement in Education
Since the Code provides a frame of reference for the evaluation of the appropriateness of behavior,
NCME recognizes that the Code may be used in legal or other similar proceedings.
11.1.1 Section 1: Responsibilities of Those Who Develop Assessment Products and

Services
Those who develop assessment products and services, such as classroom teachers and other
assessment specialists, have a professional responsibility to strive to produce assessments that are of
the highest quality. Persons who develop assessments have a professional responsibility to:
1.1 Ensure that assessment products and services are developed to meet applicable professional,
technical, and legal standards.
1.2 Develop assessment products and services that are as free as possible from bias due to
characteristics irrelevant to the construct being measured, such as gender, ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, disability, religion, age, or national origin.
1.3 Plan accommodations for groups of test takers with disabilities and other special needs when
developing assessments.
1.4 Disclose to appropriate parties any actual or potential conflicts of interest that might
influence the developers' judgment or performance.
1.5 Use copyrighted materials in assessment products and services in accordance with local
legislation.

1.6 Make information available to appropriate persons about the steps taken to develop and
score the assessment, including up-to-date information used to support the reliability, validity,
scoring and reporting processes, and other relevant characteristics of the assessment.
1.7 Protect the rights to privacy of those who are assessed as part of the assessment
development process.
1.8 Caution users, in clear and prominent language, against the most likely misinterpretations
and misuses of data that arise out of the assessment development process.
1.9 Avoid false or unsubstantiated claims in test preparation and program support materials and
services about an assessment or its use and interpretation.
1.10 Correct any substantive inaccuracies in assessments or their support materials as soon as
feasible.
1.11 Develop score reports and support materials that promote the understanding of assessment
results.
11.1.2 Section 2: Responsibilities of Those Who Market and Sell Assessment Products and
Services
The marketing of assessment products and services, such as tests and other instruments, scoring
services, test preparation services, consulting, and test interpretive services, should be based on
information that is accurate, complete, and relevant to those considering their use. Persons who
market and sell assessment products and services have a professional responsibility to:
2.1 Provide accurate information to potential purchasers about assessment products and services
and their recommended uses and limitations.
2.2 Not knowingly withhold relevant information about assessment products and services that
might affect an appropriate selection decision.
2.3 Base all claims about assessment products and services on valid interpretations of publicly
available information.
2.4 Allow qualified users equal opportunity to purchase assessment products and services.
2.5 Establish reasonable fees for assessment products and services.
2.6 Communicate to potential users, in advance of any purchase or use, all applicable fees
associated with assessment products and services.
2.7 Strive to ensure that no individuals are denied access to opportunities because of their
inability to pay the fees for assessment products and services.
2.8 Establish criteria for the sale of assessment products and services, such as limiting the sale
of assessment products and services to those individuals who are qualified for recommended uses
and from whom proper uses and interpretations are anticipated.

2.9 Inform potential users of known inappropriate uses of assessment products and services and
provide recommendations about how to avoid such misuses.
2.10 Maintain a current understanding about assessment products and services and their
appropriate uses in education.
2.11 Release information implying endorsement by users of assessment products and services
only with the users' permission.
2.12 Avoid making claims that assessment products and services have been endorsed by another
organization unless an official endorsement has been obtained.
2.13 Avoid marketing test preparation products and services that may cause individuals to receive
scores that misrepresent their actual levels of attainment.
11.1.3 Section 3: Responsibilities of Those Who Select Assessment Products and Services
Those who select assessment products and services, or help others do so, have important
professional responsibilities to make sure that the assessments are appropriate for their intended use.
Persons who select assessment products and services have a professional responsibility to:
3.1 Conduct a thorough review and evaluation of available assessment strategies and
instruments that might be valid for the intended uses.
3.2 Recommend and/or select assessments based on publicly available documented evidence of
their technical quality and utility rather than on unsubstantiated claims or statements.
3.3 Disclose any associations or affiliations that they have with the authors, test publishers, or
others involved with the assessments under consideration for purchase and refrain from
participation if such associations might affect the objectivity of the selection process.
3.4 Inform decision makers and prospective users of the appropriateness of the assessment for
the intended uses, likely consequences of use, protection of examinee rights, relative costs,
materials and services needed to conduct or use the assessment, and known limitations of the
assessment, including potential misuses and misinterpretations of assessment information.
3.5 Recommend against the use of any prospective assessment that is likely to be administered,
scored, and used in an invalid manner for members of various groups in our society for reasons of
race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, language background, socioeconomic status, religion, or
national origin.
3.6 Comply with all security precautions that may accompany assessments being reviewed.
3.7 Immediately disclose any attempts by others to exert undue influence on the assessment
selection process.

3.8 Avoid recommending, purchasing, or using test preparation products and services that may
cause individuals to receive scores that misrepresent their actual levels of attainment.
11.1.4 Section 4: Responsibilities of Those Who Administer Assessments
Those who prepare individuals to take assessments and those who are directly or indirectly involved
in the administration of assessments as part of the process, including consultants, trainers,
administrators, and assessment personnel, have an important role in making sure that the
assessments are administered in a fair and accurate manner. Persons who prepare others for, and
those who administer, assessments have a professional responsibility to:
4.1 Inform the examinees about the assessment prior to its administration, including its
purposes, uses, and consequences; how the assessment information will be judged or scored; how
the results will be kept on file; who will have access to the results; how the results will be
distributed; and examinees' rights before, during, and after the assessment.
4.2 Administer only those assessments for which they are qualified by education, training,
licensure, or certification.
4.3 Take appropriate security precautions before, during, and after the administration of the
assessment.
4.4 Understand the procedures needed to administer the assessment prior to administration.
4.5 Administer standardized assessments according to prescribed procedures and conditions and
notify appropriate persons if any nonstandard or delimiting conditions occur.
4.6 Avoid any conditions in the conduct of the assessment that might invalidate the results.
4.7 Provide for and document all reasonable and allowable accommodations for the
administration of the assessment to persons with disabilities or special needs.
4.10 Provide reasonable opportunities for individuals to ask questions about the assessment
procedures or directions prior to and at prescribed times during the administration of the
assessment.
4.11 Protect the rights to privacy and due process of those who are assessed.
4.12 Avoid actions or conditions that would permit or encourage individuals or groups to receive
scores that misrepresent their actual levels of attainment.
11.1.5 Section 5: Responsibilities of Those Who Score Assessments
The scoring of assessments should be conducted properly and efficiently so that the results are
reported accurately and in a timely manner. Persons who score and prepare reports of assessments
have a professional responsibility to:

5.1 Provide complete and accurate information to users about how the assessment is scored,
such as the reporting schedule, scoring process to be used, rationale for the scoring approach,
technical characteristics, quality control procedures, reporting formats, and the fees, if any, for these
services.
5.2 Ensure the accuracy of the assessment results by conducting reasonable quality control
procedures before, during, and after scoring.
5.3 Minimize the effect on scoring of factors irrelevant to the purposes of the assessment.
5.4 Inform users promptly of any deviation in the planned scoring and reporting service or
schedule and negotiate a solution with users.
5.5 Provide corrected score results to the examinee or the client as quickly as practicable should
errors be found that may affect the inferences made on the basis of the scores.
5.6 Protect the confidentiality of information that identifies individuals as prescribed by local
legislation.
5.7 Release summary results of the assessment only to those persons entitled to such
information by local legislation or those who are designated by the party contracting for the scoring
services.
5.8 Establish, where feasible, a fair and reasonable process for appeal and rescoring the
assessment.
11.1.6 Section 6: Responsibilities of Those Who Interpret, Use, and Communicate

Assessment Results
The interpretation, use, and communication of assessment results should promote valid inferences
and minimize invalid ones. Persons who interpret, use, and communicate assessment results have a
professional responsibility to:
6.1 Conduct these activities in an informed, objective, and fair manner within the context of the
assessment's limitations and with an understanding of the potential consequences of use.
6.2 Provide to those who receive assessment results information about the assessment, its
purposes, its limitations, and its uses necessary for the proper interpretation of the results.
6.3 Provide to those who receive score reports an understandable written description of all
reported scores, including proper interpretations and likely misinterpretations.
6.4 Communicate to appropriate audiences the results of the assessment in an understandable

and timely manner, including proper interpretations and likely misinterpretations.
6.5 Evaluate and communicate the adequacy and appropriateness of any norms or standards
used in the interpretation of assessment results.
6.6 Inform parties involved in the assessment process how assessment results may affect them.

6.7 Use multiple sources and types of relevant information about persons or organizations
whenever possible in making decisions.
6.8 Avoid making, and actively discourage others from making, inaccurate reports,
unsubstantiated claims, inappropriate interpretations, or otherwise false and misleading statements
about assessment results.
6.9 Disclose to examinees and others whether and how long the results of the assessment will be
kept on file, procedures for appeal and rescoring, rights examinees and others have to the
assessment information, and how those rights may be exercised.
6.10 Report any apparent misuses of assessment information to those responsible for the
assessment process.
6.11 Protect the rights to privacy of individuals and organizations involved in the assessment
process.
11.1.7 Section 7: Responsibilities of Those Who Educate Others About Assessments
The process of educating others about assessments, whether as part of certification training,
organizational or personal development, or on-the-job training, should prepare individuals to
understand and engage in sound measurement practice and to become discerning users of tests and
test results. Persons who educate or inform others about assessment have a professional
responsibility to:
7.1 Remain competent and current in the areas in which they teach and reflect that in their
instruction.
7.2 Provide fair and balanced perspectives when teaching about assessment.
7.3 Differentiate clearly between expressions of opinion and substantiated knowledge when
educating others about any specific assessment method, product, or service.
7.4 Disclose any financial interests that might be perceived to influence the evaluation of a
particular assessment product or service that is the subject of instruction.
7.5 Protect all secure assessments and materials used in the instructional process.
7.6 Model responsible assessment practice and help those receiving instruction to learn about
their professional responsibilities in behavioral measurement.
7.7 Provide fair and balanced perspectives on assessment issues.

12 FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment (SCA)

The following language versions of FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment were included in the
validation study (the language codes used in this study). Population size in 2022 study was 51.202.
- Albanian (ALB) - Greek (Greece) (GRE)

- Arabic (ARA) - Gujarati (GJR)
- Bulgarian (BUL) - Hindi (HIN)
- Burmese (BUR) - Italian (ITA)
- Chinese (Simplified) (CHI) - Japanese (JAP)
- Chinese (Traditional) (TWN) - Korean (KOR)
- Danish (DAN) - Macedonian (MAC)
- English (Australasia) (AUS) - Malay (MAL)
- English (Canada) (ECA) - Norwegian (NOR)
- English (Caribbean) (ENC) - Polish (POL)
- English (India) - Portuguese (Brazil) (POB)
- English (Ireland) (EIR) - Portuguese (Portugal) (POR)
- English (Southern Africa) (RSA) - Serbian (SER)
- English (US) (ENG) - Spanish (Caribbean) (SPC)
- English (UK) (EUK) - Spanish (Spain) (SPA)
- Finnish (FIN) - Spanish (Latin America) (SPL)
- French (France) - Swedish (Finland) (SWF)
- German (Austria) (GEA) - Swedish (Sweden) (SWE)
- German (Germany) GER) - Thai (THA)
- German (Switzerland) (GES) - Vietnamese (VIE)
- Greek (Cyprus) (GRC)
12.1 Background to SCA
The FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment was developed in co-operation with clients who specialize
in sales training and consultancy. The purpose was to create an in-depth instrument that would not
only discover the strengths and weaknesses of a sales person but would also help understand why
those are the current strengths and weaknesses.
The FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment is designed to help the sales professional and/or sales
management in finding the right sales people in right sales roles and identify the current
development needs to improve their sales. The forced-choice method helps in identifying the true
strengths instead of allowing the respondent to score themselves high on every competence.
The instrument identifies 18 critical sales competences. The competences are general enough to
apply in most sales positions covering also the whole sales process from lead generation to post-sale
activities.
Each of the competences are constructed by Sales Mindsets. The Sales Mindsets are the building
blocks that help understand why some competences are perceived as strong and some not. They
also support the need to go “beneath the surface” to understand the underlying elements that are
more deeply rooted in the respondent’s personality.

The instrument is designed to allow the respondent also to “escape from selling” by selecting
choices that are more excuses than productive sales behaviors. These questions are used for
defining the Excuse Index® for each respondent. High Excuse Index® also reduces the competence
scores as the respondent indicates the competence may be stronger but due to current motivation
level or circumstances the respondent prefers not to see it being that strong.
The instrument was developed in 2016-2017. The development process included developing the
Sales Mindsets, Sales Competences, but also creating the algorithms, actual questionnaire and the
Excuse Index® Questions. The instrument was launched at selected markets on the last few months
of 2017.
12.2 Sales Competences
The 18 Sales Competences measured by the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment are:
 C1: Prospecting
 C2: Qualifying
 C3: Building Rapport
 C4: Following the Sales Process
 C5: Goal Orientation
 C6: Needing Approval
 C7: Controlling the Sales Process
 C8: Handling Objections
 C9: Questioning Effectiveness
 C10: Active Listening
 C11: Critical Thinking
 C12: Ambition and Initiative
 C13: Presenting
 C14: Time Management
 C15: Dealing with Failure
 C16: Determined Competitiveness
 C17: Money Concept
 C18: Emotional Detachment
The following table shows the average score for each of the competences.

The size of the population who do not identify with either gender male or female and who prefer not
to state their gender is 0,16% of the whole population, making their size not enough big to draw any
conclusions.
Each of the sales competences is supposed to measure an independent competence that does not
correlate strongly (positively nor negatively) with any other competence. The following table
shows the inter-competence correlations.
The results clearly indicate that every competence is independent from the other competences. The
users of the instrument can see this is in any combination of competence scores being possible. At
the same time, it is not possible to score high or low on every competence at the same time.
An instrument can only be both valid and useful if it succeeds to measure independent items. The
above correlations clearly indicate that the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment measures 18
independent competences which forms basis for it being a valid instrument to be used for measuring
sales competences of people with experience in sales.
This also shows it is possible to focus development actions on any particular competence without
simultaneously scarifying any particular other competence.
From the sales management point of view the above results show it is possible to select any
combination of the competences as crucial for the organization without making a combination that
would not be possible to achieve.
Additionally, it is equally possible to focus on high or low competences both in development and
prioritizing. Organization may, for example, look for high score in one competence and low score
in another.
The following table divides the results by selected languages (the size of population in some of the
languages may not be big enough to draw strong conclusions).

The results were also compared against the answering time to identify if it takes longer for
respondents who are strong with certain competences to respond to the questionnaire. As the blow
table indicates, there is no correlation between any competence and answering time.
FinxS® System provides the users with the possibility of creating their own benchmarks (norm
groups). In addition, the system collects global and national benchmark data that is available for all
users.
12.3 Sales Mindsets
The 12 Sales Mindsets measured by the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment are:
 M1: Conquering
 M2: Hunter
 M3: Persistence
 M4: Reading the situation
 M5: Logic
 M6: Hunger
 M7: Empathy
 M8: Social approval
 M9: Taking control
 M10: Next step
 M11: Finding the truth
 M12: Influencing
The following table shows the average scores for each of the Sales Mindsets.

Each of the Sales Mindsets is supposed to measure an independent mindset that does not correlate
strongly with any other mindsets. The following table shows the inter-mindset correlations.
The results clearly indicate that every Sales Mindset is independent from the other Sales Mindsets.
The users of the instrument can see this is in any combination of mindset scores being possible. At
the same time, it is not possible to score high or low on every mindset at the same time.
As the Sales Mindsets are the one of the building blocks of the sales competences, it is assumed that
a Sales Mindset correlates slightly higher (both positively and negatively) with some the sales
competences than with other Sales Mindsets.
The following table shows the correlations between the sales mindsets and sales competences.

As the table shows, there are some higher correlations between a mindset and a competence.
However, very few of the mindsets correlates very highly with any of the competences, which can
be considered as an indication that the measurement of a mindset is different from a measurement
of a competence.
In addition, the average correlation (last row on above table), of each sales competence is close to
zero, being an indication that each of the competences are equally distant from the mindsets.
The above results provide indication that even though the mindsets are the building blocks of
competence, it is possible to develop a competence without having to change your mindsets.
Mindsets are considered to be more stable and less likely to change with similar efforts as the
competences can be changed.
Some exceptions to this can be found when there is a relatively high correlation between a Sales
Mindset and a Sales Competence. The stronger link between this mindset and competence makes it
difficult to develop the competence if the mindset is not high. At the same time, it is much more
difficult to “lose” the competence if the mindset is also high.
12.4 Excuse Index®
The following table shows the average scores for Excuse Index®.

It is assumed that the higher the Excuse Index®, the lower would be the sales competence score.
The below table shows the correlation between Excuse Index® and each of the sales competences.
Excuse Index® has a negative correlation with all the sales competences, but one. The behavior is
assumed and according to the algorithm of the instrument; the more like you are to find excuses, the
less strong you consider yourself on the sales competences.
Contrary to the sales competences, Excuse index® does not have direct connection in system
algorithms to the sales mindsets. Therefore, any correlation, positive or negative, would relate to
the nature of Excuse Index® and the Mindsets.
The below table shows the correlation between Excuse Index® and the Sales Mindsets.
As assumed, Excuse Index® does not correlate with the sales mindsets, but influences only the sales
competences by lower their score.
12.5 Sales Roles
The FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment identifies eight sales roles. The roles are based on one of
the sales models behind the system, which focuses on the awareness of the need, complexity and
length of the sales process and the length of the relationship the sales person is expected to have
with the client after the initial closing of the deal. The sales roles are:
Sales Revealer
Sales Creator
Sales Forerunner
Sales Innovator
Sales Dealer
Sales Provider
Sales Counselor
Sales Partner
The following charts show the distribution of role match percentage for each of the sales roles.


13 FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery

The global population for this study consists of 151.960 persons responding in 24 different
languages.
The following language versions of FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery were included in the validation
study (the language codes used in this study).
- Chinese (Traditional) (TWN) - German (Germany) GER)

- Danish (DAN) - Greek (Greece) (GRE)
- English (Australasia) (AUS) - Italian (ITA)
- English (Canada) (ECA) - Polish (POL)
- English (Caribbean) (ENC) - Portuguese (Brazil) (POB)
- English (India) - Portuguese (Portugal) (POR)
- English (East/West Africa) (NIG) - Spanish (Caribbean) (SPC)
- English (Southern Africa) (RSA) - Spanish (Spain) (SPA)
- English (US) (ENG) - Spanish (Latin America) (SPL)
- English (UK) (EUK) - Swedish (Finland) (SWF)
- Finnish (FIN) - Swedish (Sweden) (SWE)
- French (France) (FRA) - Vietnamese (VIE)
The material was collected from the same countries as the language indicates. For Spanish (Latin
America), the population represents well all the bigger Latin American countries. Spanish
(Caribbean) is collected mostly from Dominican Republic. English (Australasia) represents equally
Australia and New Zealand. English (Caribbean) data is collected mostly from different Caribbean
island countries.
13.1 Background to the FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery
The first five tests of FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery were introduced in the 1990’s. At the time,
they were administered via paper questionnaires and stand-alone software that was possible to
install to client computers. The tests were transferred to the FinxS® platform soon after its
introduction in 2011. In 2014, a new set of four tests were added to the battery growing the total
number of tests to nine.
The FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery is available for all FinxS® users as one of the tools within the
system. A System Reasoning Report that can be produced from all the results opens the results to
the users with very explicit details. However, we do recommend all users would participate in the
Reasoning Certification program that usually takes one or two days.
13.2 Reasoning tests
Following is a description of all the nine tests; what they measure and what skills they relate to.
Also, some statistics from 2022 will be shown after the test descriptions. More data will be
published in upcoming validation reports.
Abstract Logical Reasoning (ALR)

Understanding Logical Processes measures the individual’s ability to understand cause-effect

relationships. It reflects the person’s ability to understand how the available information influences
the future and what the consequences of the present information could be. It measures how
systematic the person’s thinking process is.
Understanding Logical Processes (ULP)
Understanding Logical Processes measures the individual’s ability to understand cause-effect

relationships. It reflects the person’s ability to understand how the available information influences
the future and what the consequences of the present information could be. It measures how
systematic the person’s thinking process is.
Spatial Reasoning (SPA)
The ability to apprehend the spatial world the same way as sailors and pilots navigate, or as a chess
player or sculptor see things for their inner eyes. Understanding visual sizes and their interaction.
Understanding Social Context (USC)
A skill to understand the logic behind other people’s behavior. How interpersonal aspects affect the
situation. The ability to see inconsistencies in behavior. General susceptibility to changes in the
social environment.
Numerical Reasoning (NUM)
The ability to see and recognize patterns, derive reasoning and think logically. Test of numerical
flexibility. Numerical Reasoning measures the individual’s ability to understand relationships
between numerical information.
Mathematic Logical Reasoning (MAL)
Measures the ability to understand logical applications of mathematics, evaluate arguments, and
detect fallacious reasoning. Ability to apply mathematics, logic, and/or statistics to help make
decisions. The ability to distinguish between a valid and invalid deductive argument and to prove
invalidity by providing a counter example.
Word Association (WAS)
Measures the ability to understand relationships between different concepts. It relates to the ability
to classify information, combine data that relate to each other and understanding differences
between concepts. It correlates with creative performance and ability to produce completely new
solutions to old problems.
Visual Memory (MEM)
Measures the ability to visualize and mentally store multiple visual objects, like graphical images.
How quickly a person can identify small differences in seemingly similar images. The test result
reflects how quickly a person can identify key details in graphical information, and gives an insight
on how large the person's working memory capacity is.

Verbal Reasoning (VER)
Measures the person’s ability to understand written information, conceptualize it and find causal
relationships. It relates to the person’s ability to identify the essential information and understand
how it relates to the problem being solved.
13.3 Reasoning statistics - Demographics
The following table shows the average score for each of the tests and the average score by gender.
The gender options “do not identify with either” and “prefer not to say” have been available since
2020, but until now no respondent has chosen those options. The table also shows the deviation
from the test average by both genders.
The purpose of the next two statistics is not to find out if a certain sociodemographic group is better
with reasoning skills, but to monitor if the instrument works equally for each of the groups. This
study does not assume those groups have or have not the same level of reasoning skills.
The table below shows the average score by year of birth and the deviation from the test average. If
the size of the sub-group is not enough big, the field is marked grey.
The only test with systematic statistical relevance between age groups seems to be the Memory
Test. The younger population seems to score clearly better on it.

13.4 Reasoning statistics – Answering
This section focuses on general answering related statistics. The first table shows the average time
spent on answering and average number of questions answered.
The following table shows the standard deviation in total score, answering time, number of correct
answers and number of questions answered.
The next table shows the average scores for each test on selected language. The scores should not
be compared against each other because the target populations differ in different countries.
AVERAGE SCORE ALR ULP SPA USC NUM MAL WAS MEM VER
AUS English (Australasia 53,81 50,09 51,56 51,15 65,42 71,95 62,00 58,13 39,44
DAN Danish 50,13 49,59 56,61 55,32 63,10 68,65 64,41 46,47 32,91
ENG English (US) 49,03 46,30 44,18 51,86 61,40 60,91 66,36 61,20 30,79
EUK English (UK) 50,07 45,53 47,14 54,81 62,26 63,76 67,70 61,97 29,19
FIN Finnish 58,21 54,72 64,51 57,38 65,39 66,28 71,76 34,82 37,98
GER German (Germany) 61,51 51,32 57,00 57,36 65,67 65,86 67,72 49,65 32,58
POB Portuguese (Brazil) 40,28 43,99 37,57 46,19 52,02 59,07 55,65 58,68 31,70
SPA Spanish (Spain) 38,01 42,63 37,89 42,85 51,94 56,19 56,78 55,38 27,54
SPC Spanish (Caribbean) 42,28 42,47 42,28 44,44 52,08 58,87 56,28 59,00 29,54
SPL Spanish (LATAM) 46,37 46,30 47,78 49,31 57,59 60,26 62,17 56,65 28,80
SWE Swedish (Sweden) 55,53 48,55 47,50 58,94 65,60 68,43 67,67 38,33 35,77

14 Frequently Asked Questions
14.1 Extended DISC® Theory related questions
“What is the theory behind the assumption that Least answers produce the unconscious self
and Most answers the conscious self?”
The interpretation of the Profiles is based on the original DISC Theories and the Extended DISC® Theory.
To understand fully the role of the different questions in forming the profiles would require understanding of
the calculation rules for the Profiles.
Although it is important to minimize the response time, the responses given are still mostly based on
conscious thinking and analysis. It is clearly easier with the Most responses for a person to adjust the
responses in a direction he/she wants to adjust them as it is with the Least responses. Having this assumption
makes the Profile I, which is mostly based on the Most responses, not a valid measure of one's unconscious
self but a measure of one's conscious self - or to be more precise, one's conscious adjustment of the
unconscious self.
However, since interpretation of Profile II is not based on the responses given but the responses not given,
and since the calculation logic of the profile is turned around, and since the Least responses are more
difficult to consciously rationalize, it has been found in empirical studies that the interpretation of the Profile
II is closest to the unconscious self (some call it natural or pressure behavior).
“Why is Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis measuring more unconscious behavior than
other DISC based tools?”
Unconscious behavior describes the most natural style for a person to behave. It requires least energy, is least
stressful and allows to person to behave most effectively in a longer period of time.
Measuring unconscious behavior is more difficult than conscious behavior. It may also require a person more
time to work with the results. The techniques used to achieve this relate to the number of choices in each
question, the choice of words and their inter-relationship in each choice and the calculation logic behind the
questionnaire.
“How can you be sure that the behaviors that are analyzed from the questionnaires are
accurately determined? Since the research findings are from European and American
subjects, how can they represent Asians?”
The process for using the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is divided in steps. Step 1 is the theoretical
framework behind the system. This requires deep understanding of the theory and logics how the system
works. Being aware of the theory is important for the end user also to be able to understand what the tool can
do and what it cannot do. Understanding the technical logic behind the tool is not necessary. Step 2 is the
process of collecting the information and creating the Profiles and the report. This is purely statistical and
mathematical and is totally culture-free. Step 3 is the application of the information in some environment.
This part requires the understanding of the tool theory and especially the understanding of the context where
the information is to be applied. This part is totally culture bound and requires understanding of the culture.
In simple words, you need to understand where the tool is based on but not how it produces the results.
Again, you need to understand the environment where the results are to be applied. If someone gets a D
profile, it means that the person prefers a D response/behavior. But what does it mean in Thailand? This is
something the tool doesn't know; it only knows that compared to other Thai people this person is more D. It
is then up to those who understand the culture to know what does D exactly mean in Thailand.
The key is that in the questionnaire we can find those stimuli (words) that cause the desired type of person to
respond in a desired way. The purpose of the questionnaire is find out how this person is compared to other
people within the same culture. Translating the questionnaire is therefore the key issue; it cannot always be a
direct translation of another language. The validation study is a process where we check if the tool can
identify within this culture the different behavioral traits.
“Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis should not be used in recruitment since it is not
measuring a person's whole personality?”
First of all, I need to align with your statement that Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis does not measure
an individual's whole personality; that is not even its intention. When measuring the whole personality we
need to incorporate several instruments (you can find most of them within the Extended DISC® & FinxS®
Systems) together with interviews and background information, at minimum.
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis measures an important part of our personality; our natural way of
responding to external stimuli, i.e., how we show our feelings and emotions to outer world. In everyday
language that is usually described as our natural behavioral style. The reason Extended DISC® Behavioral
Analysis is useful in recruitments is manifold. It helps the interviewer to get into deeper level much faster
than without it. It works as a shortcut to understanding the individual. In the recruitment decision itself it
helps us in identifying what are the potential areas where the person will feel more and less comfortable
with. And in after-recruitment phase it gives us supporting information on how we could best manage the
person to keep both his motivation and performance levels at maximum.
Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis should never be the sole criterion in decision making when recruiting
a person. But, in our opinion, the recruitment process would be clearly less efficient without it. In designing
assessment tools, the key is not the collection of the information; there are statistically proven methods
available for that. The key is really how to identify if the result is valid or not. The Extended DISC® System
has, as far as we know, the most strict control system for identifying invalid results. We also are the only
company in the business actually doing annual validity check-up for all the languages of regions where we
operate.
There is, however, always the area where the results are questionable and it remains up to the consultant
within the interview to exercise caution when applying the results. There are instructions for consultants
available on how to identify these results with less validity than what should be expected.
“What theory is the Extended DISC® System based on?”
Extended DISC® System is not based on one theory alone, but the original Jungian theory on human
behavior forms the bases to the DISC theory and all instruments based on it. In addition, when developing
the system several other models and theories, like the Katzenbach & Smith concept of high-performing team,
the wave-curve model (Sappinen) on cultural adaptation and the Hofstede model of cultural dimensions,
have been utilized.
“How do the Behavioral Filters influence our behavior?”
Whereas Unconscious Behavior describes our spontaneous response to an external stimuli and Conscious
Behavior illustrates how we adjust our spontaneous behavior in each situation – based on the requirements of
the situation and based on the Behavioral Filters.

The Behavioral Filters can enhance the flexibility of our behavior or they can make our life more difficult.
For example, if a person has a very negative attitude towards his/her employee, this attitude limits the
flexibility and effort the person is giving when working for the company. Whereas a person with a positive
attitude is willing to be more flexible, provide more effort and be more constructive in dealings within the
workplace.
The Behavioral Filters are often the easiest ways to influence a person’s behavior as they are mostly not
natural but learned and easy to develop.
“Is it true that in flip stage of stress, D’s become S’s, I’s become C’s, etc.?”
In psychology, they describe the steps; normal - stress - flip, with flip referring to a state when we do not
anymore control ourselves the normal way, but exercise unpredictable behavior. We often say this may show
up in D showing behavioral tendencies more typical to S, etc. But this is something that goes definitely
beyond our instruments (they do not measure flip state or flip-out behavior). It is more like an illustrative
example - D's become something D's are not normally. But we have no evidence claiming D would become
S, etc. Additionally, there is no evidence when this can happen for a certain person; how much each
individual or each DISC trait can tolerate stress before they flip-out.
14.2 Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis Questionnaire related

questions
“What is the grade reading level our questionnaire is designed for?”
Its probably very much culture and society related. Assuming a person has had a normal proper schooling,
he/she should be able to cope with the questionnaire at the age of 14-15 (it's been done successfully at the
age of 9).
However, the more important aspect is the formation of one's personality and self-identity, which definitely
pushes the age up to around 18. Therefore, we don't recommend the questionnaire for people younger than
18.
“Questionnaire respondents sometime find the word pairing contradictory. One of the words
may describe them the most, but then the second word describes them least. Hence, they are
unsure how to select. How should we best instruct the respondents how to go about answering
the questionnaire?”
The purpose of the questionnaire is not to make it easy for the people to respond to it. The only advice we
can give is that it is supposed to be difficult and you just have to select the row that describes you best and
the row that describes you least. Anything else would make us part of the answering process, which should
not be the case. The key is that they compare the rows, not the words. If the questions were easy (like most
Disc based tools have), it would be easy to adjust your answers to the direction you want and you couldn't
anymore measure the subconscious behavior.
“When answering the questions, why do we have to imagine ourselves at work? Actually, we
don't show our true selves at work because we need to conform to the work environment. In
order to get the correct analysis, shouldn't we imagine ourselves outside work?”
We are asked to imagine ourselves at work because it is important that we concentrate on something when
answering. The worst option is that we start thinking of ourselves at work in question 1, at home in Q2, with
friends in Q3 etc. This will definitely ruin our possibility of establishing a systematic answering pattern. The
other issue is that we do not control our behavior fully in the work environment (as we do in our home
environment). This contrast forces us to think and analyze ourselves more and makes it, therefore, easier for
us to establish the answering pattern.
“Regarding the questionnaire, how can only 24 items generate so much contents for the
Behavioral Analysis report?”
The 24 questions don't create the content of the report; they only create the Profiles. The content of the report
is then based on the Profiles. Since we have learned that people's behavior is predictable, once we identify
the type we can predict the person's behavior in different situations.
“How can you be so sure that these 24 items will generate the accurate information needed for
the analysis?”
The 24 questions (actually 48 questions) don't always create accurate result (Profile). The key is to have a
system that identifies when the results are accurate and when not. The method is purely statistical; we have
actually one question (including two sub questions) that is then repeated 24 times. The key is to identify if
the person has managed to establish a certain answering pattern, which is the same in both the sub questions
and which he/she has been able to follow throughout the questionnaire. The result you can see in the shapes,
size and position of the two Profiles.
“How accurate are Behavioral Analysis results if a person completes the questionnaire again
after a few months?”
If the person's life environment has remained much the same without any major crises, the forecast is that the
results will not change much.
However, if the environment has changed or if the person has undergone major personal stress, there is a
good chance that the Profile has changed.
We need to remember that the idea is not the Profile has to stay the same in time; people need to have skill to
adjust to the environment and, within time, this adjustment is certainly reflected in the Profile as a shift to
some direction.
Another issue is to make a difference between change in the Profile and a temporary adjustment. A rule of
thumb could be that if the basic shape of the Profile changes from one of the 6 main profile types to another,
the Profile has changed.
“Why do two people get the same (or almost the same report) although they have answered
differently in the questionnaire?”
In the questionnaire, there are 12 possible combinations in each question. Since there are 24 questions (with
12 possible combinations in each) the total number of possible ways to answer the questionnaire is 79 496
847 203 390 800 000 000 000! Managing that many different combinations would be both totally impossible
and meaningless. Hence, the number of combinations has been reduced into combinations that internal
resemblance is greater than external (they resemble themselves more combinations outside the group). More
on that little later.
Note! There is no interpretational information in the individual answers. The answer can only be used for the
next step in the process. Answers of two or more individuals cannot be compared to one another.
Calculating the Profiles and the Diamond
The process for calculating the Profiles is a combination of straight-forward mathematical equations that
reduce the number of combinations to 11 753 582 400. Managing that many different Profiles would still be
impossible and the differences in the Profiles would not represent significant differences in the individuals'
actual behavior. To help the Extended DISC® user to use the Profiles a classification system with different
levels of deepness has been created:
Level Differentiating feature Number of combinations

Dominant character
1 4
(example: I)
Letter combinations
2 40
(example: ISC)
Upper Percentages
3 800
(example: 0-50-30-20)
Lower Percentages
4 n/a
(example: 100-0-0-0)
The different levels are used for different purposes. In general training to the system, Level 1 is often deep
enough. In applied training (like sales training) Level 2 is often appropriate. In that case every 40th person
on average get the same result (Profile combination).
The Diamond is similarly divided in levels:
Level Differentiating feature Number of combinations

Dominant character
1 4
(example: I)
Characters above the Middle Line
2 4
(different layers in the Diamond)
Letter combinations
3 40
(example: ISC)
4 Advanced Letter Combinations 160
Generating the report
To generate the different pages of the report, different combinations are used. Text Page uses the Level 4 in
the Diamond to classify the results. For each combination there is a separate text bank from which the actual
report is generated. The text bank enables 228 383 696 totally different Text Pages (Extended DISC®
reports) to be generated. (Note! Our competition at best can create about 200 different texts). It is possible
for two people belonging to the same Diamond Level 4 class to have partly the same text but unlikely to
have exactly the same text, unless they belong to a very rare class where the text bank for that class is
smaller. Motivators Page is also based on the Diamond Level 4 classification. The Graphical Page and the
Additional Pages are based on the Profiles Level 3 classification. The Flexibility Zones is based on the
Diamond Level 4
Profiles II and I
Since Profile II measures more closely the individual's natural self (unconscious behavior) and Profile I the
response to the impulses from the environment, it is natural that the report is generated based on Profile II.
Differences in Profile I do not reflect differences in the individuals' natural behavior but in the relationship to
their current environments. The Validity Fields option in Report Designer allows for printing some
information about Profile I.
“How does one answer in the questionnaire influence the bars in graphical and Additional
Page?”

One answer does not directly influence anything but the Profiles. The Profiles are the first and primary
result of the calculation formula behind the questionnaire. All the rest of the report is based on the shape,
size and position of the two Profiles.
The shape of the Profile defines the place in the Diamond and the Percentages. Those are used for selecting
the text and calculating the bars on different pages.
The important feature behind the reliability of the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis is that it is not
possible to influence the results by changing one single answer, the respondent needs to change the complete
answering pattern to have any major influence on the results on different pages of the report.
“At what age can a person respond to the questionnaire?”
This has not so much to do the age, but more the respondent’s ability to comprehend and compare the words
used in the questionnaire. The words need to come with associations to own experiences and emotions in
order to be able to spontaneously respond to them.
Even though a person would be able to respond to the questions, we should be careful with interpreting the
results from Profile I with very young people. For Profile I to function as planned, the person also needs to
be able to understand what the environment requires from him/her and compare one’s own preferences to
these requirements.
“Why are the questions in one language different than in another and why are some of the
choices very negative – can I change them for my language?
Changes in the questionnaire are never based on the feelings/opinions of one user. That would be a never
ending story resulting only in bad quality questionnaire with no validation results (as we need to partly
restart the validation process every time a questionnaire is changed). Changes in the questionnaire are to be
done only by based on the validation results.
The questionnaire is not intended to be comfortable, positive, nice, polite or positive. It contains words that
are positive to some and negative to some. It also contains words that are "painfully true" to some and
"insulting" to some. The answering process is not supposed to be an "easy ride".
English is not the base language for the questionnaire. Alone because we have 9 different versions of
English. And because we do not have a base language - only a base theory. All the languages live their own
life based on their validation results, which again are based on the development of the language. The
different language versions are not supposed to be translations of each other.
14.3 Extended DISC® Profile and Diamond related questions
“Do you have any experience why a person would get a Mirror Profile twice?”
Basically, if someone does it twice, I have not heard of any extra reason it might be caused for. Things that I
could think of (as possible causes) are..
- person has a totally wrong perception of oneself

- person is trying to (consciously or unconsciously) cheat the system
- person has a strong belief and understanding of what is required from him (by the current environment),
and feels it being totally opposite to what he is (in this case, Profile II would be valid)
- person is currently undergoing a stage in his life that makes it not possible to have a stable self image
- person has somehow misunderstood the instructions

“What’s the main advantage of the Diamond?”
The Diamond is an excellent platform to view the results of several (even thousands) of individuals at one
glance. It also provides us with an easy way to compare individuals (like within a team) and to identify
where our strengths as a team lie. It also works as a quick overview for the team itself to know who is where.
It is easy to teach, giving us the possibility to use it in presentations that don't allow time to go through the
theory in more detail. It also operates as a connecting link between different tools; it is a platform that can be
used on individual, team, department, organizational and even national level. It can be used to describe the
unconscious and conscious behavior of an individual. Just to name some of the advantages...
“Is it possible to say anything about a person's energy level in an Extended DISC® Profile?”
A person's energy level is more dependent on his/her physical condition, motivation and attitude than
behavioral style.
Naturally, D and I, being more extroverted styles, show their energy level more visibly to other people.
They are said to be more energetic.
There might be a correlation between the size of Profiles and the person's energy level. If both Profiles are
tight (or tightish), it is often a sign of frustration - which typically decreases a person's energy level.
“Are correct to assume that Least answers build the Profile II and Most answers Profile I?”
Basically yes that is how it works. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Sometimes the choice
in the questionnaire can only build Profile I or Profile II. Sometimes the choice works the other way around.
There also is a number of choices that do not directly build either of the Profiles but only influence the
position of the Profile.
14.4 Sales Capacity Assessment related questions
“Is Sales Capacity Assessment based on some theory or model?”
Sales Capacity Assessment is not build on one particular theory. The theoretical basis for building the
competences is the division of sales into latent vs. expressed need, short vs. long/complicated sales process,
and short vs. long relationship. Based on the different combinations of those, the different sales roles were
created.
The development of the sales competences was done together with globally operating sales training and
consulting organizations using their experience in competences that are generally and globally accepted as
crucial competences required in different sales roles. The competences needed also to match with the sales
roles to enable high match score for each of the sales roles.
The mindsets are more based on our knowledge of human behavior combined with the special needs of sales.
The mindsets act as a link between more natural (subconscious) side of the sales person and the learned skill
(the competences).
“Can Sales Capacity Assessment be validated?”
Sales Capacity Assessment asks the respondent to prioritize the 18 sales competences according to their own
perception. As long as there are competences with high scores and low scores we can assume the respondent
has managed to prioritize the competences. If all the competences get a medium score, the results should not
be trusted as this outcome can also be achieved by random answering.

The purpose of the tool is not to identify an ideal sales person – as there cannot be one. Different
combinations of competence scores correlate with success on different sales positions. However, as every
sales position is unique (based on industry, competitive situation, pricing strategy, quality of the product,
market situation, salary schemes, manager behavior, team atmosphere etc), it is really not possible to conduct
any study of correlating the competences with different sales positions.
We believe every competence score combination can succeed in sales, as long as the sales position, personal
motivation and support provided from the organization match with the competence scores.
“In Sales Roles, how is the total match percentage calculated?”
System uses an algorithm that calculates a match percentage for each competence against each Sales Role.
When further processing the match percentages, system also uses the standard deviation (how much the
individual competences’ match percentages vary from their average) to process the total match. Higher
standard deviation lowers the total match. This means that the more the person has competences that are far
from the ideal, either with much higher or lower value than the ideal value, (compared to another person with
the same average match, but less variation between the match percentages), the more likely the person is to
experience major challenges with adapting to that particular Sales Role.
“Mindset: "Reaching the full potential by following a plan, no matter what". What happens if you
have logic and then realize that if is not possible to reach your goal – can you change the plan?”
I would not include in this the assumption that I cannot change the plan. It is more that everything I do
needs to be planned and we continue as long as there is a reason to change the plan. I do not let emotions,
sweet talk, rush, pressure, risks or anything interfere - I just do what I decided to do. If the plan comes from
someone else, I will continue as long as that someone else changes the plan.
“Do the Mindsets correlate with Dweck’s concept of fixed and growth mindsets?”
The concept of fixed and growth mindsets was not used when developing the concept of Mindset for FinxS®
Sales Competence Assessment.
We do not associate our Mindsets with "abilities" or "skills"; those would be closer to the sales competences.
We see the Mindsets more as "ways to succeed", "ways to approach challenges", maybe even "ways to
survive in pressure". This way, even though not within the same DISC framework, they are closer to Profile
II than Profile I (which we could consider Dweck’s mindset relate to better).
The fixed and growth mindset concept could be borrowed to the extent that we can to some extent define
ourselves if we consider our mindsets as fixed or growth. It will be very difficult to change them (in either
direction), but we can decide if we use them "blindly" or if we want to develop skills to use them as the
situation requires.
“What is the difference between Sales Competences and Sales Mindsets?”
Sales Mindsets are your natural ways of approaching sales. They describe the way you would naturally
approach sales. They are more permanent, more spontaneous and likely to be emphasized when you are
under pressure.
Sales Competences consist of one to three of your Sales Mindsets but are also effected by your experience in
sales, attitudes to sales, your current sales environment and sales skills. They are easier to develop and are
likely to vary more in shorter time.
“Why is the language in the report quite direct?”

The Sales Capacity Assessment reports are not designed to be given to the respondent without prior
introduction to the model and attendance of a facilitator. It is assumed that the person reading their own
report, understands this is a description of how person with this type of results is usually seen by a
prospect/client (or in some cases supervisor).
The report is designed to focus on point, to help the respondent to truly identify areas that they are strong but
also areas they should be careful about. The report does not consider any result as a good or bad result, it
reveals the possible strengths and challenges that every result can bring with. For this reason, every
respondent, no matter how happy they are with their scores, will be given warning signs (as we know that
most weaknesses in a person’s behavior are actually overused strengths).
“I misunderstood the actual meaning of a competence because the word meant something else to me.”
There is no one word in any language that would mean exactly the same to everyone speaking that language
as native language.
For this reason we always emphasize the importance to read the descriptions of the Sales Competences (as
well as the Sales Mindsets) before drawing any conclusions.
The Sales Competence names are commonly used competences in sales, but still they may have different
meaning in some industries, not to mention if you do not have background in sales.
“Some of the Sales Competences seem very similar to me?”
An important criteria when developing an instrument like SCA is, is that none of the competences correlate
with each other positively or negatively. This means that there will not be a case when having one
competence with a high score would also mean another competence also having a high score (positive
correlation) – or low score (negative correlation).
“Are the questions easy to manipulate?”
First response to this question always is why would someone want to manipulate the questions? Motivation
to answer dishonestly can be a sign of this person being willing to use non-acceptable shortcuts also in other
aspects of their work.
In our opinion, it is not easy to answer dishonestly. The nature of forced-choice zero-sum questionnaire is
that it does not allow you to edit one measured item without at the same time influencing another. If a person
wants to say they are something they are not, they at the same time have to also say they are not something
they are. Most times people consider themselves as “good persons” and perceive their strengths as “good
strengths”. They would have to say they are not good at something they consider as a good thing – in order
to say they are something they are not.
It is very unlikely that a person could easily produce a completely different distribution of scores (even if for
some reason they wanted to be dishonest). On the other hand, it is possible that a person raises the score of a
single Sales Competence (without scarifying too much the scores of the other Sales Competences). This
would happen in a situation when a person strongly feels they have to be strong in certain one aspect in sales.
The influence would be the same if the person had just practiced and focused strongly on developing certain
aspect in sales. If they feel they can do it, that feeling definitely influences the score of that Sales
Competence. Please keep in mind that the tool measures how the person currently feels of what are their
biggest strengths (and weaknesses) in sales.
“How was the questionnaire developed and the individual questions selected?”
The key in developing the questionnaire was the selection and definition of the Sales Competences and Sales
Mindsets. The Sales Competences needed to cover different aspects of sales and be unique enough. The

Sales Mindsets needed to be more like instincts that are natural to some and not natural to another, and at the
same time clearly relating to sales behavior.
Once the selection and definition of the Sales Competences and Sales Mindsets was done, was it time to
develop the actual algorithms behind the questionnaire. The algorithms are classified information and we
cannot describe them in more detail.
After the development of the algorithms the development of the actual questions could begin. The algorithm
defined a “character” for each choice in the questionnaire; what Sales Mindset would it relate to, what Sales
Competence should it filter into, would it be real question, fake question, opposite question or excuse
question.
Final phase in the questionnaire development was the selection of the actual questions. The question text
needed to correlate with the Sales Mindset/Sales Competence description it related to, not clearly relate to
other Sales Mindset/Sales Competence combination, be unique enough and (naturally) be understandable by
a sales person. Several rounds of iteration were done before the questionnaire was ready for the first round
of live testing.
“Why can I not get a high score in every Sales Competence?”
The FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment was developed with the belief that sales professionals can always
improve and they are never "perfect". There are instruments that make people sound better than they
actually are. We did not want to do that.
The underlying algorithms ensure that no one will be able to create perfect/very high scores in all 18 Sales
Competences. When a respondent selects an option, they are also providing an answer with the option they
do not select. As a result, if a person tries to game the questionnaire by elevating certain competence
score(s), they are simultaneously lowering other(s).
If you score "low" on a particular item, it does NOT mean that you cannot succeed in that area. It could
simply mean that right now you prefer to use other competences over this one. ALSO, you may score low
on a competence you may be very good at, but you do not need to exercise now (ex. Prospecting – good at it,
not doing it now much because not needed, not a priority).
“Why is the Sales Competence score not the same as the average of the Sales Mindsets (that relate to
it)?”
Even though the Sales Mindsets are the building blocks of the Sales Competences, the Sales Competence
score is not a direct translation of the Sales Mindsets.
Firstly, each Sales Mindset is connected to multiple questions, but not all of the questions building the Sales
Mindset relate all of the Sales Competences this Sales Mindset relates to. Only some of the questions
“filter” through the Sales Mindset to a certain Sales Competence.
It may be, for example, that only questions that increase the Sales Mindset score relate to a certain Sales
Competence. Therefore, the Sales Competence score is higher than the Sales Mindset score (as the questions
lowering the Sales Mindset score do not relate to the Sales Competence).
Additionally, in the questionnaire there are fake questions, opposite questions and excuse question that relate
directly to a Sales Competence and not at all to any Sales Mindset. Or the other way around, there may be
questions relating only to a Sales Mindset but not to any Sales Competence.
“Why is the score of a particular competence different than I expected?”

Typically, this question refers to a lower than expected score. The respondents rarely question “high”
scores. Also, they may be comparing their scores to the results of other assessments that measure different
items using different types of measurement scales.
First, it is critical that the respondents clearly understand the specific definition of the competence. The
definitions are included in the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment. Every word of the definition is important.
Very often the respondents use their own definitions of the words (example: “Prospecting” means this to me)
and not what the tool is actually designed to measure.
Second, the tool measures the current level of competence and how important it is to the respondent right
now. The respondent may have excelled with the competence in the past, but does not perceive it as
important to their sales success at the present time.
Finally, the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment was developed with the philosophy that sales professionals
can always improve; they are never “perfect” with no room for development. It is designed to clearly
identify what the sales professionals perceive to be their greatest strengths and in what sales competences
they need the most development at the present time. As a result, the assessment will always identify
competences that need development.
“Can the competence scores be improved with training and development?”
Yes.
However, it is important to remember that once sales professionals begin to focus on developing a specific
sales competence(s), they switch focus away from other one(s). It is not uncommon to see other competence
scores to become lower as these competences are not receiving as much focus, effort and practice.
“If a sales person participates in a development program, should we ask the person to complete the
questionnaire again?”
The purpose of the tool (to be very exact) is to measure "your current perception of your sales competences".
This includes the assumption that the competences can change in time. This may be due to increase/decrease
in motivation, experience, skills or need.
In other words, yes it may well make sense to ask the person to complete the questionnaire again if there is a
reason to believe something may have changed.
How quickly can the change happen is a more challenging question. It does not happen within a few days
training session or immediately after changing to a new sales position. General advice would be to do it
again after a few months after the change (whatever the change was).
“How are the Mindsets calculated?”
The exact calculation is proprietary to the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment.
However, each mindset is divided into variables. The variables are the elements that create the Mindsets.
Each variable is measured by separate questions. Each sales competence consists of 1 to 3 Mindsets.
It is also important to remember that not all of the elements of each Mindset are included in the calculation
of the competence score.
The Mindset Reading Guide makes the interpretation easy. It also helps in developing a clear and specific
action plan. If you do not have the Mindset Reading Guide, let us know and we will email you one.
“Are the Mindsets trainable?”

Yes, but.
The Mindsets are the frame of mind, the way one thinks. They do not change very easily, especially over a
short period of time.
The Mindsets illustrate themselves in behavior. One can learn the behaviors of the different mindsets, and
thus, one can make others perceive they have the mindsets. However, over time and without conscious effort
and development, sales professionals are very likely to return to their natural mindsets. The same is likely to
occur when the sales professional is under pressure or stress.
One can train the Mindsets but it requires reinforcement.
“What does a low competence score mean?”
If a respondent scores “low” on a particular competence, it does NOT mean they cannot succeed in that area.
It could simply mean that right now they prefer to use other sales competences to this specific one.
It can also mean that the person does not have experience in this competence and therefore is not aware of
how to use or does not recognize oneself using it.
“What makes FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment unique and different from other sales assessments?”
The FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment and the DISC based, FinxS® Sales 18, are designed to measure 18
competences of sales success. They make a clear connection between hard-wired DISC-style and the learned
sales competences to create a road map to sales success.
Beyond the competences, the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment measures the sales professionals’ Mindsets
to uncover self-defeating beliefs and attitudes that create obstacles to success in sales.
The concept of Excuse Index® also adds another dimension to interpret the results as it does not focus so
much on if one has the competence, but more on how willing one is currently to commit to using the
competences in sales.
Finally, the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment and FinxS® Sales 18 are intuitive so sales professionals and
sales managers can use the results with the help of a trained sales coach. As a result, instead of focusing on
how to interpret the results, they can focus on how to use the results.
“Do the Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis results connect to FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment?”
Yes, seamlessly.
FinxS® Sales 18 is specifically intended to be used with the FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment. It identifies a
sales professional’s natural, hard-wired DISC behavioral tendencies in the same 18 competences of selling
success. It also uncovers the similarities and differences between their natural behavioral style and their
current level of competence.
Each of the 18 sales competences is deconstructed into individual behavioral competences to allow for a very
clear identification of an individual’s unique sales strengths and development areas. In addition, FinxS®
Sales 18 very clearly identifies if sales professionals are performing better than their natural style predicts, or
if they are not using their full potential.
There also is a correlation between many of the sales competences and certain behavioral styles measured by
the Behavioral Analysis.

“I completed the questionnaire twice and the score in some of the competences seems to be different.”
First of all, if you come with the background of using Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis, we need to be
able to shift our thinking away from how Behavioral Analysis works and what is considered as crucial
validation elements of that instrument.
When we are measuring your NATURAL spontaneous response, it is assumed that something that is natural
to you would not change very easily.
When we are measuring your CURRENT BELIEF, it is more to be expected that there will be some
variation between the results.
Another aspect is that Behavioral Analysis only produces the results if you are consistent with your
answering, and producing some other results would require changing the answering logic in the whole
questionnaire.
Sales Competence Assessment (like all similar tools) measures a number of independent items, and
differently from Behavioral Analysis, not all questions measure all the items. Therefore, producing a
different result in one measurable item (consider them the Sales Competences) is much easier and much
more expected to happen (you only need to answer differently in some of the questions, still keeping the
main answering logic the same).
Therefore, the instrument is defined to measure your current perception (normally, this should not be far
from your natural, but there is an existing and distinct difference between these two concepts).
You could consider it more like the SCA measures Profile I type of information.
In addition to normal changes in the environment, development of skills, improved self-esteem and so on,
also repeated answerings are likely to produce slightly different results. We do not recommend people to
complete the questionnaire multiple times - without enough time or something significant happening in
between. There is no mechanism that would encourage you to answer the same way, but it would simply be
the human nature that makes us answers somehow differently (nothing to do with honesty).
It is important to note that the instrument measures "your perception" and what we measure "can change".
The results form a basis for discussions, whether interview in recruitment process or coaching session in
development; it is not a "stamp in official paper". There is a reason why the person answered the way they
answered, and the tool is designed to find the root cause for why you believe you are good with some aspect
of selling and why you feel you are not good with some.
“What does it mean that one of the Mindsets building a competence have higher correlation between
the competence than the other Mindsets?”
Only part of each Mindset is filtered through to a competence. If a mindset has a higher correlation than
another mindset that builds the same competence, it actually means the elements building the
mindset are closer to each other than in the other mindset.
Example:
Competence X is built from Mindsets A and B
Mindset A (correlation with a competence .7)
Mindset B (correlation with competence .2)
Mindset A consists of 12 elements. The intra-mindset correlation between those elements is .8.
Mindset A consists of 12 elements. The intra-mindset correlation between those elements is .3.

=> This means that even if only some of the elements of Mindset A build the competence X, the
ones not building it are still very similar to the ones that build the competence. For this reason, the
correlation between the whole Mindset and the competence becomes higher.
“Can I select which competences I want to be included in the report?”
You can select which sections you want to include in the report, if you want to print hiring or development
report, and if you want to print basic or advanced version of the report, but you cannot select only some of
the competences.
The reason for this is that the tool measures how the competences relate to each other, which of the
competences you think are your strongest and which are the weakest / less used. If you only saw the results
of some of the competences, you would not be able to know if they are the strongest or weakest; the score of
a competence is always relative to the scores of the other competences.
However, in the Summary Report, you can select the Competences, Mindsets and/or Sales Roles you want to
include in the report. The report will then print the top 6 Competences and top 3 Mindsets and Sales Roles in
the one page report. We recommend this report to experienced users who understand the relativeness of the
competence scores.
“Does 0% in Excuse Index mean this is the best sales person and 100% this is the worst sales person?”
Excuse Index does not directly relate to the person’s sales skills, but more to how much the person likes sales
or how motivating sales is for the person at the moment.
0% Excuse Index does not mean the person is the best sales person, but more than the person can separate
excuses and doing business from each other and sees oneself focusing only on correct things to get the sale.
100% Excuse index more likely indicates this person does not like sales, has a very strange perception of
sales or does not have experience in sales. It does not directly tell this person is bad in sales - more likely that
sales is not their first priority thing to do.
“Why in the competence bars there are green colors at both end of the scale?”
It is like traffic lights with no red light. We want to emphasize that neither of the ends of the scales is a bad
score. Both ends can be a good core or bad score, depending on what you need. As an example, in some
sales positions high Building Rapport is essential (the sales cycle may be long, trust plays an important part
in the buying decision, there is a lot of contacts and the relationship with the client is long) whereas in some
low Building Rapport produces better results (there is no contact to the prospect, prospect has the need and
prospect does not want to spend time with or even know who the sales person is).
14.5 Sports Capacity Assessment related questions
“Does Sports Capacity Assessment result (or Behavioral Analysis result) correlate with success in
sports?”
Neither of the tools correlates directly with success as the core of the tools is to provide information that
helps the athlete and the coach to find the pathway to success. Both tools assume everyone can succeed (or
fail) in sports. The tools increase the understanding of what are the likely reason why this person may fail or
what would be the easiest ways to make this person succeed.
The tools do not take away the responsibility the coach has over the athlete or the athlete has over oneself..
The benefit from the tools is that they help the coach to communicate the most effective way, to develop the

athlete with training program that works best for them, to position the athlete in a team and to prepare the
athlete the best possible way to a competition.
The key to success remains in the ability of the coach to utilize the information and the motivation of the
athlete to develop oneself.
“Do the competences change in time and can I influence them?”
We believe most of the competences have been similar to you through your career, and also will be.
However, an individual competence score may change in time.
Competence score may increase when an athlete finds certain behavior very beneficial to their development
and career, starts focusing on it, learns it well up to the point that the athlete can use this competence without
becoming conscious about it. Also general life experiences may have an effect on the athlete’s perspective to
life, and therewith also emphasize certain competences.
Competence score may also decrease in time. This may happen, for example, if the athlete does not need
that competence for a long time or if it becomes less accepted to use it. When the athlete does not use the
competence, it goes deeper in the subconscious mind and influences behavior less often. Additionally, some
competences may tend to decrease when the athlete approaches the end of their career and much of the
hunger they had at early days is gone.
“What are the best competences for athletes to have?“
There are no good or bad competences. It is up to you how you use your strengths. We believe that people
are different and consequently, there are multiple ways to the top and different kinds of humans and
competences thriving at the top.
It may be that it is easier to get to the top on some sports with certain competences. It may also be that some
coaches prefer certain competences over some other. Naturally, this does not make those competences
better, just easier for this coach to develop or focus on.
“Why I had to choose between two alternatives where neither of the options described me? How does
it affect the results?“
There are 18 competences. To simplify the logic with the questionnaire, it is like one round of regular
season: everyone has to play against everyone and then the race of highest and lowest positions in the table
starts. Also the lower scored competences are competing against each other. It means there will be difficult
questions where neither of the competences feel fitting but there are 99 questions - the system will find out
the competences that come more natural to you and which do not.
More technical answer would be that we are using so called forced-choice technique in the questionnaire.
Respondent has to prioritize between different options, regardless of how well they describe them. Not
having an opt-out option forces the respondent to establish an answering pattern and prioritize between the
options. If you say you are something you are not (because the other option describes you even less) does
not mean you will a get high score on this option. You need to systematically select certain competence for
the score to grow. The more you select certain competence, the more weight this competence gets, and
therefore also the score becomes even higher.
“I thought I would have higher score on this competence (can be anything), why is it so low?”
It might be that you have some of that competence but when you have to choose between two, some of the
competences are still more important to you. This will lower the score as well when you do not choose the
same competence in every possible situation over the other alternative. Each of the claims have different

points attached to them, for example 2 points if you answer this one and 1 point for this one. There are also
negatives of the same competence that you need to choose in the test.
For example, I might be competitive by nature but when the options are between enjoying the sport or doing
anything it takes to win - enjoyment is more important and it gets the points and I miss the 2 possible points
for competitiveness.
“Is this tool validated? How do I know if the results are credible?“
FinxS® assessments are based on concepts of human behavior (like the Extended DISC® model) accepted
widely around the world. However, they are not solely psychological tools. They are also management tools
aimed to increase the efficiency of an organization.
A Validation process is an important part of the development any psychological questionnaire. Details of
validating FinxS® Sports Capacity Assessment are described in the FinxS® and Extended DISC® Validation
Report.
In order for the results to be reliable, the respondent needs to establish a logical answering pattern and follow
it throughout the questionnaire. The result of this can be seen in the Executive Summary page. If your results
contain competences with both high and low scores, you have not answered randomly. The questionnaire
also includes choices that work reverse to the other choices, making it more difficult to answer something
you are not.
“What is the theoretical background of the tool?“
FinxS® Sports Capacity Assessment is not based on any previously published model or theory, for a simple
reason that there has been no such theory or model created before.
The tool is based on experiences from working with professional athletes from different sports for multiple
years as well as feedback from professional coaches. The purpose has been to identify key competences that
successful professional athletes have and that make them gain the competitive advantage over other athletes.
The algorithms used for the questionnaire as well as processing the results are based on the same algorithms
used for FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment for multiple years.
“Can I take the test again?“
Firstly, we would not describe the tool as a test, because there are no ideal results and you cannot pass or fail
it. But, yes you can take it again. The purpose of the instrument is to measure your current perception of the
relative strengths of different competences. During an athletic career, both our priorities, roles, teams,
experiences change. Those changes can change the priorities between the competences. Typical example is
Self-Care that many athletes who at finished their career have reported to be much lower at the early years of
their career. Until they first time injured seriously.
There is no exact timeline when you should take the questionnaire again, but basically after every few years
or after some major change in your athletic career.
“Is there a minimum age for the athlete to complete questionnaire?”
Technically, the minimum age is when the athlete is able to comprehend the questions. However, we have
noted that more important than a specific age is the time the athlete has been living as (or like) a professional
athlete. How long the sport has been the main thing in the person’s life, often with other aspects of life
designed in a way that they support the sport career.

Usually, younger athletes are able to identify their weaknesses, but have difficulties recognizing their
strengths. It requires some time to be able to know what you are really good at. This shows up in the results
by the athlete having normal amount of competences with low score and only a few competences with high
score.
We have good experiences of balanced results with 17 to 19 years athletes who are in professional coaching
that is support by the school system they are part of.
“The tool seems to be designed for every sport, but does it work best for any particular sport?”
The instrument is not defined for any particular sport, but all competitive sports. The questionnaire requires
the respondent to have experience on both physical and mental preparation that prepare the athlete for a
competition. When designing the questionnaire, an important criteria was that all the questions could apply
both to individual and team sports.
Another issue is the importance of the different competences with different sports. It has become clear that
certain competences are more important in some competences whereas other competences are prioritized in
other sports.
“How do you interpret the index scores?”
Sports Index describes how well the athlete is aware of their strongest competences and how strong those
are. There is a correlation between the Index and
- the age of the athlete
- how serious they are about their sport
However, not all “older” athletes and not all serious athletes have high index score. Obviously part of the
score is also inborn; the individual simply is strong with many of the competences “by nature”.
Based on our current validation data, the top 25%/50%/75% index scores are:
Sports Index: 757 / 825 / 911

Training Index: 859 / 939 / 1032
Competition Index: 650 / 731 / 843
Based on the above, scores below the lowest score could be considered as “low index score”, and scores
above the highest could be described as “high index score”
The population consists of all types of athletes; young and old, professional and local league players,
individual and team sports, professionals and amateurs.
The high index score could be interpreted as the athlete being aware of their strengths and the strong
competences most likely being strong and used by the athlete. The main focus should perhaps be in
competences with low score as they might become the bottlenecks for the athlete to reach the top.
The low index score firstly indicates the athlete does not have enough experience and/or understanding about
oneself to be aware of their strengths. Being aware of them is one of the requirements to be able to utilize
them to the fullest. It may also be possible that the sport is not that important thing for the athlete that they
would rely fully on that card on their life. Help the athlete to identify their strengths, prove them the power
of the strengths and make the athlete trust they can achieve the top by focusing on the strengths. All
assuming there is the true motivation.
The middle index score may mean multiple things. The athlete may not have very many strong competences,
the competences may not those that are most important for that particular sport, the athlete is in sports for
other reasons than wanting to be the best in the world, the athlete with potential has not had proper mental

training and feels insecure about oneself, or any other similar option that results in the athlete being good but
not the best.

15 Appendix
Appendix 1: Least Hit-Rate by country

Appendix 2: Least Hit-Rate and dominating “Least” response in different languages

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
ALB ARA AUS BUL BUR CAT CHI CZE DAN ECA EIN EIR ENC ENG EUK FCA FIN FRA GEA GER GES GJR GRE HIN HOL HUN IND ITA JAP KOR LIT NIG NOR POB POL PORROMRSA RUS SPA SPC SPL SWE SWF THA TUR TWN VIE Global
Correlation: Population 1 vs: 1,0000 0,7053 0,5136 0,5072 0,6852 0,4945 0,5102 0,3755 0,4678 0,5170 0,6294 0,5403 0,6449 0,4931 0,5970 0,6126 0,4966 0,5930 0,5984 0,5818 0,5580 0,6690 0,6568 0,6341 0,3653 0,5791 0,6229 0,5116 0,4835 0,5551 0,5716 0,5977 0,5257 0,5381 0,4906 0,6110 0,6344 0,5234 0,5922 0,5647 0,5418 0,5267 0,3893 0,4765 0,5884 0,4644 0,4691 0,6040 0,7165
Correlation: Population 2 vs: 1,0000 0,7905 0,6814 0,6267 0,6553 0,6354 0,5732 0,5707 0,7302 0,7079 0,7510 0,7742 0,7025 0,8155 0,7072 0,6873 0,6737 0,4957 0,4831 0,4915 0,6620 0,6990 0,6930 0,5284 0,7475 0,6525 0,5250 0,5551 0,6215 0,6497 0,6941 0,6161 0,6056 0,5071 0,6732 0,7893 0,7006 0,4374 0,6855 0,6264 0,6170 0,5043 0,6519 0,6786 0,6354 0,5650 0,6415 0,8993
Correlation: Population 3 vs: 1,0000 0,7588 0,4748 0,7815 0,7795 0,6272 0,6931 0,8753 0,8181 0,8679 0,8212 0,8335 0,9510 0,7752 0,7663 0,7697 0,5033 0,5033 0,5335 0,5482 0,6738 0,7135 0,6828 0,7409 0,7276 0,5424 0,4388 0,6055 0,7204 0,7800 0,7426 0,7137 0,3678 0,7734 0,7258 0,8384 0,3922 0,7541 0,7126 0,7025 0,5712 0,7838 0,6638 0,7634 0,5837 0,6846 0,8087
Correlation: Population 4 vs: 1,0000 0,4868 0,7070 0,6012 0,4949 0,6128 0,7695 0,6843 0,6958 0,7040 0,7624 0,7698 0,7242 0,6301 0,7046 0,4023 0,4234 0,4630 0,5273 0,6633 0,5428 0,6064 0,6881 0,6417 0,5692 0,4580 0,6158 0,7333 0,7499 0,6247 0,7632 0,4992 0,8061 0,6691 0,7527 0,3723 0,7143 0,7064 0,6952 0,6017 0,6645 0,6392 0,6644 0,5558 0,6879 0,7517
Correlation: Population 5 vs: 1,0000 0,4855 0,3079 0,4648 0,3813 0,6368 0,5625 0,6823 0,5886 0,6328 0,6265 0,4616 0,2742 0,3860 0,6002 0,5586 0,5254 0,6757 0,5199 0,4696 0,3274 0,5410 0,6797 0,3899 0,2676 0,4944 0,3408 0,6524 0,3622 0,4312 0,5336 0,4756 0,5382 0,6681 0,4014 0,4906 0,4353 0,4141 0,4284 0,2856 0,6052 0,2264 0,2497 0,5011 0,6253
Correlation: Population 6 vs: 1,0000 0,6947 0,5191 0,6595 0,6771 0,6825 0,6981 0,6593 0,6360 0,7631 0,6072 0,7126 0,5881 0,4850 0,4716 0,5180 0,4021 0,5992 0,5658 0,5848 0,5956 0,5568 0,5150 0,4988 0,5233 0,7380 0,6146 0,6453 0,7349 0,2898 0,8047 0,6386 0,6559 0,3085 0,9573 0,8725 0,8539 0,3801 0,6523 0,5557 0,5999 0,4033 0,6079 0,7386
Correlation: Population 7 vs: 1,0000 0,4956 0,5679 0,5885 0,6525 0,5661 0,6797 0,5420 0,6978 0,7077 0,7522 0,6943 0,5067 0,4861 0,5011 0,4384 0,4933 0,5942 0,4699 0,5778 0,5785 0,3878 0,4324 0,5593 0,7382 0,5037 0,6620 0,6529 0,3314 0,7157 0,5814 0,5633 0,3187 0,6865 0,6366 0,6344 0,4061 0,7014 0,5279 0,5802 0,4903 0,4550 0,8741
Correlation: Population 8 vs: 1,0000 0,3073 0,5575 0,6303 0,6416 0,5922 0,5232 0,6360 0,6249 0,4784 0,5947 0,5409 0,5115 0,5147 0,4980 0,5724 0,5247 0,2814 0,6828 0,5003 0,1804 0,2488 0,5085 0,4933 0,4744 0,5125 0,3156 0,3152 0,4435 0,5684 0,5481 0,3163 0,4258 0,3282 0,3072 0,4769 0,5305 0,5168 0,4495 0,3074 0,6210 0,9046
Correlation: Population 9 vs: 1,0000 0,6751 0,5989 0,6146 0,5718 0,6382 0,7003 0,6230 0,6500 0,6090 0,3963 0,4709 0,4632 0,3365 0,5357 0,5614 0,6996 0,5371 0,5422 0,5619 0,4999 0,4325 0,6287 0,5140 0,6089 0,5963 0,4456 0,7077 0,5747 0,6310 0,3534 0,6982 0,6919 0,6790 0,4820 0,6446 0,4634 0,5728 0,4387 0,4313 0,8738
Correlation: Population 10 vs: 1,0000 0,8306 0,9370 0,8223 0,9873 0,9566 0,7346 0,5983 0,6699 0,5767 0,5939 0,6020 0,6102 0,6999 0,6434 0,6573 0,7114 0,7651 0,5678 0,3594 0,5612 0,6206 0,8692 0,6535 0,6743 0,5174 0,7265 0,6562 0,9632 0,4647 0,6560 0,6302 0,6094 0,6775 0,6672 0,6796 0,6347 0,5669 0,6904 0,8462
Correlation: Population 11 vs: 1,0000 0,7705 0,8476 0,8114 0,8567 0,8379 0,6602 0,8217 0,6661 0,6752 0,6691 0,6448 0,7574 0,8218 0,6161 0,8000 0,7066 0,5773 0,3707 0,6441 0,7513 0,7703 0,7521 0,6794 0,4902 0,7731 0,7664 0,8211 0,5613 0,7033 0,6812 0,6432 0,6258 0,7085 0,6647 0,7447 0,5599 0,7730 0,9264
Correlation: Population 12 vs: 1,0000 0,7955 0,9130 0,9570 0,6874 0,5917 0,6329 0,5752 0,5640 0,5801 0,6178 0,6908 0,5674 0,5888 0,6969 0,7459 0,4905 0,4156 0,5824 0,5539 0,7991 0,6230 0,6361 0,4438 0,6899 0,6822 0,9085 0,4387 0,6440 0,5707 0,5545 0,5899 0,6288 0,7025 0,5689 0,5326 0,6804 0,8825
Correlation: Population 13 vs: 1,0000 0,8214 0,8637 0,7278 0,6039 0,7368 0,5892 0,5880 0,5928 0,7235 0,7777 0,7212 0,4946 0,7206 0,6854 0,6089 0,3886 0,5780 0,6887 0,8286 0,6109 0,6950 0,4580 0,7258 0,7172 0,8571 0,5249 0,6775 0,6884 0,6855 0,4986 0,5913 0,7586 0,6617 0,5971 0,7405 0,8142
Correlation: Population 14 vs: 1,0000 0,9266 0,7009 0,5415 0,6364 0,5529 0,5692 0,5790 0,6121 0,6925 0,6131 0,6274 0,6855 0,7376 0,5704 0,3275 0,5448 0,5918 0,8877 0,6088 0,6727 0,5276 0,7068 0,6249 0,9725 0,4444 0,6238 0,6129 0,5938 0,6541 0,6112 0,6791 0,6058 0,5584 0,6799 0,8656
Correlation: Population 15 vs: 1,0000 0,7797 0,7078 0,7446 0,5832 0,5825 0,5971 0,6421 0,7510 0,7027 0,6619 0,7648 0,7678 0,5703 0,4599 0,6275 0,6930 0,8294 0,7153 0,7272 0,4595 0,7871 0,7578 0,9255 0,4825 0,7374 0,6824 0,6664 0,6250 0,7327 0,7245 0,7105 0,6172 0,7259 0,6748
Correlation: Population 16 vs: 1,0000 0,7922 0,9380 0,5960 0,6125 0,5985 0,6203 0,6816 0,7245 0,6077 0,8287 0,6431 0,5483 0,4850 0,7444 0,7904 0,6377 0,8411 0,6236 0,6098 0,7515 0,7906 0,6810 0,5363 0,6284 0,5654 0,5388 0,6987 0,8179 0,5975 0,7369 0,6512 0,7405 0,6866
Correlation: Population 17 vs: 1,0000 0,7971 0,5047 0,5067 0,5318 0,4702 0,5572 0,6875 0,7224 0,6734 0,5425 0,5577 0,6105 0,6023 0,7890 0,4816 0,8413 0,5704 0,4829 0,6798 0,6170 0,5349 0,4324 0,7147 0,6225 0,6067 0,5740 0,8751 0,5317 0,7422 0,6427 0,5670 0,8114
Correlation: Population 18 vs: 1,0000 0,5488 0,5658 0,5667 0,6352 0,7026 0,7533 0,6365 0,7868 0,6134 0,5881 0,5006 0,6984 0,7799 0,5846 0,8405 0,6225 0,5088 0,7359 0,7325 0,6319 0,5835 0,6341 0,5813 0,5569 0,6342 0,7897 0,5829 0,7898 0,7059 0,7670 0,7283
Correlation: Population 19 vs: 1,0000 0,9618 0,9359 0,6067 0,5229 0,5713 0,4802 0,5714 0,5805 0,3610 0,3872 0,5332 0,4320 0,5381 0,5625 0,4269 0,5071 0,5392 0,4228 0,5801 0,5292 0,4839 0,4218 0,3886 0,5354 0,5255 0,4490 0,3521 0,2936 0,5047 0,6800
Correlation: Population 20 vs: 1,0000 0,9578 0,5935 0,5615 0,6040 0,5267 0,5870 0,5560 0,3781 0,3875 0,4775 0,4658 0,5425 0,5532 0,4331 0,5263 0,5621 0,4355 0,5988 0,5544 0,4919 0,4494 0,4153 0,5658 0,5315 0,4184 0,3954 0,3045 0,5197 0,5537
Correlation: Population 21 vs: 1,0000 0,5263 0,5449 0,5842 0,5248 0,5633 0,5358 0,4114 0,4368 0,4769 0,4664 0,5313 0,5525 0,4706 0,4784 0,5744 0,4048 0,6074 0,5209 0,5289 0,4981 0,4686 0,5210 0,5383 0,3947 0,4050 0,2837 0,5199 0,7209
Correlation: Population 22 vs: 1,0000 0,6962 0,6519 0,4348 0,6803 0,6737 0,4572 0,3470 0,5462 0,4962 0,6728 0,5157 0,4748 0,5753 0,5364 0,6007 0,6534 0,5861 0,4586 0,3900 0,3665 0,5282 0,4393 0,6848 0,5319 0,5735 0,6653 0,8183
Correlation: Population 23 vs: 1,0000 0,6959 0,4701 0,7284 0,5406 0,5470 0,4870 0,5490 0,6461 0,6721 0,5745 0,6952 0,4647 0,7569 0,7182 0,7077 0,5641 0,6317 0,5832 0,5695 0,4372 0,4950 0,6888 0,7409 0,5997 0,7277 0,8193
Correlation: Population 24 vs: 1,0000 0,5828 0,7271 0,6641 0,5915 0,3901 0,5650 0,6806 0,6246 0,7087 0,5385 0,4276 0,6379 0,6518 0,6301 0,5899 0,6183 0,5923 0,5608 0,4929 0,6609 0,5532 0,7514 0,5317 0,6795 0,7922
Correlation: Population 25 vs: 1,0000 0,5321 0,6144 0,5750 0,4103 0,4067 0,5967 0,5972 0,6760 0,5933 0,4514 0,6573 0,4373 0,6182 0,4149 0,6455 0,6236 0,5803 0,5887 0,7008 0,4252 0,6179 0,4828 0,4679 0,5936
Correlation: Population 26 vs: 1,0000 0,5809 0,5099 0,3684 0,6614 0,7499 0,6558 0,6943 0,5634 0,5528 0,7150 0,8210 0,7178 0,5264 0,6181 0,5553 0,5336 0,6555 0,6819 0,6642 0,7280 0,5566 0,7757 0,8828
Correlation: Population 27 vs: 1,0000 0,4366 0,3366 0,6179 0,5318 0,7746 0,6397 0,5241 0,5013 0,5972 0,5446 0,7335 0,4176 0,5508 0,4920 0,4595 0,5869 0,5975 0,6767 0,4633 0,4628 0,6111 0,8105
Correlation: Population 28 vs: 1,0000 0,5001 0,4109 0,5479 0,6049 0,4799 0,6019 0,3971 0,6015 0,4100 0,6223 0,5763 0,5854 0,6909 0,7061 0,4019 0,4671 0,4259 0,4993 0,4745 0,5354 0,8575
Correlation: Population 29 vs: 1,0000 0,4475 0,4364 0,2662 0,4049 0,4637 0,3187 0,5275 0,4273 0,3147 0,4230 0,5149 0,4178 0,4132 0,2373 0,4484 0,3863 0,3932 0,4639 0,3501 0,5904
Correlation: Population 30 vs: 1,0000 0,5805 0,5372 0,6844 0,5110 0,5580 0,5974 0,6880 0,5255 0,3805 0,5021 0,4246 0,4108 0,5415 0,6592 0,7107 0,5305 0,5432 0,6252 0,8358
Correlation: Population 31 vs: 1,0000 0,5792 0,7467 0,7025 0,4306 0,8170 0,7258 0,6051 0,4750 0,7755 0,7329 0,7032 0,4712 0,7077 0,6423 0,7819 0,5701 0,6601 0,7909
Correlation: Population 32 vs: 1,0000 0,5441 0,6595 0,5233 0,6697 0,5907 0,9019 0,4556 0,6232 0,6677 0,6554 0,5685 0,5323 0,7089 0,5768 0,5171 0,7302 0,7682
Correlation: Population 33 vs: 1,0000 0,5473 0,5439 0,6559 0,6802 0,5634 0,4556 0,6521 0,5473 0,5173 0,6839 0,8858 0,5515 0,7365 0,6710 0,6878 0,6770
Correlation: Population 34 vs: 1,0000 0,3258 0,9451 0,6352 0,7000 0,3914 0,8074 0,8154 0,8098 0,3621 0,5373 0,5431 0,6366 0,4789 0,5382 0,8101
Correlation: Population 35 vs: 1,0000 0,4264 0,4554 0,4950 0,4376 0,3518 0,3038 0,2850 0,6764 0,4978 0,4978 0,3718 0,4438 0,3732 0,7478
Appendix 3: Least Hit-Rate correlation between languages
Correlation: Population 36 vs: 1,0000 0,7438 0,7335 0,4748 0,8651 0,8349 0,8157 0,4776 0,6517 0,5954 0,7137 0,5044 0,6214 0,7896
Correlation: Population 37 vs: 1,0000 0,6299 0,4345 0,6672 0,5815 0,5681 0,5069 0,6529 0,6631 0,6814 0,5571 0,6971 0,6715
Correlation: Population 38 vs: 1,0000 0,4605 0,6493 0,6676 0,6575 0,6244 0,5799 0,6853 0,5892 0,5081 0,6861 0,7944
Correlation: Population 39 vs: 1,0000 0,3764 0,3762 0,3500 0,3438 0,3677 0,4317 0,4656 0,4260 0,5080 0,7944
Correlation: Population 40 vs: 1,0000 0,9365 0,9128 0,3945 0,6486 0,5374 0,6392 0,4518 0,6014 0,7944
Correlation: Population 41 vs: 1,0000 0,9906 0,3548 0,5840 0,4728 0,5999 0,3847 0,5546 0,7944
Correlation: Population 42 vs: 1,0000 0,3398 0,5652 0,4575 0,5668 0,3749 0,5407 0,7944
© Copyright Extended DISC Global & FinxS

Correlation: Population 43 vs: 1,0000 0,7865 0,4357 0,4749 0,6069 0,5612 0,7944
Correlation: Population 44 vs: 1,0000 0,5054 0,7007 0,6546 0,6069 0,7944

Correlation: Population 45 vs: 1,0000 0,6115 0,6058 0,6842 0,7944
Correlation: Population 46 vs: 1,0000 0,6862 0,7040 0,7944
Correlation: Population 47 vs: 1,0000 0,6628 0,7944
Correlation: Population 48 vs: 1,0000 0,7944
109/111
Appendix 4: Annual comparison of DISC distribution in different language versions

16 Support Material
Extended DISC® System Manual, Extended DISC International, 2005
Extended DISC® Personal Analysis Manual, Extended DISC International, 2005
Extended DISC® Team Analysis Manual, Extended DISC International, 2005
Extended DISC® Work Pair Analysis Manual, Extended DISC International, 2007
Extended DISC® Job Analysis Manual, Extended DISC International, 2005
Extended DISC® Personal Analysis 360 Manual, Extended DISC International, 2005
Extended DISC® Student Research, DISC International, 1994
3
1
Extended DIS®C Behavioral Analysis measures the natural response preference to an external stimuli.
2
Profile Point is an indication of the position of the particular DISC trait in the Profile template. More information
about Profile Points in the Extended DISC® System Manual.
3
Invalid Profile is a result of the respondent not being able to establish an answering pattern and following it up
throughout the answering. More information about Invalid Profiles in Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis Manual.


2022 Validation Report 2022 Published

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Validation Report 2022 Published

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extended DISC® & FinxS® – Validation Report 2022

Validation Report 2022

FinxS® Sales Capacity Assessment

FinxS® Reasoning Test Battery

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

Extended DISC® & FinxS® – Validation Report 2022

1 EXTENDED DISC® & FINXS® - VALIDATION SUMMARY ....................................................................... 4

11 OUR ETHICS ..................................................................................................................................................... 71

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

1 Extended DISC® & FinxS® - Validation Summary

- Afrikaans (AFR) - German (Switzerland) (GES)

- Spanish (Caribbean) (SPC) - Tok Pisin (TPI)

Reliability and Validity of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis

Population statistics and interesting research findings

The global DISC distribution

2005 2004 2003 2002

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

The different age groups

2022 <1960’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s

The gender differences

Overall conclusion from the global comparison

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

3.1 Purpose of the Validation Report

This report is protected by copyright against any type of copying or reproduction.

3.1.1 Research coverage and use

3.1.2 Data Collection

3.2 History of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis

Milestones of development of Extended DISC® Behavioral Analysis:

Questionnaire Design and Validation:

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

4 Original Validation Study

Extended DISC® Persona Management System

Petri Kauppinen, University of Oulu

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

A Validation process is an important part of the development process of a behavioral profile

4.2 About the Extended DISC® Persona Management System

Dominance (D) - active

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

information in organizational development. The guiding principle was to design frameworks

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

Figure 1. Extended DISC® Diamond

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

Figure 2. Extended DISC® Profiles and Percentages

4.3 About the Validation Process

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

To test the psychometrics of a given instrument, the following must be evaluated

 Homogeneity: Item-scale correlation is approximately equal in a scale.

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

4.4 Descriptive Statistics

Extended DISC® Persona Management System is based on a forced-choice checklist with 24

Table 1. Original answers and distributions

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of scales

Variable N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

Dominance (Graph II) 555 8.16 4.462 0 19.00

+/- 1.0 Perfect correlation

Table 3. Inter-correlations of the scales

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED

1) Dominance - produces activity in an antagonistic environment

We concentrate on Graph II. We first observe distributions of items of the questionnaire

The average percentage related to high dominance is 84 %, to high influence 91 %, to high

EXTENDED DISC® – INFORMATION YOU NEED