Te
Te 1: I objectively define the scope of problems - 4.5 (how do I know if it's objective?)
Te 2: I set or identify measurable goals for my efforts and the efforts of other people - 3.75
Te 3: I logically determine sequences and priorities needed to efficiently complete a task of manage a program - 5 (I determine the sequences, but that doesn't mean I'm diligent enough to stick to them; also, while I do actually do this at times, I also like just working in the flow of things and letting the pieces all come together as I go, so...)
Te 4: I communicate concisely and logically the steps necessary to reach a goal, complete a task, or solve a problem: Take step 1, then step2, then step 3 - 5 (absolutely)
Te 5: I use logic to convince others to work toward a goal or to accept my position in a discussion - 5 (mhmm)
Te 6: I objectively measure the external world to achieve measurable goals - 4.5 (once again, that word "objectively")
Te 7: I turn effective procedures and processes into performance standards, rules, and regulations - 4.5 (yeah, I do stuff like this, but I also tell my self to chill the fuck out about it and not overdo it sometimes, so...)
Te 8: I evaluate performance against measurable goals and standards - 5 (this is not all I measure my goals against, though, so...)
37.25/40 = 93.13%
I dunno, just like with other cognitive function tests I've taken, I haven't been all too happy with the descriptions used for Te.
My problem with them is that Te is by no means all I use, so to say that I do these things, it would be like saying that I do them at the exclusion of the other things I do.
But I don't.
I use the above things when I feel they are necessary, but I most certainly do use them at those times, and feel like it's very natural and easy for me to use it.
I think some of the Te mannerisms described above sometimes conflict with my Ni's ability/desire to look at things another way, my well developed Fi's more feeling-oriented approach, or just my general work ethic.
As such, if there's any one function that gets understated numerically relative to my actual ease of use, it's probably Te.
But if the test is not testing simply ease of use, but amount of usage, then I suppose the number is rather accurate.
I just think that my actual usage number is lower than my ease of usage number, as I choose not to look solely through a Te box when I don't believe or feel it's necessary.
EDIT: Additionally, I feel that the problem with functional tests is that they test for the usage of a single function as if that function is used separately from other functions.
To be more accurate, there should be a second level of functional usage tests for once a person's type has likely been determined, that will take the particular use of each tested function into account with regards to how it generally interacts with the suspected type's other functions.
I know that, for myself, what I believe to be the principal use of my Te -- to sort out what is realistic from the possibilities generated by Ni (i.e., to either shape Ni's possibilities into realizable goals, steps, plans, or to simply judge Ni's possibilities as to whether they are actually realistic trends, patterns, interpretations) -- was not even mentioned in this test.