My Enneagram Test

[Luminous]

I have written this enneagram test and would like to have positive and/or productive feedback, along with whatever results y'all get. I may add/change things at some point to improve it.
Thank you!

Enneagram Test

Edit: Version 2.0 of this test available here

 

[Vendrah]

5-7-1, or with tri-type restrictions, 5-1-2

 

[Coriolis]

5 1 3

 

[Earl Grey]

5 - 19%
1 - 16%
3 - 12%
8 - 11%
6 - 10%
9 - 10%
2 - 7%
7 - 7%
4 - 7%

It was an interesting approach; I like how it stuck solidly to basic type theory. It seems cover all the bases, though at the cost of being general enough to be relatable. A downside I found is that in trying to nail different triads (I noticed rejection triad questions, then competency triad questions, etc) instead of specific triads, there were problems that arose from it due to trying to tack on a specific archetype to a type instead of the type in its full spectrum; for example: the questions I have identified to be 6 are very 'passive' and emphasized its attachment status (security seeking, external polling) and not much its compliant one (checking to see if they are doing right and fulfilling standards). This would steer an E6 that was less attachment (due to tritype combo, IV combo, and/or experience themselves, etc) to steer away from the E6 options and possibly mistype.

This is not necessarily a bad thing- there is only so much detail one can cram in when having 9 different end results, with each of those 9 results having a full spectrum within them on their own. It is a natural limitation of quizzes, that in itself aren't designed to be capable of going in-depth.

I can't comment on the 'pick the words that apply' section, because for better or worse, I don't know which word goes to which type(s). However, overall this works well as a 'starter to Enneagram' so to speak, and would nail folks who are in the midranges of their type and embody the archetype of their type very closely. A plus for focusing on triads is that one is likely to get their core type from this quiz, because there are many traits from the triads that apply to one's core type- this is a great test to figure out your core and what the components of that type are.

 

[Cupcakemonster]

Your Top Results
More Details
3 - 21%
7 - 21%
2 - 14%
8 - 14%
6 - 8%
1 - 6%
5 - 6%
9 - 6%
4 - 4%

Some of the multiple choice questions had 2 different answers that I felt like could fit me well, so I had to analyze myself a bit.

Overall, I liked the test.

 

[Stigmata]

Overall good test.

 

[noname3788]

7- 15%
8- 14%
4- 13%
5- 12%
1- 11%
2- 9%
6- 9%
9- 9%
3- 8%

I rarely have 8 that high, otherwise it seems accurate

 

[red_evening_apple]

7 18%
4 17%
3 12%
9 11%
5 10%
8 10%
1 9%
6 7%
2 5%

I consider myself to be a 9w8 4w3 7w8, I got a higher score on 7 and 4 than on 9 but overall I think it's pretty accurate. I always get the lowest scores on 1, 6 and 2 so that's consistent as well.

 

[Saturnal Snowqueen]

Pretty cool test. My 9 and 4 are really close these days, so I found it hard to pick between the frustration and attachment questions since they're both strong themes for me. I liked the addition of the triad questions though. It's neat that I keep getting 5 high up-I'm tempted to type as triple withdrawn somedays, but eh. In reality, I'm just a withdrawn person who likes to learn new things, out of sheer interest and not a big huge fear.

 

[Maou]

Your Top Results 4-7-8 Tritype.

16% - 4
15% - 7
14% - 5
11% - 8
9% - 3
9% - 6
9% - 9
9% - 1
8% - 2

Fun test Lumi!

 

[Morpeko]

I enjoyed it, thank you for creating and posting! I appreciate your focus on enneagram triads rather than simply stereotypical behaviors like most tests. I've constantly wished more enneagram tests would focus on the triads like yours did in the beginning, so that definitely a nice change.

4: 18%

6: 14%

5: 13%

3: 12%

8: 12%

1: 11%

7: 9%

9: 9%

2: 4%

The results are pretty accurate, and I usually score highest on 4, 5, and 6 anyway. I approve of this test giving me 6 > 5, because usually it's the other way around and I think 6 is more accurate for me in terms of motivations and fears.

 

[Tina&Jane]

I liked it. I thought you did a good job of avoiding a lot of the typical questions I come across with enneagram tests. I think it's accurate too, I typically score high on 9 and 5, but have been leaning more toward 9 lately. Surprised 6 is so low though.

5 21%
9 17%
1 16%
4 15%
3 13%
8 6%
7 5%
6 4%
2 3%

 

[RadicalDoubt]

5(w6) 1(w9) 3(wb)

It's kind of close!

5 - 24%
1- 15%
3 -11%
7 -10%
6 - 9%
9 - 9%
2- 8%
4 - 8%
8 - 6 %

 

[Norexan]

16% - 5
16% - 8
14% - 1
13% - 3
10% - 4
10% - 7
10% - 9
8% - 6
4% - 2

 

[Virtual ghost]

I got the impression that this will end like this.


1 - 20%
3 - 16%
5 - 14%
8 - 13%
6 - 8%
7 - 8%
9 - 8%
4 - 7%
2 - 6%

 

[Coriolis]

I have written this enneagram test and would like to have positive and/or productive feedback, along with whatever results y'all get. I may add/change things at some point to improve it.
Thank you!

I meant to ask: how does one even make up a new enneagram test? What goes into it? How do you connect a person's responses with a specific type? Does each response map clearly to one type? How do you know if the test is valid? I suppose getting people who know their types reasonably well is one way, which you are doing here. Anyway, if you would be willing to share any of the "sausage-making", I would be interested - perhaps others, too.

 

[Vendrah]

I meant to ask: how does one even make up a new enneagram test? What goes into it? How do you connect a person's responses with a specific type? Does each response map clearly to one type? How do you know if the test is valid? I suppose getting people who know their types reasonably well is one way, which you are doing here. Anyway, if you would be willing to share any of the "sausage-making", I would be interested - perhaps others, too.

About the validation department, it is usually done using test-retest rates and consistency and inconsistency, but all tools that are done by that are paid and they are stupidly expensive.
So, for me that done another one before and her, the validation doesnt truly happen. But we do carry strong concepts and links, and at least in my part I develop on these - further readings, connections, etc... and even subjective experience with type me threads does play a role.

 

[Coriolis]

About the validation department, it is usually done using test-retest rates and consistency and inconsistency, but all tools that are done by that are paid and they are stupidly expensive.
So, for me that done another one before and her, the validation doesnt truly happen. But we do carry strong concepts and links, and at least in my part I develop on these - further readings, connections, etc... and even subjective experience with type me threads does play a role.

I recall reading in Gifts Differing about how Briggs and Myers tested their original inventory using the results of people whose type they had determined independently, through personal interaction and interviews. I know test-retest is a common scientific method, but in this case, the more one takes a test, the greater danger that one will "learn" the test, that is, start thinking too much about the implications of the answers and allow that to affect one's answers. In other words: the test subject might be changed by the test-taking experience, more so than, say, in the natural sciences where we are measuring the rate of a chemical reaction that can be expected to play out more or less the same every time.

 

[Vendrah]

I recall reading in Gifts Differing about how Briggs and Myers tested their original inventory using the results of people whose type they had determined independently, through personal interaction and interviews. I know test-retest is a common scientific method, but in this case, the more one takes a test, the greater danger that one will "learn" the test, that is, start thinking too much about the implications of the answers and allow that to afffect one's answers. In other words: the test subject might be changed by the test-taking experience, more so than, say, in the natural sciences where we are measuring the rate of a chemical reaction that can be expected to play out more or less the same every time.

Although I didnt mentioned that, sometimes for my testing methods - not the questions although - I do indeed tuning to match the profile declaration. But that is an interesting thing to know indeed.

 

[Luminous]

I meant to ask: how does one even make up a new enneagram test? What goes into it? How do you connect a person's responses with a specific type? Does each response map clearly to one type? How do you know if the test is valid? I suppose getting people who know their types reasonably well is one way, which you are doing here. Anyway, if you would be willing to share any of the "sausage-making", I would be interested - perhaps others, too.

I appreciate your interest. I have taken quite a few enneagram tests and I often get type 4. I thought it would be fun to create a test that was more precise than some of the others out there. I compiled notes from a bunch of sources that I consider reliable, looked for overlaps among them, keywords/characteristics, and then made a spreadsheet where I tried to narrow down characteristics that would effectively screen one type or tritype from the others (as some of the questions point to tritype rather than one specific type).

I had planned to do more research - reading more books and adding and refining questions, but decided to ask for feedback before doing more. I'd love to have the resources for mass testing and verification that it's valid, but as Vendrah pointed out, finding a place to analyze the data can be prohibitive. I'll probably look about a bit more to see if I can find a better hosting site. I appreciate the helpful feedback I've gotten, particularly from Vendrah and Earl Grey.