The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of Reliability and Validity Reb man, and Kristin K. Higgins ca A. Newgent, Patricia E. Parr, Isadore This investigation was conducted 10 estimate the reliability and validity of scores on the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (D. R. Riso & R. Hudson, 1999a). Results of 287 participants were analyzed. Alpha suggests an adequate degree of internal consistency. Evidence provides mixed support for construct validity using correlational and canonical analyses but strong support for heuristic value. tandardized measures are expected to have published norms and an established record f reliability, validity, and predictive utility. As of yet, many personality assessments ve not established this record. For example, some professionals and lay people use Enneagram personality measures such as the Cohen-Palmer Inventory (Palmer, 1988), the Wagner Inventory (Wagner, 1981), and the Zinkle Inventory (Zinkle, 1974) as a measure for gaining information about clients or for self-understanding. According to Riso and Hudson (2000), the Enneagram of Personality Types is a modern synthesis of a number of ancient wisdom traditions. The traditional Enneagram, however, only dates back to the 1960s. Enneagram advocates postulate that there are nine fundamental personality types, and the Enneagram System of Personality was designed to assess the degree to which an individual resembles each of these types (Riso & Hudson, 1999b). There is no one underlying theory that is the sole basis for the Enneagram. It was developed to accommodate a number of psychological constructs and different interpretations (Riso & Hudson, 1996). Many who have become acquainted with the system have found it to be accurate in describing their personality characteristics and dynamics. While some research on these Enneagram sys- tems has been conducted (e.g., Brugha, 1998; Cusack, 1996; Edwards, 1991; Gamard, 1986; Perry, 1996; Pinder, 2000; Sharp, 1994; Thrasher, 1994; Twomey, 1995; Wyman, 1998), limited empirical validation has occurred. A more recent Enneagram system is the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI; Riso & Hudson, 1999a), Version 2.5. The Enneagram is the foundation from which the RHETI is derived. According to Riso (1995), “The nine personality types of the Enneagram can. . . be regarded as psychological ‘functions’ and ‘potentials for’ a wide spectrum of healthy to unhealthy traits” (p. 80). These nine types are theoretically related to each other. ‘The nine personality types of the RHETI are identified as Reformer (Type 1), Helper (Type 2), Achiever (Type 3), Individualist (Type 4), Investigator (Type 5), Loyalist (Type 6), Enthusiast (Type 7), Challenger (Type 8), and Peacemaker (Type 9). The Reformer is the Rebecca A. Newgent and Kristin K. Higgins, Department of Educational Leadership. Counseling and Foundations, sity of Arkansas; Patricia E. Parr, Department of Counseling, and Isadore Newman, Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership, University of Akron. Portions of this article are based on a doctoral dissertation by Rebecca A. Newgent completed May 2001 at the University of Akron: portions of the article were presented at the 2001 Association for the Advancement of Educa- tional Research National Conference, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida; and portions of the article were pre- sented at the March 2002 American Counseling Association Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. Cor- respondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca A. Newgent, Department of Educa- tional Leadership, Counseling and Foundations, University of Arkansas, 234 Graduate Education Building, AR 7270] (e-mail: rnewgent@uark.edu) 226 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development & January2004 & Volume 36principled, idealistic type; the Helper is the caring, interpersonal type; the Achiever is the adaptable, success-oriented type; the Individualist is the romantic, introspective type; the Investigator is the intense, cerebral type; the Loyalist is the committed, security-oriented type; the Enthusiast is the busy, productive type; the Challenger is the powerful, dominat- ing type; and the Peacemaker is the easygoing, self-effacing type (Riso & Hudson, 1999a). Limited empirical evidence, however, exists to support the reliability and validity of the scores on the RHETL. Numerous investigations have been conducted using the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality as a way of interpreting and estimating validity of the scores of other person- ality measures (e.g., Costa, Busch, Zonderman, & McCrae, 1986; Costa & McCrae, 1995; Furnham, 1996; Gottfredson, Jones, & Holland, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1992; McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 1993; Trull, Useda, Costa, & McCrae, 1995). Research indicates that the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) subsumes the majority of reliable variance of the constructs and variables assessed by other traditional personality assessment measures. Therefore, the NEO PIR is a useful and appropriate tool for validation studies of other measures of normal personality. Costa and McCrae (1992) developed the NEO PI-R to operationalize the FFM (McCrae & Costa, 1997). The NEO PI-R has been shown to be a psychometrically sound measure that assesses the “Big Five” dimensions. The NEO PI-R consists of 5 major domains of personality scales and 30 facet scales. The NEO PI-R is based on the FFM of personality that includes (a) Neuroticism, (b) Extraversion, (c) Openness to Experience, (d) Agreeable- ness, and (e) Conscientiousness. Neuroticism indicates the tendency for an individual to experience psychological distress and includes the facets of anxiety, angry hostility, de- pression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability. Extraversion indicates a tendency for an individual to experience positive emotions, activity, and flexibility and in- cludes the facets of warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotions. Openness to Experience is denoted by traits such as being imagina- tive and sensitive to art and beauty and intellectual curiosity and includes the facets of fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values, Agreeableness is denoted by traits such as having trust of others, being sympathetic, and being cooperative and includes the facets of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender- mindedness. Conscientiousness, according to Costa and McCrae (1992), “is a dimension that contrasts scrupulous, well-organized, and diligent people with lax, disorganized, and lackadaisical individuals” (p. 6) and includes the facets of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation. ‘Asan example of using the NEO PI-R to begin building the body of empirical support for personality measures, specifically the RHETI, Newgent, Gueulette, Newman, and Parr (2000) identified relationships between the scores of the RHETI types and the scores of NEO PI-R. factors. It was expected that certain relationships would exist: (a) that Neuroticism would be related to Peacemaker and Achiever; (b) that Extraversion would be related to Enthusiast and Challenger; (c) that Openness to Experience would be related to Investigator and En- thusiast; (d) that Agreeableness would be related to Peacemaker, Individualist, and Loy- alist; and (e) that Conscientiousness would be related to Reformer and Helper. Results indi- cated the Reformer had a significant positive relationship with Conscientiousness (r= .43), and the Helper had a significant positive relationship with Extraversion (7 =.49). The Achiever had a significant positive relationship with Conscientiousness (r= .67), and the Individualist had a significant positive relationship with Neuroticism (r= .35) and Openness to Experience (r= .30) and significant negative relationships with Extraversion (r= —.31) and Conscien- tiousness (r = —.52). The Investigator resulted in a significant negative relationship with Extraversion (= ~.43) and a significant positive relationship with Openness to Experience (r= .36), the Loyalist resulted in a significant negative relationship with Openness to Experi- ence (r=~.51), the Enthusiast resulted in a significant positive relationship with Extraversion ‘Measurement and Evaiuation in Counseling and Development @ Janucny 2004 # Vohene 36 227) and Openness to Experience (r= .49), the Challenger resulted in significant positive relationships with Extraversion (= .48) and Conscientiousness (r=.31) anda significant negative relationship with Agreeableness (r = -.61), and the Peacemaker resulted in significant nega- tive relationships with Extraversion (r = -.56) and Openness to Experience (r= ~.30) and a significant positive relationship with Agreeableness ("= 61). While these results appear to be in support of construct validity of the RHETI scores, the sample size (N = 44) was too smalll t0 draw any broad conclusions, These pilot study results were then used along with the theo- retical expectations in the development of the hypotheses for this study. This investigation examined the RHETI types to estimate the internal consistency reli- ability and construct validity of the scores from the RHETI scales. Thus, the information applied from this investigation will aid the helping professions to determine if the RHETI is a sound tool for assessing personality. METHOD Participants A convenience sample of 393 individuals participated in this investigation. Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis from the general community and university academic and social programs in Ohio, New York, North Carolina, and Colorado overa 5-month period. Only data of those participants who completed all items on both the RHETI and the NEO PI-R were used in this investigation (Nv = 287). The participants also completed other instruments not reported here. Participants included in this investigation ranged in age from 18 to 74 years (M= 32, SD = 13). Twenty-six percent (n =79) of the participants were male, and 73% (n = 208) were female; 88% (n = 253) were Caucasian and 12% (n =34) were non-Caucasian; < 1% (n = 1) had less than a high school education, 31% (n = 90) had a high school education, 9% (n = 26) had an asso- ciate degree, 31% (n = 89) had a bachelor’s degree, 23% (1"= 67) had a master’s degree, and 5% (n= 14) had a doctoral degree. No consistent findings were identifiable regarding the differ- ences between participants who completed all items on the measures and those who did not. A power analysis (Cohen, 1977; Newman & Benz, 1983) determined the power of this study to detecta medium effect was 99. Instruments The RHETI (Riso & Hudson, 1999a). The RHET1 is a 144-item forced-choice inventory of nor- mal personality that measures nine personality types (Reformer, Helper, Achiever, Individualist, Investigator, Loyalist, Enthusiast, Challenger, and Peacemaker). Each of the 144 items has two possible responses related to two different RHETI types. Thus, of the 288 possible responses that test takers must choose between, 32 responses purportedly measure each of the nine per- sonality types. For example, Item | contains the following two responses: “I've been romantic and imaginative” and “I've been pragmatic and down to earth.” The first response is associated with the Individualist and the second response is associated with the Loyalist. According to R. Hudson (personal communication, March 14, 2000), the items on the RHETI were developed using self-assessment, expert judge, and observer agreement. Inaddition, criterion-keying strat- egies were used to refine the items so that the items selected would be based on the ability to discriminate criterion groups. Because the RHETI is ipsative in nature, it makes it impossible for an individual to score low on all types or high on all types; rather, a high score on one scale will by necessity create a low score on some other scale. The RHETI produces a relative rather than an absolute profile. Ipsative scales assess an individual relative to his or her own mean score rather than comparing the person with some normative standard. NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO PI-R is a 240-item, self-report inventory that operationalizes the FFM of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1997) and consists of five 228 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development @ January 2004 @ Volumesfactors (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscien- tiousness) and 30 facets of which 6 facets relate to a respective factor. Respondents are given five response choices for each item, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The norming sample included 1,000 participants (500 men and 500 women; Costa & McCrae, 1992). ‘The reliability and validity estimates of the scores from the NEO PI-R factors and facets have been highly investigated (Costa & McCrae, 1992; see also Botwin, 1995; Juni, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1992). Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the scores from the factor scales range from .86 to .95. Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the scores from the facet scales range from .56 to .90. Content validity is addressed by identi- fying six distinct facets to sample each factor and by selecting nonredundant items to measure each facet. In addition, consensual, construct, and convergent and discriminant validities have been estimated (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1991; Muten, 1991). Procedure Instruments were administered in both individual and group settings. Each participant com- pleted the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator and the Revised NEO Personality In- ventory. Standardized written instructions were provided. Each participant agreed to his or her results being used for research purposes. Consent forms were collected and kept separate to ensure anonymity of the information. Nonidentifying demographic data were also collected from the participants (age, sex, race, and education level). RESULTS Reliability Estimates Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha was calculated as a measure of the internal consis- tency reliability estimates of the scores from the RHETI scales. The coefficients ranged in magnitude from .56 (Achiever and Investigator) to .82 (Helper). As shown in Table 1, the scores from the Loyalist, Achiever, and Investigator scales had the lowest reliability coef- ficients. All other scores from the RHETI types (Peacemaker, Reformer, Individualist, Helper, Challenger, and Enthusiast) resulted in coefficients greater than or equal to .70, which is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978), Validity Estimates ‘Two methods of analysis were used to estimate construct validity: (a) Pearson product-moment coefficient and (b) canonical variate analysis (CVA). The Pearson product-moment coefficient was used to test the relationship between the scores for the nine individual RHETI types and the scores for the five individual NEO PLR factors. Because of the number of intercorrelations, a Bonferroni adjustment was used (Newman, Fras, & Laux, 2000). All of the nine RHETI types were significantly correlated with at least one of the factors on the NEO PI-R. Furthermore, four of the RHETI types were significantly correlated with three of the five factors on the NEO PIR (Individualist with Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness; Loyalist with Neuroti- cism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience; Enthusiast with Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness; and Challenger with Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agree- ableness). The results of the correlational analyses are reported in Table 1. Canonical correlation was performed between the underlying constructs of the nine RHETI types and the underlying constructs of the five NEO PI-R factors using SAS canonical corre- lation (SAS Institute Inc., 1989). One way of estimating the construct validity of the scores on the RHETT is a concurrent estimate with an already established measure of personality. Therefore, a CVA was used to assess the relationship between the RHETI and the NEO PLR. The Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling andDevalopment ¢ January 2004 @ Volume 36 229100° > d paisnipe 1uouejyuog, “(L002 ‘Ilepig °@ Yo1uyseqel) eiqeidesce pesapIsuod se4B1y 40 02" Jo Seydiy ‘jeuobeIp u! seydje 91014909 ‘sseusnonUs!osuOg = 2 ‘sseUeiqueasBy = y ‘eovevedx3 0} sseuUEdO = O ‘UOIS/eAeN}xg = 3 ‘WSIONOINEN = N Heyeweseed = 6 ueBuel/eyD = g AseIsNYIUZ = J SYEAOT = g ‘IOJPBNSAnU| = ¢ "ISIENPINIPU| = y “HEABIYDY = ¢ adjeH = Z !@UOJOY = 1 °L8Z = N “BION asit ze6r ca" 2 oLZt O06'Ly ze’ ee v gett eps Gt ote’ ve ° O6OL 68'SS .02 =e’ 3 OeOt vis .98- .1e- 2O- Lb r8 N aos pect LO’ vO- vb vi 6L 6 ees peht oBt | de =O SR a 12S BLel .oe- 0 ee SHO we og Z voy =2Let 10 0 BE BZ BL 9s 9g" 9 gy est Bh Lk BL zo Lb OS Ss ify tsk .ge- Gt- ok st 80 Z- hee v gre scot .st .6b- = hk 0 8- 20- 20 .Bl- O £ 099 «POG OL- oF eo ee ub gt = GO- «= S- O- SE- a z 16> evSt .9P th= 60 Sb spe Se Se- 00-20" we Se 1 as w 2 v ° 3 N 6 8 Z 9 s v & z + aiqeuen sa|qeue, UoNeBbysenu| Buowy suo}ejas0919,U] pue ‘SUOHeIAaG Psepuels ‘suey ‘seydiy balavi 230RHETI set included Peacemaker, Loyalist, Achiever, Reformer, Individualist, Helper, Challenger, Investigator, and Enthusiast and the NEO PI-R set included Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Findings (F-test results for extracting canonical variate pairs, correlations between the variables and the canonical variates, standard- ized canonical variate coefficients, within-set variance accounted for by the canonical variates, redundancies, and canonical correlations) on the five pairs of canonical variates appear in Table 2 Results of each canonical correlation are presented in turn. There were five canonical variates, Of the expected five dimensions to emerge, each of them was significant. The first canonical correlation was .73 (.71 adjusted), representing 54% of the overlapping variance for the first canonical variate. With a cutoff correlation of .30 (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001), the variables in the RHETI set that were correlated with the first canonical variate were Reformer and Enthusiast. Among the NEO PI-R variables, Conscientiousness, Extra- version, and Openness to Experience correlated with the first canonical variate. As shown in Table 2, the first canonical variate indicates that those with moderate characteristics of Reformer (.35) and few characteristics of Enthusiast (—.52) are associated with high levels of Conscientiousness (.80), low levels of Extraversion (—40), and low levels of Openness to Experience (-.35). The values for the first canonical variate are .20 for the first set of vari- ables and .21 for the second set of variables, In other words, 20% is the variance accounted for by the NEO PI-R variables on the first canonical variate, and 21% is the variance ac- counted for by the RHETI variables on the first canonical variate. With regard to redun- dancy, the first RHETI variate accounts for 11% of the variance in the NEO PI-R variables, and the first NEO PI-R variate accounts for 12% of the variance in the RHETI variables. The second canonical correlation was .70 (.69 adjusted), representing 49% of the overlap- ping variance for the second canonical variate. The second canonical variate in the RH. set was composed of Investigator, Enthusiast, and Individualist, and the corresponding canonical variate from the NEO PI-R set was composed of Openness to Experience. Taken as a pair, these variates suggest that a combination of moderate characteristics of Investi- gator (.48), few characteristics of Enthusiast (~.36), and moderate characteristics of Indi- vidualist (.32) is associated with moderate levels of Openness to Experience (.45). The val- ues for the second canonical variate are .19 for the first set of variables and .20, for the second set. Inother words, 19% is the variance accounted for by the NEO PI-R variables on the second canonical variate, and 20% is the variance accounted for by the RHETI variables on the second canonical variate. With regard to redundancy, the second RHETI variate accounts for 9% of the variance in the NEO PI-R variables, and the second NEO PI-R variate accounts for 10% of the variance in the RHETI variables. The third canonical correlation was .62 (.61 adjusted), representing 39% overlapping variance for the third canonical variate. The variables in the RHETI set that were corre- lated with the third canonical variate were Peacemaker, Loyalist, and Individualist. Among the NEO PI-R variables Neuroticism, Agrecableness, and Conscientiousness correlated with the third canonical variable. The third canonical variate indicates those with few charac- teristics of Peacemaker (~.71), characteristics of Loyalist (.63), and characteristics of Indi- vidualist (.48) are associated with high levels of Neuroticism (.71), low levels of Agree- ableness (~.60), and moderate levels of Conscientiousness (.37). The values for the third canonical variate are .24 for the first set of variables and .10 for the second set of variables. In other words, 24% is the variance accounted for by the NEO PI-R variables on the third canonical variate, and 10% is the variance accounted for by the RHETI variables on the third canonical variate. With regard to redundancy, the third RHETI variate accounts for 9% of the variance in the NEO PI-R variables, and the third NEO PI-R variate accounts for 4% of the variance in the RHETI variables. The fourth canonical correlation was .53 (.53 adjusted), representing 28% overlapping variance for the fourth canonical variate. The fourth canonical variate in the RHETI set was composed of Loyalist, Investigator, Reformer, and Achiever, and the corresponding Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development & Jonuary 2004 + Volume 36 231“96°C =4e (295 ‘Z1)P ‘100° > d 'gz'01 = 4 (2'06z ‘12)/P “L000°>d ‘9o'eL = 4. " (4-404 ‘Ze)sP ‘400° > d '6S'9t “(222 'S)4P ‘200 > 9 = Ja (€'vezt ‘Sp)4P 'L000" > d ‘09'at = Je 1U8}01)J909 = "J209 "LONEIEIOg = "UOD ‘pasirey-Aro\UaAY] AyjeUOSIed ON = H-ld OAN JOWwoIpU| edA| WesBeeuUy UOSPNH-OSIH = |LHY ‘ION 920 es'0 z9°0 ozo exo uoneja1i09 jeo1uoueD Weil zeo = 000 90°0 ¥0'0 ovo zL0 Aouepunpeyy IL EL’ 900 20 ovo ozo 1z0 @OURUEA % yo a0'0- 61'0- Le0- 200 ze'0- ge0- —BE0- zs0- €L'0- {seISNYIUS, v0 610- ey0- @s'0- Bh o- eLo- ero 020 £0'0- 90°0- soyebysenuy pa0- Lv'0- ez0- —es'0- zo 610 620- —bS'0- 810 920 ve6ua|feuo seo = be ez0- —8z0 0z'0 20°0 9z0- —0s"0- gr0- — gv'0- sedjeH1 soo oro sz0- 200 avo 80 260 020 6z'0- —ev0- syenpiaipu zt 960 oro- = £€°0- boro 600 200-200 seo sz0 JeUUojoH, £00 = Zb0- zeo- vEO- zV0 910 St0- —€0°0- zvo e250 sanaiuoy 90°0 00"0~ Zo vZ0 £9°0 sro so'0- 920 soo 060 ysyeho7, g0'0- 400 bho 390 Wwo- _2a0- 100 20 810 00 seyewareed 185 113HH weil ye'0 §—20°0 200 60°0 60°0 tho Aouepunpeyy fioLoot =z" zro ¥2'0 610 ozo BOURHEA % 290 p90 vo'0- = b0'0- 480 80°0- Zi0- —Bz'0- 08'0 420 sseusnonue}su0g szo 09° 630 60 o9'0- —eL'0- vio £0'0- 60- — £0'0- sseusiqeoeiiy 10 290 08°0- 1s'0- z0- —EE'0- sv s0°0 Se'0- — Er'0- —--adueyedx3 0} sseuuedo 00 86-80 9V0 60°0- ato 80'0- to0- — 98'0- ovo- = Ze0- uoisienenx3 sso 60 50 oe'0 120 sx0 120 seo 6z0- = ev 0- uuisjnouney 185 Urid O3N “4909 “uo 14209 a) or) sue 4909, “0109 “y209, “09 aiqenen sreUEA PereueA 22}8UEA 912A see, jeoJuourg WS Jeojuoueg uy jeojuouea pag Jeo}uoueg puz eo1uoURD 3S} ‘sayeie, jeo1UOURD Bulpuodsa109 Way. pue Sa|qeueA Y-ld OJN PUR |LAHY UeeMjeg SalouepUNpaY pure ‘2oueleA Jo S}UadIEg ‘SUONRIE110D |BN1UOURD ‘S}UB!91JJ90D |BO]UOULD pez!psepueys ‘SUONE|A110D ‘SISLJ eaavl 232canonical variate from the NEO PI-R set was composed of Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and Neuroticism. Taken as a pair, these variates suggest that a combination of moderate characteristics of Loyalist (.47), few characteristics of Investigator (~.42), few characteristics of Reformer (-.40), and few characteristics of Achiever (~.32) is associated with high levels of Agreeableness (.89). low levels of Openness to Experience (-.80), and moderate levels of Neuroticism (.54), Next, the fourth canonical variate is .12 for the first set of variables and .22 for the second set of variables. In other words, 12% is the variance accounted for by the NEO PER variables on the fourth canonical variate, and 22% is the variance ac- counted for by the RHETI variables on the fourth canonical variate. With regard to redun- dancy, the fourth RHETI variate accounts for 3% of the variance in the NEO PI-R variables, and the fourth NEO PI-R variate accounts for 6% of the variance in the RHETI variables. ‘The fifth canonical correlation was .26 (.24 adjusted), representing 7% overlapping vari- ance for the fifth canonical variate. The variables in the RHETI set that were correlated with the fifth canonical variate were Reformer, Helper, negative of Challenger, and Enthu- siast. Among the NEO PI-R variables, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience correlated with the fifth canonical variable. The fifth canonical variate indicates those with strong characteristics of Reformer (1.21), strong characteristics of Helper (.85), few characteristics of Challenger (-.84), and moderate characteristics of Enthusiast (.41) are associated with high levels of Conscientiousness (.67), high levels of Neuroticism (.55), and high levels of Openness to Experience (.51). The fifth canonical variate is .24, for the first set of variables, and .06, for the second set of variables. In other words, 24% is the variance accounted for by the NEO PI-R variables on the fifth canonical variate, and 6% is the vari- ance accounted for by the RHETI variables on the fifth canonical variate. Together, the five canonical variates account for 100% of the variance in the NEO PLR set and 79% of the variance in the RHETI set. With regard to redundancy, the fifth RHETI variate accounts for 2% of the variance in the NEO PI-R variables, and the fifth NEO PI-R variate accounts for < 1% of the variance in the RHETI variables. DISCUSSION Knowledge about the psychometric soundness of personality instruments is fundamental to accurate assessment. Without such information, there can be no meaningful assessment of personality. This study supported the experimental use of the RHETI. It is generally considered to be undesirable to have ipsative scales because the scale affects the psycho- metrics estimated; however, there are ipsative scales that are fairly popular in the literature (i.e. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). Although the RHETI scales are not as effective due to their ipsative nature, it was desirable to have es- timates of score reliability and validity because of potential clinical and heuristic value. Reliability coefficients, as measured by internal consistency analysis, have alpha coefti- cients high enough (Nunnally, 1978; i.e. above .70) to allow inferences of score reliability on six of the nine scales. Ideally, scores from all nine types should have resulted in internal consistency estimates of .70 or greater. One possible reason for the scores on the Achiever, Investigator, and Loyalist types to have limited reliability estimates is the ipsative nature of the items. Thus, when participants score high on one scale, it forces scores on another scale to lower. This may have a different meaning between participants, making it difficult to know if scores ona scale were low merely due to having high scores on another scale. The correlational analysis indicated that the scores on all the RHETI types are related to several of the scores on factors of the NEO PI-R. The majority of the results of the correla- tional analysis appear to make sense. Furthermore, an analysis of the findings and their associated relationships indicate that the RHETI type descriptions have meaning in terms of the NEO PI-R. For example, RHETI Type 1 (Reformer) is significantly negatively related to Neuroticism and significantly positively related to Conscientiousness. The Reformer is Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development Jonuaty 2004 ¢ Volume 36. 233principled and idealistic, which are similar characteristics to Conscientiousness (scrupu- lous and well organized) but unlike Neuroticism (impulsive and hostile). As with reliability, the ipsative nature of the RHETI may distort some of the findings from the correlational analysis. For example, it would make sense that RHETI Type 2 (Helper) would significantly correlate with Agreeableness, not just Extraversion. The ipsative nature of the RHETI may have affected this result. The findings generally confirm the expectation that the scores from the RHETI types and the scores from the NEO PI-R factors would be related, support- ing construct validity. The canonical correlational analysis between the sets of variables (RHETI and NEO PI-R) show all five canonical variates account for significant relationships between the two sets of variables. Therefore, all five canonical variates were interpreted. Each of the five canonical correlations represents a substantial relationship between pairs of canonical variates. How- ever, interpretation of the fifth canonical correlation and its corresponding pair of canonical variates is limited because it represents only 6% of the overlapping variance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Thompson, 1991) and may have little practical utilitarian relationship. Each of the five pairs of canonical variates is discussed in turn. An interpretation of the first pair of canonical variates indicates a relationship between the RHETI and the NEO PLR. That is, the principled, idealistic type coupled with a lack of productivity go with characteristics of being scrupulous coupled with a lack of activity and a lack of actions. This result is partially consistent with the expected hypothesized relationships because it was expected that there would be a relationship between the Reformer and Conscientious- ness as well as between Enthusiast and Extraversion. However, the relationship to the low level of Openness to Experience may be a result of the ipsative nature of the RHETI. The second pair of canonical variates indicates the intense, cerebral type, coupled with intro- spection and a lack of productivity goes with characteristics of being imaginative and intel- lectually curious. This result is also partially consistent with the expected hypothesized relationships because it was expected that there would be a relationship between Investiga- tor and Openness to Experience. However, the low level of Enthusiast in relation to Open- ness to Experience may be a result of ipsatization. Next, the third pair of canonical variates indicates that those who are not easygoing but have characteristics of being committed, security oriented, and introspective go with characteristics of being self-conscious, impul- sive, distrustful, and noncompliant coupled with being scrupulous and diligent. This result is consistent with the expected hypothesized relationships. It was expected that those low in Peacemaker would also be low in Agreeableness and high in Neuroticism. The fourth pair of canonical variates indicates that those who are committed and security oriented coupled with those who are less cerebral, more pragmatic, and less adaptable go with characteristics of trust and reserve coupled with a lack of imagination and modest amounts of anxiety and vulnerability. The relationship between the Loyalist and Agreeableness was expected; how- ever, the remaining results may be related to the ipsative nature of the RHETI because scores are relative and not absolute on the RHETI scales, Finally, the fifth pair of canonical variates indicates a relationship between the RHETI and the NEO PI-R. That is, the principled, ideal- istic, caring, interpersonal type coupled with a conforming but busy, productive type goes with characteristics of being scrupulous, well organized, vulnerable, and intellectually curi- ous. This result supports the hypothesized relationships in that it was expected that there would be a relationship between Helper and Conscientiousness as well as Enthusiast and Openness to Experience. These relationships appear to be logically related and reasonable in terms of describing the relationship between the underlying constructs of the RHETI and the NEO PI-R, thereby providing further support for the construct validity of the scores on the RHETI. Next, the variance of each of the canonical variates extracted from its own set of variables differed, The five canonical variates accounted for 100% of the total variance in the NEO PI-R set, which was expected because there are five NEO PI-R factors. While still substan- 234 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling ond Development & January 2004 @ Voume36tial, the five canonical variates accounted for 79% of the variance in the RHETI set. The first four canonical variates of the RHETI substantially contributed to the total variance, indicating that the fifth canonical variate may not be interpretable. This is consistent with the findings that the fifth canonical correlation only accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting the NEO PI-R variables. Furthermore, the total redundancy indicated comparable results. The five RHETI vari- ates accounted for 34% of the variance in the NEO PR variables, and the five NEO PI-R variates accounted for 32% of the variance in the RHETI variables. Of the five canonical RHETI variates, only the first three (.11, 09, and .09, respectively) contributed substan- tially to the total redundancy, making it clear that a three-component theory may be quite adequate for these data. Furthermore, of the five canonical NEO PL-R variates, only the first two (.12 and .10, respectively) contributed substantially to the total redundancy, in- dicating a possible two-component theory may be adequate. These results indicate that the canonical variates from the NEO PI-R strongly correlate with their own variables but have a limited relationship to the RHETI variables, thereby providing mixed support for the construct validity of the scores on the RHETI, While caution is warranted in interpret- ing most redundancies (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), and the statistical package used pro- vides a lower bound estimate of overlap, the reason it is being interpreted is to aid in un- derstanding the overlap of the underlying constructs of the RHETI and the NEO PIR. Finally, while the five NEO PI-R variates account for 32% of the variance in the RHETI variables, which is generally considered reliable, 68% of the variance is unaccounted for. Although these instruments do share a substantial amount of their reliable variance in common, one does not know if this unaccounted for variance is meaningful, if it is unique or an error. According to the theory of the RHETI, one should expect this unaccounted for variance. Although one does not know what this is, it can be argued that the unac- counted for variance may be valuable to look at in the future, These results provide some of the supportive evidence for the reliability and construct validity of the scores on the RHETI. Some relationship does exist between the RHETI and the NEO PI-R. While it is premature to conclude that the RHETI is a sound tool for assessing personality, these data support the effort for doing further investigation of this measure to warrant its use in lieu of measures such as the NEO PI-R. For example, an analysis studying the incremental validity of the scores on the RHETI, where the predictive validity of the scales can be evaluated over and above the NEO PI-R, would be useful in adding to the understanding of the RHETL Results of this study suggest more investigation is needed to assess the psychometrics of the scores on the RHETI. While laypersons and counseling professionals will most likely continue to make use of the RHETI for self-understanding and gaining information about clients, impli- cations from the results of this study should be considered. We caution that until further evalu- ation of the RHETI is complete, counseling professionals should not rely solely on the RHE but rather use it in conjunction with another, more established measure. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Although attempts were made to obtain a diverse sample of the population, the homogeneity of the sample may be a limitation regarding external validity. A majority of the participants were women (73%). This may imply that the results obtained from this investigation may be more applicable to women than to men. Furthermore, only 12% of the participants were non- Caucasian. With the majority of the participants Caucasian, the interpretation in relation to racial differences may be more limited. Although the sample size of 287 was adequate for the purposes of this investigation, a larger sample size would be beneficial in detecting small effects. Finally, because the RHETI is ipsative in nature, it creates a number of statistical issues. For example, ipsatization imposes a very strict statistical format on how a scale correlates to both itself and other instruments. This may be a source of lowered reliability and validity estimates. ‘Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development ¢ Janyory 2004 Volume 36 235REFERENCES Botwin, M. (1995). Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. In J. Conoley & J. Impera (Eds.), The 12th mental measurements yearbook (pp. 862-863). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Brugha, C. (1998). The structure of development decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 104, 77-92. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. Costa, P. T., Jr, Busch, C. M., Zonderman, A. B., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Correlations of MMPI factor scales with measures of the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 640-650. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five- factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysneck’s P-E-N system: Three- and five- factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 308-317 Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. Cusack, G. (1996). Discovering the Enneagram. Montessori Life, 8, 34-35. Edwards, A. C. (1991). Clipping the wings off the Enneagram: A study in people's perceptions of a ninefold personality typology. Social Behavior and Personality, 19, 11-20. Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor mode! of personality. Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 2/, 303-307. Gamard, W. S. (1986). Interrater reliability and validity judgments of Enneagram personality types. Dissertation Abstracts International-B, 47, 3152. Gottfredson, G. D.,. Jones. E. M., & Holland, J. L. (1993). Personality and vocational interests: The rela- tion of Holland's six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of Coun- seling Psychology, 40, 518-524 Juni, S. (1995). Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. In J. Conoley & J. Impera (Eds.), The 12th mental measurements yearbook (pp. 863-868). Lincoln, NE: Buros. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991), Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well- being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232. McCrae, R. R.. & Costa, PT, Jr. (1992), Discriminant validity of NEO-PI-R facet scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 229-237. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-316. McCrae. R. R., Costa, P. T, Jr. & Piedmont, R. L. (1993), Folk concepts, natural language, and psycho- logical constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the five-factor mode. Journal of Personality, 61, 1-26. Muten, £. (1991). Self-reports, spouse ratings, and psychophysiological assessment in a behavioral medicine program: An application of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 449-464, Newgent, R. A., Gueulette, C, M., Newman, I., & Parr, P. E. (2000, December). An investigation of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator constructs of personality as a unique estimate of personal- ity when considering the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and the five-factor model of person- ality. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Educational Research and the National Academy for Educational Research, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R, (1983), Power analysis. In I. Newman & C. Benz (Eds.), Multiple linear regression: Readings, exams, problems, syllabus (pp. 209-219). Akron, OH: The University of Akron. Newman, [., Fraas, J., & Laux, J. (2000). A three-step adjustment procedure for Type I error rates. Jour- nal of Research in Education, 10, 7-12 Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: MeGraw-Hill. Palmer, H. (1988). The Enneagram: Understanding yourself and others in your life. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Perry, A. K. (1996). Leading with skill and soul: Using the Enneagram and the Brent Personality Assess- ment System. Dissertation Abstracts International-B, 52, 7768. Pinder, M. (2000). Spirituality and career development: Using the Enneagram, In N. Peterson & R. Gonzalez (Eds.), Career counseling models for diverse populations: Hands-on applications by prac- Litioners (pp. 150-161). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 236 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development + January 2004 # Volime36Riso, D. R. (1995). Discovering your personality type. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1996). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for self-discovery, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999a). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (Version 2.5) offprint. New York: The Enneagram Institute Riso, D.R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The wisidom of the Enneagram: The complete guide to psychological and spiritual growth for the nine personality types. New York: Bantam. Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (2000). Understanding the Enneagram: The practical guide to personality types (Rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. SAS Institute Inc. (1989). The CANCORR procedure. In SAS Institute Inc. (Ed.), SAS/STAT user & guide (Ath ed., Vol. 1, pp. 367-385). Cary, NC: Author. Sharp, P. M. (1994), A factor analytic study of three Enneagram personality inventories and the Voca- tional Preference Inventory (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1994). Dissertation Ab- stracts International-A, 55, 1228. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ‘Thompson, B. (1991). A primer on the logic and use of canonical correlation analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24, 80-95. ‘Thrasher, P. (1994). The Enneagram: Movement between types, an inventory, and a criterion measure. Dissertation Abstracts International-B, 55, 1217. Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P.T., Ir, & MeCrae, R. R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI-2 personality psychopathology five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and NEO-PI-R. Psychological Assessment, 7, 508-516. Twomey, J. A. (1995). The Enneagram and Jungian archetypal images. Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional-B, 57, 1490. Wagner, J. P. (1981). A descriptive, reliability, and validity study of the Enneagram personality typology (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International- A, 41, 4664. Wyman, P, (1998). Integrating the MBTI and the Enneagram in psychotherapy: The core self and the defense system. Journal of Psychological Type, 46, 28-40. Zinkle, T. E, (1974). A pilot study toward the validation of the Sufi personality typology. Dissertation Abstracts International-B, 35, 2418. Measurement and Evakiction in Counteing and Development & January 2004 ¢ Volume 3 237Copyright of Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development is the property of American Counseling Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.