Talk:DISC assessment

Prankster (Emails are faster than text)?

It seems like some Spanish prankster has added the Danish footballer Michael Laudrup as co-authour of DiSC. It may be another "Michael Laudrup" but it does seem very fishy. MSNielsen, DK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.113.102 (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More Discussion?

The "Method" section is inconsistent in terms. The top for bullet points are different from the last four.

What are the original terms? Dominance, Inducement, Submission, Compliance OR Drive, Influence, Steadiness, Compliance Erolfox (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The first four were the original named by William Moulton Marston. The other four were the "other originals" named by Geier and Downey. Walter Clarke called them Aggressive, Social, Stable or Avoidant.

My name is Ana Lorena Eskildsen and I was trained by CARLSON LEARNING COMPANY in 1992. At the time, they were fresh out of the transition from Performax to Carlson Learning Systems so all those details were top of mind.

I worked as a consultant with them until 2000 when they sold off to Inscape Publishing. 190.34.20.229 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's Dominance, Inducement, Submission, Compliance. I checked the original source. Lyonskvn (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I'd Like to see some more discussion on this, has anyone got any criticism or references they can add to the page? - MattJ

I added a link to Learning styles. There is a good critique of personality assessments there.JeremiahJohnson (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.128.253.254 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

---

After reviewing the article and discussions about it, I would like to remove the information regarding The Success Insights^® Wheel and PIAV on behalf of Target Training International (TTI), the company which owns the rights to the products. TTI has not posted the information on the products, or any other content in the history of the article, and is no way in an attempt to obtain free advertising or improve page ranks. However, we are taking the liberty of removing the information because we understand and respect the intent of Wikipedia to provide unbiased information that is not commercialized. At this time, no links to our sites exist within the content of the article and we urge other vendors of DISC based assessments to remove the links to their own commercial sites. --JessicaKle 15:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---

It is not correct--nor honest--to describe the DiSC as a psychometric test. A marketing ad copy writer might blithely call it that, but a serious social scientist/psychologist never would. It is not a test by strict test construction principles. A bonafide psychometric test has a stated theory with underlying concepts which can be operationalized and tested. A bonafide test can be checked for its internal validity and its credibility using a statistical package. If statistical analysis reveals a predictablity confidence for the test, then you can reasonably believe that the test does accurately reveal what it is testing for. Many genuine psychometric tests and assessments do meet these standards. Otherwise, instruments like the DiSC are really more properly considered an inventory or a questionnaire, but should not enjoy the status of being considered a psychometric test. In fact, I have read the literaure from DiSC and the company says in print that the instrument is NOT a test. They have integrity. As for marketing sharks selling products, from lotions that grow hair on bald heads to "tests" for personality assessment? Well, that's an altogether different story.

---

Research on the Inscape Publishing version of DiSC can be found at: [1]. It is important to note that there are several publishings or DISC, which with varying degrees of validity and reliability. DISC is not a test, but an assessment of behavioral preferences, based on personality and environment or situation. Test implies that there are right answers and wrong answers. There is no "right" or "best" DISC style.--JCG 02:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the third and fourth comments above I am going to change the first line to read inventory not test. My employer is sending us to a training based on this instrument and I would appreciate any further advice people have on researching this instrument.JeremiahJohnson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup {{advert}} added

This article has turned into a major commercial for DISC distributors and companies selling DISC and DISC type products. The Success Insights Wheel is a product by TTI and is not the DISC as Marston designed it. It is an adaptation developed for commercial use and to be sold by distributors. Reference to it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The PIAV is not DISC and has nothing to do with DISC, other than it is an assessment sold by TTI (free advertising). The references in this article are to commercial sites seeking to improve their Google Pageranks. Footnote #1 is to a commercial site selling a DISC product and it appears this article references commercial copy to footnote, rather than research. You also have someone putting in a plug for their version of the insight wheel, by attaching a link to their PDF. Please take down or rewrite this article to make it accurate. --John--JCG 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Wow, a few companies are really being successful using this page to linkspam to their sites. Much cheaper than spending all that money on Google Adword advertising! Needs lots of cleanups. Is this DISC stuff hocum or for real? Richard W.M. Jones 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

DiSC is a real assesment (sp) and yes this is a for-real thing. In fact I just came back from a seminar over this and was looking for a website that offered these assesments for free. So I came here first.

Wow, I sure wish I lacked morals and felt that I could advertise my wares on this site!

Jeff

Now cleaned up. 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

DiSC is for real, but the vendors are in a very competitive business, and compete for Google placing continuously.

So the links there now, 1 Nov 06, are nothing but Google Boosters. The sites involved, intern*lch*nge.c*m and onlined*scpr*file.c*m are purely commercial sites making money from sales. Can links to these sites be banned permanently from Wikipedia?

Brian

Looks like we can now add d*scinsights.c*m to that list of abusing commercial sites.

Reference 1 in this article "^ History of DISC Personality Profile Assessment - Retrieved August 8, 2007" is a commercial site selling DiSC commercially as well, they are: www.y*kainc.com --Internalchange 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 17:30 13 August 2007 John

---

For those that are curious if DISC is a "thing", I've always equated it with the four temperaments. That's a good place to start. It has a huge history and only recently has evolved into DISC, at least that's my perception of it (I'm not a psychologist nor a historian). My experience is reading Personality Plus by Florence Littauer and immediately after completing it, a friend exposed me to a book about Disc profiles. I didn't read it but they appear to be the same topic, just different terms. IMHO. Thisisfutile (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Some Other Thoughts

DiSC as a personality assessment of a person will change for a person over time or for a different environment. DiSC assessments might possibly be done on another person. A person's spouse or family might assess a person totally different than how their co-workers. In Contrast, a Myer-Briggs assessment is your innate personality preferences. You might have to be different for the environment, but Myer-Briggs assess your true preference. Myer-Birggs assessments only have minimal (if any) change over time/environment. DiSC can be very helpful for companies and employee relations. Some companies/enviroments might be such that seniority in the workplace drives many to becoming a D personality , and this might drive a bad cycle of higher turnover amoung junior personnel. I worked one industry/company and they highy used some DiSC training to try ahd help mitigate this. 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Both DISC, and Myers Briggs, and indeed almost any other personality measurement instrument, can in theory be used to assess another person as well as for self-assessment. That is just as true for Myers Briggs as for DISC. The very important point, however, is the question as to whether assessments of other people are of any value. Nobody knows you, and your thoughts and feelings, anywhere near as well as you know yourself, even your immediate family. To stand any chance at all of having any real confidence in an assessment of another person, you have to know them very well indeed. Therefore the only meaningful way, normally, of using personality instruments is to use them in 'self-assessment' mode. I should add that the more sophisticated instruments (the sort that get 5 star ratings from the British Psychological Society) have in-built 'detectors of untruth' e.g. the 'social desirability index' and such like. These measures provide some protection against deliberate or unintentional falsification.Snookerrobot (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DiSC versus DISC

Typically, I see it spelled with a lowercased "i". I think this is the way it is supposed to be.

Also, the last paragraph about the pastor doesn't seem to be all that notable. Overall, this article could benefit from some sourcing. I shall see what I can do. CuTop 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe DISC (with a capital I) is the generic name for the methodology behind it, while DiSC (with a small i) is a brand name for a company's distribution of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I performed some research and you appear to be correct. I have self-reverted. CuTop 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The small "i" in DiSC is the registered trademark of Inscape Publishing, not a distributor. They are the largest publishing of DISC assessments, so DiSC is a version of DISC.--Internalchange 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep! That's the one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

With so many flaws in this system why is dissidence not included in this wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.250 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

More Accurate Mathematic Terminology (Two Dimensions)

Having taken this assessment repeatedly over the years at my workplace, I have become fairly familiar with it, albeit no expert. In the description of the graph the author uses mathematic terminology ascribing four dimension to the graph where the results are plotted. This seems incorrect or inaccurate. Better wording would say two dimensions instead of four dimensions. The Extrovertive and Introvertive are two ends of one axis (first diminsion). The Task-orientate and Social-oriented are two ends of a second axis (second dimension). Dominance, Infuence, Steadiness and Concientiousnew are just the target (range) of a mathematical transform (rotation) of a point from two dimensions to a different coordinate system of two dimensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.95.150.205 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems this system was developed by people who don't really understand what the word "dimension" means. Not sure how to handle that in this article. Vectro (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Validity?

Are there any studies concerning the validity of this method? I have made a search in PsycInfo, with no results except for two advertisements. So my conclusion would be that the test is only valid as a way of making money. Maybe I'm not right, but then you have to provide arguments. Lebatsnok (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you go online, most of what you're going to find about DISC is about Inscape's "DiSC" product. Your better bet is probably to go to a library and look around there in books, since the method was developed during the first half of the 20th century. Might be worth a look that way. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marston's DISC is a model or theory not a not an assessment, profile, or test. Marston never trademarked or copyrighted DISC. There are many versions of DISC with varying degrees of validity and reliability. Inscape Publishing is the largest publisher of DISC profile and theirs is referred to as DiSC^®. DiSC has been well research and validated. Their research report can be seen at DiSC research. Other publishers should be able to provide their validity if contacted.--JCG 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that DISC, or for that matter Myers Briggs Type Indicator, is scientifically valid. Anyone who has read Professor Raymond Cattell's book 'The Scientific Analysis of Personality' will know what I mean by 'scientific validity' for a psychometric instrument. Cattell's book describes the years of painstaking research and statistical validation that went into the development of a psychometric tool called the 16PF. The 16PF, and any other psychometric tool that is of any real value, will have been statistically validated and approved by the British Psychological Society (BPS), or other equivalent body for another nation. There are numerous so-called 'psychometric tests' around, that are sold by organisations whose prime interest is making money out of the sale of tests, rather than making a serious contribution to the science of psychology. Many of these so-called tests are shamelessly peddled to gullible employers, recruitment consultants and career counsellors.Snookerrobot (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to what I've said above, I would say that although at least one version of DISC is BPS registered, DISC has at least one highly significant drawback. DISC does not measure one particular personality factor that has been conclusively shown in other works (Cattell, Eysenck, Sinclair) to be a major contributing factor to overall human behaviour and functioning, including the workplace. This factor is variously described as 'neuroticism' or 'emotional instability' (Eysenck), 'ego strength' (Cattell), 'sensitivity vs. confidence' (one of the so-called Big 5 personality factors as described by Sinclair and others), or 'state anxiety'. A website entitled 'Businessballs' includes a very good overview of the main personality theories and correspondences between them.Snookerrobot (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be some real validity testing done. Companies are using these types of assessments in the hiring and firing processes. I believe they are opening themselves to lawsuits. The use of cult-like brainwashing techniques is becoming very bad in the work place. I just ran two non-scientific experiments: 1 - I chose random answers on a DISC test and the results came back as amazing accurate. About as accurate as a tarot card reader. 2 - I found a website listing real fortune cookie sayings. The fortune cookies had the same high degree of accuracy as the DISC assessment. Conclusions: A - I would think that self-assessment in these tests are not going to give you accurate results. Maybe having a dozen co-workers rate each other would be more accurate? B. The results are computer generated canned-answers. C. 24 questions cannot possibly determine anyone's personality. IE: On the few truthful answers I picked I often wanted to pick both highest and lowest depending on the circumstance. This is not allowed. I took one of those cult Dianetics tests once as a lark and had the same problem of wanting to answer "it depends" to many questions. (And then I was ridiculed and insulted for five minutes afterward - which is one key aspect of running successful cults. As I walked out the door I was told, "I'm not done yet." True. But I am.) This reminds me of PSI World Seminars techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.247.77 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DiSC itself isn't copyrighted. Marston didn't protect it. So there is a bifurcation between discussion of the MODEL and any TEST which purports to show what someone's profile is. So, you can't validate DISC as a CONCEPT without a test to do so. DiSC by Inscape, I think, is the largest instrument used. They have SIGNIFICANT validity testing, and have published it, in a book, Everything Disc Manual, available at Amazon. It's approachable, but has pretty good academic cred. It uses Cronbach's Alpha, and other scientifically respected metrics to explain its validity. I was convinced.

Also, for the record, all the discussion of "personality" suggests that the writers don't understand this branch of psychology. Personality is a specific thing, with some instruments which are accepted as describing it. (But again, every personality instrument assumes some model against which one's personality is measured. Different model, different test, different measure, different result from the same person. DISC does NOT measure personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:602:C76B:1D8E:200E:FED6:4FB2 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to refer many of you to the Everything DiSC Manual, published by Wiley & Sons. Of course, the reliability and validity studies there only apply to their Everything DiSC profiles. Note that Inscape Publishing was purchased by John Wiley & Sons. Xteenann (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My previous employer (Well known multinational) had their HR department pushing this assessment. Results were as much about current workplace roles and what people needed to be, as it was about assessing different personalities and approaches to work/life. Allowances were made for people who didn't fit neatly on an X-Y axis for the final personality result. (Shading covered off an additional Z axis, since I scored strongly in areas not normally considered standard for my "type"). I feel that as a descriptive model it works well - like others it relied on common definitions to language used for questions - working in data science changes the way I approach decision making and thus skews the answers I give accordingly because the same questions given to a plumber are decoded very differently to someone who works with data as a full time job. As it's an assessment of fit to descriptive model, instead of a test, there's really no measure to validate it beyond how useful people find it as a perceptual lense through which to view others. --Cloudbasedchris (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

References

APSWI Outline

My partner and I are working to extend/edit this article. We noticed that there is not much information regarding the development of the DISC from Marston's original theory. The article also lacks information about each dimension of DISC and what it reveals about a person's personality/behavior patterns. We also feel that it is necessary to share professional opinions regarding the validity and reliability, as well as studies applying DISC assessment to the workplace. We planning on writing our article in the following format:

I. Intro

a.DISC: Assessment of four aspects of personality (Dominance, Inducement, Submission, Compliance)--Defines subject by one of the four aspects, First developed by William Marston (link), then Walter Clarke (link) then John Geier (link), Most often used in workplace/business management

II. History

a. William Marston--Published idea/model in book “DISC, Integrative Psychology” (1931) (link), Did not originally come up with assessment, Original DISC concepts/theory b. Walter Clarke--Came up with assessment (by accident), Developed a better version later, Self DISCription c. John Greier--Created a personality profile based on the works of Marston and Clarke, Personal Profile System, Has since been simplified to create a better, more concise exam

III. Most-Used types of DiSC Assessment

a. Everything DiSC Workplace--Focuses on behavior in the workplace, Offers insight to work habits based on personality traits, Assists in hiring process b. Everything DiSC Management--Focuses on management potential and ability, Offers insight to management styles from a personality perspective c. DiSC Classic--Self-report, Self-scored, Used for career development, communication, conflict managing, etc., 28 questions (Thinking about discussing DISC in broader sense in order to avoid bias towards company)

IV. Dimensions of DISC

a. Dominance--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns b. Influence--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns c. Steadiness--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns d. Conscientiousness--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns

V. Studies of DiSC

Content included: Validity--Inscape, the company that makes it, says is valid, Reviewers say otherwise--Incomplete study. Reliability--Inscape says is reliable, Reviewers say otherwise--Bias towards one race/Socioeconomic Satus

=== Links/sources we plan on using ===
Please Note that the links to www.*discprofile.com are to a commercial site that is a distributor for and seller of Inscape Publishing DiSC profiles and NOT a to Inscape Publishing, the publisher of the DiSC, which has created and researched their version of the DISC Assessment. By referencing this online distributor's store, rather than the primary reference site, www.*inscapepublishing.com there are inappropriate external links being used. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.bc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=106&sid=cb3e76df-cfa6-4cab-9681-62a894a361db%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=loh&AN=16122999
http://www.*discprofile.com/what-is-disc/history.htm
http://www.*discprofile.com/reliability-and-validity.htm
https://www.*discinsights.com/whatisdisc
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1463545&show=abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563207000763
http://sbaweb.wayne.edu/~absel/bkl/.%5Cvol33%5C33cb.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001209206602767

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kefabian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your article looks great. Your suggested additions and edits look like good contributions. Make sure to integrate your edits into the existing article sections. Nice job! EM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testaccountpy242 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed: 'Dimensions of DISC' section- copyvio.

Cf.

• http://atavas.com/staffing-service/disc-profil/
• http://www.marshallgoldsmithfeedforward.com/html/DISC.html
• http://ethostotalwellness.com/knowledge-and-resources/neurology-psychology/163-disc-personality-assessment-tool
  

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed: 'may not meet significance standard

There are many books on DISC. Here are two. Based on sufficient published reference material I removed the significance tag.

https://www.amazon.com/Dimensional-Manager-Strategies-Managing-Different/dp/157675135X/ref=sr_1_22?keywords=DISC+profile&qid=1561170927&s=gateway&sr=8-22

https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Flight-Master-Transform-Relationships-ebook/dp/B00A4GGPJK/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=DiSC+styles&qid=1561170735&s=gateway&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerdwyer (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything DISC advertising

It appears the 'Everything DISC' sellers are attempting to use the article to promote their product as 'the only' verified profile. See [Theory] section paragraph. No citations. Just text repeating the book & product name with some supposed data.

I removed the promotion but see that user 73.228.211.19 pasted it back in again. They appear to exist only to edit the article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.228.211.19

How do we get the 'Everything DISC' paragraph removed from [Theory] permanently w/o having these 'disc' anon users simply pasting the promotion back on the page? Eturk001 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The criticism section written in a way that intends to minimize, deflect, and not accurately describe criticisms.

Why is the criticism section written in a way that intends to minimize, deflect, and not accurately describe criticisms? It makes sure to include criticisms of the competency of the critics brought up in the article, immediately provides counter criticism of their criticisms, and doesn't clearly and plainly state primary criticism, that DISC has not been scientifically validated in a meaningful, just like all the other 'personality tests' used by consultants and marketers, aka Briggs-Myers.

It seems to me like this article has been very heavily edited by proponents of DISC who make a living from selling DISC training and don't want potential buyers to be aware of the criticisms and lack of scientific standing DISC has. If anyone has the time and energy, the criticism section of this article could use some work to present the actual criticisms of DISC and not the mess it currently is. 75.62.70.18 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Useful point. Criticisms ought to simply be listed w/o rebuttal. This is an encyclopedic article to suggest more reading, not a place for rebuttals or debate. At the same time, criticisms ought to be short introductions, not they're own full thesis.

Will you make the edits to remove rebuttals? Eturk001 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of this article is written more like an advertisement for a cult, rather than an objective look at this tool. I'd love to remove a lot of the rhetoric, but I fear I'd be criticized for leaning too far the other way. FredWallace18 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased sources

I added a section examining the validity of the DISC assessment. I would like to discuss in the article that both sources I mention are biased in the discussion of the DISC assessment.

"It is worth noting that both Inscape Publishing and Dr. Wendell Williams are not unbiased sources, Inscape Publishing is responsible for publishing the leading DiSC assessment, and Dr. Wendell Williams is managing director of a company that provides workplace assessments that rival DiSC."

Suggestions on how to integrate this into the article and how to improve the sentence itself would be helpful.

I would also like to point out that Dr. Wendell Williams is cited a few times in this article. A disclaimer mentioning his bias is necessary, as he is not an unbiased source commenting on the DISC, but an individual with stakes in this discussion, as his business promotes materials that are designed to be used in place of DiSC. Disclaimers on Inscape Publishing are needed as well as they are one of the companies that makes money through DiSC assessments. --Tigerfair (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Two lines in Criticism are inaccurate

After doing the research and including the test-retest reliability for the Disc model, two of the lines in the criticism section bemoaning the lack of test-retest reliability results do not make sense anymore. These lines are "This means we have no way of knowing if people give consistent answers to the questions over weeks or months." from the Dan Katz criticism, and from R. Wendell Williams criticism- "a good job performance test should... have test-retest reliability... DISC matches none of these criteria". Should these be removed? They are false information as the assessment has established test-retest reliability results. --Tigerfair (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This sort of article should't even have a "criticism" section. If the subject is best known for negative views or controversy that needs to be at the top and not hived away in a section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Important Sections Deleted / Too Opinionated

Many edits are missing the point of the article. The point of this page is to explain what DISC is and how and where it is used. The purpose of the page is not solely centered on if or if not DISC is valid. This language should be in its own section and should not be in the first paragraph of the article. Additionally, sections that provided context and explanation to DISC were deleted. These need to be reinstated as they are vital to the point of the article. Users who go to this page are not looking for various users opinions on DISC, which this article has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerfair (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I totally disagree. If DISC assessments are based on a pseudo-scientific theory then it's just about the most important thing we can say about it. If we fail to do that in the lead section then we are guilty of promoting a fringe theory as if it were mainstream or well-regarded science. It absolutely isn't! --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me if it was your intention, but WP:NOTHOWTO may also be relevant: it's not necessary to precisely detail how the system works in this article, however it may be good to provide an external link that points to a resource that does. Salimfadhley is right that if sources describe it as not-science, by WP:PSCI policy the article should mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The Swedish article used widely in this page cannot be used to describe all of DISC, only specifics

The Swedish article widely cited in this article "How Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time" concerning the book 'Surrounded By Idiots' does not outright prove that DISC is not scientifically valid, as it is mainly concerned with an adaption of DISC created by the book's author, as well as discussing two outdated DISC assessments that are currently not in use.

It is important to note that there are different DISC assessments and related theories that have changed over time. It is true that old and outdated DISC assessments are not valid. Even some DISC assessments in use today are not valid. However, there are some that are valid, criteria for this is included in the page. This Swedish article only discusses non-valid examples. This is some of DISC, not all of DISC.

- The author discusses that part of William Moulton Marston's 'Emotions of Normal People' made unscientific claims about 'psychons.' However these claims were never included in the formation of the DISC theory. This one claim does not disprove all of Marston's information. - Walter Clark's 1956 DISC assessment has been found to be not scientifically valid. However, this assessment has been out of use for decades. - A large part of the article is about how the author of 'Surrounded by Idiots' falsified his academic background. While this is very important to the article, it doesn't have much to do with DISC. Author Thomas Erikson adapts the theory behind DISC for his own use; his own faulty interpretation does not have any marking on DISC's validity.

The article also makes the case that DISC could lead to bad organizational behavior, but this all depends on its application. Faulty application by an individual organization (ex. an example in the article which is sending an employee away for 'bad behavior') does not have any bearing on the overall quality.

Tigerfair (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please establish consensus before making this kind of edit in future. I notice you replaced the Swedish article with a self-published source from a publisher that has a close connection with this subject. In other words, you replaced a thing you thought was bad with something clearly worse. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Only adding the relevant policy links for more information: WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:CONSENSUS. Also feel free to propose more sources here, —PaleoNeonate – 16:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Tigerfair, could I ask what tools based on DISC you understand to be in common use? Especially the ones that are valid. Those should also be described in this article. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Xurizuri Yes, DISC assessments that are normative (non-ipsative) and that do not claim to analyze 'adaptive style' are valid. However, I am not sure how to bridge the issue of mentioning what traits a DISC assessment has to have or not have to be valid in the article without running into issues of sourcing from publishers. More scholarly sources on this would be helpful but they are difficult to find. Tigerfair (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Start with the good sources. Summarize what the good sources say. Do not use any sources that are inappropriate. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

I just did some copyediting and have some thoughts on what we could do next to improve this article (I need to go to sleep now or I'd start on it).

1. It would be great if the lead said what the testing is generally used for.
2. We should summarise the general scientific consensus of the DISC theory, especially because it doesn't have its own article
   1. Subpoint to that, we should maybe discuss whether this should be re-scoped to an article about DISC theory (including its assessments) and moved.
3. I don’t have access to the article in the Self Description test paragraph, does it support what the rest of the paragraph says?

Currently, Beck Depression Inventory is a good-article example of a psych assessment. This can be a starting point for how to write about DISC assessment.

I also want to re-structure the article, I think the current structure isn't well suited to expanding the article. The most relevant guidance on structure is MOS:MED#Medical tests. Based loosely on that and on the Beck one, I propose the article is structured like this:

• Types - describes each assessment/variant
• Uses - what it’s been used for
  • Psychometric properties
• Theory – the theory that the test is based on
• History of the test

It's got the same basic components as the current structure, so I may boldly re-order it tomorrow. It would be easy to restore. The only one I think that may be more useful in a different spot is theory, but I put it where it is because its more important what tests exist and whether they're useful, than the specific theory that the assessment is based on. I'm not sure how well we'll be able to describe the types without context on the DISC types, but potentially that could be summarised in the lead instead (and honestly it probably should be there anyway). --Xurizuri (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please be bold, but be mindful that the DISC assessment is a product based on a theory that is at best fringe and is very probably pseudo-scientific. May I suggest that before you make changes you could introduce us all to new sources you are interested in citing via this page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I do have more suggestions/points - to replace the ones on adding info to the lead and on re-structuring.

1. The validity and reliability sections are verging on incomprehensible - have things been getting added and cut out a lot? e.g. Williams is referred to as being an introduced person, but he isn't. And what is happening with the last sentence of the validity section?
2. We could summarise the swedish article in the history section; I think it would give useful context about why this is notable. At the very least, it sounds like Erikson should be lightly touched on. And the colour theory part.
3. Is the Personal Profile System mentioned in this article the same as the Personal Profile Analysis that comes up in literature?

--Xurizuri (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright I can't get access full versions of these articles, but they look like good sources: A review and evaluation of the validity studies of Activity Vector Analysis (review, good journal, authors aren't directly related to creation of the scale, and authors declared that they had been given copies by Walter). The Annual Review of Psychology occasionally covered AVA in Personnel Selection articles (review, good journal, it was discussed multiple times so something should be relevant). (By the way, the 1956 version is AVA Form A, and the 1965 Self Description is Form C. Which implies the existence of a Form B.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's OK to refer to these in the context of a history section. I wouldn't want to imply any validity based on studies from the 1950s. Regarding the messy state of the article, sometimes it is better to be bold and radically slim down the article. Pick four best sources we have and write a stub from that. It doesn't matter if it's incomplete, what matters it that it lacks the faults that you've previously described. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, although I can't personally do that because I don't have access to most of the sources (curses upon closed journals). It doesn't address the issue of whether this should be rescoped though. I strongly think it should - an article about a series of tests very rapidly becomes an article about a series of attempts to validate a particular theory (because it is the process for validating a theory). And it would mean a reader is guided through the whole topic rather than just a small component of it. I appear to be suggesting a move. This is obviously a contentious topic so I won't just be bold and do it. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

---

DISC assessment → ? – I am proposing this move to explicitly include the theory behind the assessment. I'm not 100% sure what name would be best - I suggest DISC personalities, DISC personality theory or DISC theory. I prefer DISC personalities because its the shortest one that is absolutely clear what the topic is about, and because I saw it described at least as often as I saw the other two forms that I've suggested. It's impossible to properly discuss the testing without discussing the underlying theory, and if there was a separate article discussing the DISC personalities, then I would propose to merge with it. I have described part of my argument in another discussion on this talk page, so I'll just quote it here for simplicity: an article about a series of tests very rapidly becomes an article about a series of attempts to validate a particular theory (because it is the process for validating a theory). And it would mean a reader is guided through the whole topic rather than just a small component of it. Having the tests in the theory article is better than the theory in the tests article because the theory is the umbrella topic. Discussion of every disc assessment automatically is referring to the theory, but the theory can be discussed in the absence of any of the tests. It would therefore be inappropriate to discuss some parts of the theory in the tests article but testing is entirely within the scope of a theory article. Xurizuri (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. DISC was never much of a psychological theory, it is however an assessment marketed by a number of companies. The most important thing about the DISC assessment is that it is based on pseudoscience and it most probably does not work. I would be very surprised if there's enough material to justify a full article on DISC Theory. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per Salimfadhley. It was definitely an assessment, but whether it was anything else significant remains unclear. SnowFire (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  I should clarify, from what I can read - the only people who promote this as a valid theory are folks who also promote this as a commercial assessment. Almost nobody else in the world of psychology seems to have any interest in the theory behind DISC. Salimfadhley (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Project Team Management

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mstriar, Wikiproject121522, Sutherds (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JonKush (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anubhutij28 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anubhutij28 (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Other DISC

This article seems to be about an assessment based on dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance. But there's a DISC assessment based on dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness. Google is full of references to it. I'm not sure what the difference is. Early vs later versions of the same thing? Did one thing have multiple creators, and different creators used different terms for it? Inducement and influence sound like synonyms, but submission and steadiness aren't. Were they totally unrelated ideas? The article should clarify that. - Burner89751654 (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)