| |
The Essence of the MMPTM
|
|
The MMP is a standardized measure of human performance. It assesses current work behavior with capability to elevate employee performance to a higher level. It comprises multiple scales that are well founded in psychological conceptualization and has demonstrated statistical validity. Different report options are suited for a variety of workplace applications.
Dr. Reuven Bar-On and Dr. Carina Fiedeldey-Van Dijk co-developed the current and fourth edition of the MMP, with derivatives forthcoming.
Read the overview ≻
|
|
|
“Our compass of performance factors shows the most direct route towards success.”
|
|
| |
|
|
|
“Our compass of performance factors shows the most direct route towards success.”
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The MMPTM Difference
|
|
|
The MMP is unparalleled in how it assesses human performance. The rating of its 120 short statements succinctly capture current work behavior. Results are operationally defined and structured into 18 core factors, grouped into five categories of the Physical, Cognitive, Personal, Social, and Inspirational. The MMP also reports on 5 ring factors that function as performance gauges. Together they cover a comprehensive performance spectrum that can be further developed for individual and organizational benefit.
|
|
Scored in a novel way
|
+ |
|
MMP responses are scored in a novel way that sets it apart from other assessments. It addresses both natural differences in participants' style of scaled responding, and tendencies to skew their responses towards achieving desirable results. There is little chance of sugar-coating MMP results despite using a formative response scale, enhancing fair comparison between individuals or groups. You can further enrich individual MMP results by adding how close supervisors/managers, colleagues/peers, direct reports, and others collectively perceive individuals. For this purpose, colleagues will complete the MMP-360TM complement.
|
|
| |
|
Benchmarks, T scores and norms
|
+ |
|
Scored MMP results are reported graphically and descriptively. Interpretation is guided by two benchmarks based on standardized T scores. The first uses a mean score of 50 and standard deviation of 10 as the normative population baseline to directly compare individual or group results against. The second benchmark is set at individuals' current level of performance when all is considered, helping determine personal performance strength around it. General, specialized, or customized organizational options for norms add scoring precision when you use the MMP for recruitment and development.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The Scales of the MMPTM
|
|
Physical
|
Cognitive
|
Personal
|
Social
|
Inspirational
|
Leadership
|
Industriousness
|
Productiveness
|
Burnout Avoidance
|
Coachability
|
|
|
Physical
|
Cognitive
|
Personal
|
Social
|
Inspirational
|
|
Leadership
|
Industriousness
|
Productiveness
|
Burnout Avoidance
|
Coachability
|
|
|
Physical
|
Cognitive
|
Personal
|
Social
|
Inspirational
|
|
Leadership
|
Industri-ousness
|
Producti-veness
|
Burnout Avoidance
|
Coachability
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Validity and Reliability
|
|
|
We statistically validated the MMP on a large normative population (n=3,039). This dataset contains diverse and balanced characteristics, and we removed participants with outlier and systematic responses already. We considered fair representation in analysis by including gender, age, citizenship, educational level, occupation, work experience, and managerial position. These characteristics enabled us to offer you specialized norms to score and generate reports with targeted precision. Additional participant data on special work circumstances - meeting work expectations, job satisfaction, disabilities, health issues, occupational stress, and potential risk or danger - helped us curb possible systematic bias and uphold fairness in testing.
|
|
The devil is in the details
|
+ |
|
During MMP development, we paid attention to small psychometric details to enhance the assessment's integrity. We equally distanced the meaning of response scale options by using both numbers and text. We defined MMP scales of varying breadth and depth, and to match we allocated a different number of statements to each scale to contribute equally. In calculating raw scale scores, we subject the statements to a Z-score conversion and cube-root transformation process first to address systematic bias. The current edition of the MMP is administered via secure login to the MMP portal, flexibly accessible from your desktop, laptop, tablet, or mobile-phone browser.
|
|
| |
|
Standardized score interpretation
|
+ |
|
We applied psychometric parameters of the normative population to scale raw scores, which produces the T scores presented in MMP reports. Standardized MMP results are read under proven characteristics of the normal bell curve. Approximately 95% of individuals perform between 30-70 T-score points. Where percentiles merely provide an individual's rank-order, T scores offer actual expressions of performance needed for realistic decision-making.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
History and Development
|
Dr. Reuven Bar-On from Bar-On Test Developers started his work on human performance and its impact on well-being in the mid-1980s. This work culminated in the MMP, which aims to capture the whole person to broadly assess the degree to which individuals perform effectively. Dr. Bar-On developed three experimental versions of the MMP over 6 years. He co-developed the current fourth edition with Dr. Carina Fiedeldey-Van Dijk from ePsy Consultancy. Both developers have a strong background in psychology, psychometrics and test construction.
|
|
|
Legal protection
|
+ |
|
All versions of the MMP are protected under U.S. Copyright laws.
The current and fourth version of the MMP is registered in the U.S. Copyright office as the "Bar-On Multifactor Measure of Performance™ (Bar-On MMP™) © 2021 Into Performance ULC."
|
|
| |
|
Testing standards compliant
|
+ |
|
The MMP meets professional testing standards described in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing jointly published by the American Psychological Association (APA), American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). The co-developers also followed the testing guidelines of the International Test Commission (ITC). The MMP meets the regulatory standards in the following countries:
- Canada (Canadian Psychological Association (CPA))
- Britain (British Psychological Society (BPS) and the Health Professions Council (HPC))
- Australia (Australian Psychological Society (APS) and Australian Psychological Accreditation Counsel (APAC))
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Psychometric Soundness
|
|
|
The MMP is suitable for individuals from 16-80 years of age. MMP statements are styled to be conversational and positive. Readability lies at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 6.7. This means those educated at school grades 6-7 can easily comprehend the statements. Text aimed at a general public audience should be around grades 8-10. Participants use a self-reported, 9-point rating scale to indicate how the MMP statements apply to them personally. This scale is more refined than the customary Likert scale format. It produces interval-level responses that enable sophisticated statistical validation.
|
|
Appropriate use
|
+ |
|
The MMP can be used in the workplace and elsewhere. It has a broad range of applications tied to specific business functions and operational needs. We offer accreditation modules and workshops to facilitate learning about the Bar-On model of human performance and its science, the MMP structure, dashboard use and reporting, and how to interpret and debrief MMP results with end-users. Alternatively, we can help you connect with an accredited Qualified Specialist to supervise your use of the MMP.
|
|
| |
|
Integrity of results
|
+ |
|
The MMP has two built-in indices designed to evaluate the integrity of results. They add confidence in using the assessment to make better selection and development decisions:
- Reliability index - indicates how individuals described themselves in ways that match. Large variations in this might suggest that how they view themselves can change.
- Validity index - suggests how genuine individuals were when they described themselves. It indicates if they tended to over-state or under-state themselves and their strengths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Technical Details and Statistics
|
We subjected the MMP statements to a full scrutiny of statistical validation analysis. They do not necessitate reverse scoring, and we found all to have factor loadings above 0.40 after applying Varimax rotation. Pearson's absolute product-moment correlation coefficients between the core scales range from 0.00-0.47. The descriptive statistics of the scales - mean, SD, minimum and maximum values, standard error of the mean, skewness and kurtosis - fall within statistically acceptable ranges as another condition for having retained statements for the current MMP edition. The average internal consistency of the cube-root, Z-scored core scales was 0.68 (measured by Cronbach's coefficient alpha). More details are shared during MMP accreditation, in academic publications, and in the MMP manual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Talk to Us Directly
|
|
For a more detailed description of the development, norming and validation of the MMP, you can also contact the test developers directly and request a conference call using this form.
You may also use the form if you would like the test developers to join your team on a particular project as advisors or consultants, would like them to present MMP information to an audience, and/or for other services.
|
|
|
|
For a more detailed description of the development, norming and validation of the MMP, you can also contact the test developers directly and request a conference call using this form.
You may also use the form if you would like the test developers to join your team on a particular project as advisors or consultants, would like them to present MMP information to an audience, and/or for other services.
|
|
|
|
| |
Let's Collaborate
|
|
The MMP generates data, and lots of it. Whether you are a researcher, writer, or academic, your quest for answers may well lie in using MMP data. This, by itself, is a fascinating endeavor.
Let's be stronger together ≻
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
