The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ) was created in 1967. James B. Rounds, George A. Henly Jr., Ren V. Dawis, Lloyd H. Lofquist, and David J. Weiss created this measure (in Puccio & Murdock, 2007). This gender-neutral measure can be administrated to those in a fifth-grade reading level and above (Rounds, Henly, Dowis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981). The test can be done in groups or on an individual basis. The MIQ can be completed in 30-40 minutes. The MIQ is also available in Spanish and French (Lachar, 2004). The price is $39.50 per kit. The kit includes fifty answer sheets, ten reusable booklets, a manual, and Occupational Reinforcer Patterns. The most recent manual produced dates back to 1981 and is 73 pages in length (Lachar, 2004).
The MIQ is a measure of achieving an ideal occupation based on an individual’s needs. Employee job satisfaction directly relates to creative output (Blain & Thompson, 1992). The MIQ can help establish satisfaction in a work environment, which will achieve employee happiness and a higher level of creativity and innovation within the work environment. The MIQ defines the creativity scale as tasks that are amenable to innovations, independently conceived, andperformed by the worker. The figure on the following page is a visual representation of how the relationship of job satisfaction and creativity directly connect (Price, 1991).
The MIQ is a measure of achieving an ideal occupation based on an individual’s needs. Employee job satisfaction directly relates to creative output (Blain & Thompson, 1992). The MIQ can help establish satisfaction in a work environment, which will achieve employee happiness and a higher level of creativity and innovation within the work environment. The MIQ defines the creativity scale as tasks that are amenable to innovations, independently conceived, andperformed by the worker. The figure on the following page is a visual representation of how the relationship of job satisfaction and creativity directly connect (Price, 1991).
It can be assumed based on the graphic above opportunity is one of the most important factors in determining job satisfaction. When job satisfaction isn’t achieved it can lead to employee turnover. The bridge between opportunity and creativity is the option to explore. This can include factors ranging from the ability to trying new techniques, freedom of judgment, and room for growth (Price, 1991).
Configuration
There are two forms are available for the MIQ. Both are pencil and paper format, contained in a booklet with a separate sheet to record answers. The MIQ is a measure based on twenty vocational dimensions and on six values relating to an individual’s work environment (Lachar, 2004). The twenty vocational dimensions are listed below and defined according to the MIQ manual (1971):
1. Ability Utilization: the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities
2. Achievement: the feeling of accomplishment I get from the job
3. Activity: being able to keep busy all the time
4. Advancement: the chances for advancement on this job
5. Authority: the chance to tell other people what to do
6. Company policies and practices: the way company policies are put into practice
7. Compensation: my pay and the amount of work I do
8. Co-workers: the way my co-workers get along with each other
9. Creativity: the chance to try my own methods of doing the job
10. Independence: the chance to work alone on the job
11. Moral Values: being able to do things that don't go against my conscience
12. Recognition: the praise I get for doing a good job
13. Responsibility: the freedom to use my own judgment.
14. Security: the way my job provides for steady employment
15. Social Service: the chance to do things for other people
16. Social Status: the chance to be "somebody" in the community
17. Supervision-Human Relations: the way my boss handles his men
18. Supervision-Technical: the competence of my supervisor in making decisions
19. Variety: the chance to do different things from time to time
20. Working Conditions: the working condition
The six values relating to an individual’s work environment include:
1. Achievement Value: Ability Utilization, Achievement
2. Comfort Value: Activity, Independence, Variety, Compensation, Security, Working Conditions
3. Status Value: Advancement, Recognition, Authority, Social Status
4. Altruism Value: Co-workers, Social Service, Moral Values
5. Safety Value: Company Policies and Practices, Supervision-Human Relations, Supervision-Technical
6. Autonomy Value: Creativity, Responsibility
One form of the MIQ is known as the “paired form”. It’s a 190-item-comparison of statements where respondents are asked to choose between the pair of statements (Lachar, 2004). The additional twenty questions are scaled-related, based on importance of each value. The other format the MIQ can be administrated in is the “ranked form”. This form is where the compared item questions are replaced by a series of ranking questions. These ranking questions are made up of sets of five needs where respondents rank importance of each need. A sample is shown on the following page, taken from the MIQ manual of directions, that the individual is provided with for the paired form (Rounds, Henly, Dowis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981).
Once the test is completed, the measure gets submitted via mail to the publisher to obtain scoring results. Scoring is based on the range of vocational dimensions listed above. The range is on an adjusted scale value that ranges from -4.0 to + 4.0. The maximum range for any individual is half of this total range. The zero point is located at the center of the range. A number that is greater than zero identifies important needs. A number less than zero indicate unimportant needs to the individual. A sample report is shown below in Table 1 below, (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971).
Configuration
There are two forms are available for the MIQ. Both are pencil and paper format, contained in a booklet with a separate sheet to record answers. The MIQ is a measure based on twenty vocational dimensions and on six values relating to an individual’s work environment (Lachar, 2004). The twenty vocational dimensions are listed below and defined according to the MIQ manual (1971):
1. Ability Utilization: the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities
2. Achievement: the feeling of accomplishment I get from the job
3. Activity: being able to keep busy all the time
4. Advancement: the chances for advancement on this job
5. Authority: the chance to tell other people what to do
6. Company policies and practices: the way company policies are put into practice
7. Compensation: my pay and the amount of work I do
8. Co-workers: the way my co-workers get along with each other
9. Creativity: the chance to try my own methods of doing the job
10. Independence: the chance to work alone on the job
11. Moral Values: being able to do things that don't go against my conscience
12. Recognition: the praise I get for doing a good job
13. Responsibility: the freedom to use my own judgment.
14. Security: the way my job provides for steady employment
15. Social Service: the chance to do things for other people
16. Social Status: the chance to be "somebody" in the community
17. Supervision-Human Relations: the way my boss handles his men
18. Supervision-Technical: the competence of my supervisor in making decisions
19. Variety: the chance to do different things from time to time
20. Working Conditions: the working condition
The six values relating to an individual’s work environment include:
1. Achievement Value: Ability Utilization, Achievement
2. Comfort Value: Activity, Independence, Variety, Compensation, Security, Working Conditions
3. Status Value: Advancement, Recognition, Authority, Social Status
4. Altruism Value: Co-workers, Social Service, Moral Values
5. Safety Value: Company Policies and Practices, Supervision-Human Relations, Supervision-Technical
6. Autonomy Value: Creativity, Responsibility
One form of the MIQ is known as the “paired form”. It’s a 190-item-comparison of statements where respondents are asked to choose between the pair of statements (Lachar, 2004). The additional twenty questions are scaled-related, based on importance of each value. The other format the MIQ can be administrated in is the “ranked form”. This form is where the compared item questions are replaced by a series of ranking questions. These ranking questions are made up of sets of five needs where respondents rank importance of each need. A sample is shown on the following page, taken from the MIQ manual of directions, that the individual is provided with for the paired form (Rounds, Henly, Dowis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981).
Once the test is completed, the measure gets submitted via mail to the publisher to obtain scoring results. Scoring is based on the range of vocational dimensions listed above. The range is on an adjusted scale value that ranges from -4.0 to + 4.0. The maximum range for any individual is half of this total range. The zero point is located at the center of the range. A number that is greater than zero identifies important needs. A number less than zero indicate unimportant needs to the individual. A sample report is shown below in Table 1 below, (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971).
Reliability
The reliability of the MIQ has shown to be to stable over time for re-testers. Reliability’s primary concerns are consistency and stable results over a given period of time. Studies measuring reliability are based on three measures of such consistency. These three measures of reliability are: scale internal consistency, stability of MIQ scales over time, and stability of MIQ profiles over time. Additional reliability regarding the MIQ has been proven in the context of the Theory of Work Adjustment. This theory emphasizes the connections of an individual’s capabilities and vocational needs, with ability requirements. This theory also determines an individual’s satisfaction in an occupational setting (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971).
Table 2 represents test-retest reliability. This test was administrated to three groups of college students at the University of Minnesota (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). The first column shows the reliability retest after ten days, the second column is the retest results after three weeks, and the last column are the results after six weeks. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), a well-known statistical test measure, was used to gather the results. ANOVA is capable of measuring the means of several groups. ANOVA tests for groups being equal by three statistical models. These models are: fixed effects, random effects, and mixed effects.
The test-retest ANOVA coefficients display how stable the MIQ is for the college students. Based on Table 2 below, the median coefficeient for the ten day group is .80, for the three week group the median is .86, and for the group that re-stest after six the median .77. The range can also be depicted from the table below for each student group. [A1] The ten day group’s range is .64 to .88; the three week group’s range is .78 to .89; .70 to .86 is the range for the six week group. It can be determined that the MIQ is reliable based on these results.
Additionally, based on this table, the three week group scales display the highest reliability factors. The top twelve scales that demonstrate such reliability based on these findings are:
1. Ability Utilization
2. Achievement
3. Activity
4. Authority
5. Company Policies and Practices
6. Compensation
7. Co-workers
8. Creativity
9. Recognition
10. Supervision-Human Relations
11. Supervision-Technical
12. Variety
The reliability of the MIQ has shown to be to stable over time for re-testers. Reliability’s primary concerns are consistency and stable results over a given period of time. Studies measuring reliability are based on three measures of such consistency. These three measures of reliability are: scale internal consistency, stability of MIQ scales over time, and stability of MIQ profiles over time. Additional reliability regarding the MIQ has been proven in the context of the Theory of Work Adjustment. This theory emphasizes the connections of an individual’s capabilities and vocational needs, with ability requirements. This theory also determines an individual’s satisfaction in an occupational setting (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971).
Table 2 represents test-retest reliability. This test was administrated to three groups of college students at the University of Minnesota (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). The first column shows the reliability retest after ten days, the second column is the retest results after three weeks, and the last column are the results after six weeks. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), a well-known statistical test measure, was used to gather the results. ANOVA is capable of measuring the means of several groups. ANOVA tests for groups being equal by three statistical models. These models are: fixed effects, random effects, and mixed effects.
The test-retest ANOVA coefficients display how stable the MIQ is for the college students. Based on Table 2 below, the median coefficeient for the ten day group is .80, for the three week group the median is .86, and for the group that re-stest after six the median .77. The range can also be depicted from the table below for each student group. [A1] The ten day group’s range is .64 to .88; the three week group’s range is .78 to .89; .70 to .86 is the range for the six week group. It can be determined that the MIQ is reliable based on these results.
Additionally, based on this table, the three week group scales display the highest reliability factors. The top twelve scales that demonstrate such reliability based on these findings are:
1. Ability Utilization
2. Achievement
3. Activity
4. Authority
5. Company Policies and Practices
6. Compensation
7. Co-workers
8. Creativity
9. Recognition
10. Supervision-Human Relations
11. Supervision-Technical
12. Variety
Test–retest has proven the reliability can also be found in the 1971 MIQ manual (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). Another known statistical test measure is Hoyt Reliability Coeffiecent. Hoyt’s measures the internal consistency. Reliability coefficients for nine groups of subjects ranged between .30 and .95. [A1] The median coefficients were .77 and .81. Test-retest coefficients were used to assess scale stability for the same nine groups plus one additional. Scale stability coefficients ranged from .19 for nine month retesters to .93 for immediate retesters. Median stability coefficients for the ten groups ranged from .89 with immediate retesting to .48 after six months. Median profile stability coefficients range from .95 with immediate retesting to .70 after four months.
Validity
Validity, unlike reliability, is concerned with assessing the intended purpose of a measure, supporting the data. Reliability and validity are interdependent factors. Measures showing reliability doesn’t ensure validity. Although, validity evidence is weaker than that supporting its reliability, the findings and results do lend construct validity to the MIQ as a measure of vocational needs.
The MIQ manual specifies four types of validity according to the American Psychological Association (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). They define these types of validity as Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques:
1. Content Validity: consists of a demonstration that the items in a questionnaire sample; the dimensions which
it is presumed the questionnaire is measuring.
2. Concurrent Validity: demonstrated by the relationship of the dimensions of a questionnaire to a criterion,
which is measured at the same point in time as the questionnaire measurements were taken.
3. Predict Validity: demonstrated by the ability of the questionnaire to predict a criterion at some future point
in time.
4. Construct Validity: demonstrated by the ability of the questionnaire to support predictions made from a
theoretical framework. Construct validity is evaluated by investigating what psychological qualities a test
measures (i.e., by demonstrating that certain explanatory constructs account to some degree for performance
on the test). To examine construct validity requires both logical and empirical attack.
Evidence of discriminate validity comes from studies indicating low correlations with different abilities as measured by the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Convergent validity is indicated by positive correlations of .74 and .78 with scales on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB). Results showing that MIQ scales correlate lower with the GATB than with the SVIB. This supports MIQ's claim that it is less a measure of ability than one of vocational interest (Brown & Lent, 2005).
According to the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXVIII Construct Validation Studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964) further validity can be provided. The frequency distributions of high- and low-reinforcement groups were compared. The data provide evidence of construct validity for the Ability Utilization, Achievement, Advancement, Authority, Compensation, Creativity, Independence, Responsibility, Social Service, and Variety scales. Although there was no evidence of construct validity for the other six scales: [A4] Activity, Moral Values, Recognition, Security, Social Status, and Working Conditions. Such invalidity for these other six measures could be attributed to inaccurate ranking of reinforcement level. In addition, it could be an inadequate measurement of satisfaction as suggested in the findings.
Validity
Validity, unlike reliability, is concerned with assessing the intended purpose of a measure, supporting the data. Reliability and validity are interdependent factors. Measures showing reliability doesn’t ensure validity. Although, validity evidence is weaker than that supporting its reliability, the findings and results do lend construct validity to the MIQ as a measure of vocational needs.
The MIQ manual specifies four types of validity according to the American Psychological Association (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). They define these types of validity as Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques:
1. Content Validity: consists of a demonstration that the items in a questionnaire sample; the dimensions which
it is presumed the questionnaire is measuring.
2. Concurrent Validity: demonstrated by the relationship of the dimensions of a questionnaire to a criterion,
which is measured at the same point in time as the questionnaire measurements were taken.
3. Predict Validity: demonstrated by the ability of the questionnaire to predict a criterion at some future point
in time.
4. Construct Validity: demonstrated by the ability of the questionnaire to support predictions made from a
theoretical framework. Construct validity is evaluated by investigating what psychological qualities a test
measures (i.e., by demonstrating that certain explanatory constructs account to some degree for performance
on the test). To examine construct validity requires both logical and empirical attack.
Evidence of discriminate validity comes from studies indicating low correlations with different abilities as measured by the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Convergent validity is indicated by positive correlations of .74 and .78 with scales on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB). Results showing that MIQ scales correlate lower with the GATB than with the SVIB. This supports MIQ's claim that it is less a measure of ability than one of vocational interest (Brown & Lent, 2005).
According to the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXVIII Construct Validation Studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964) further validity can be provided. The frequency distributions of high- and low-reinforcement groups were compared. The data provide evidence of construct validity for the Ability Utilization, Achievement, Advancement, Authority, Compensation, Creativity, Independence, Responsibility, Social Service, and Variety scales. Although there was no evidence of construct validity for the other six scales: [A4] Activity, Moral Values, Recognition, Security, Social Status, and Working Conditions. Such invalidity for these other six measures could be attributed to inaccurate ranking of reinforcement level. In addition, it could be an inadequate measurement of satisfaction as suggested in the findings.
Another test proving validity can be shown in Table 3 for a female sample group (Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1979). Table 3, found on the following page, displays the twenty MIQ scales, the number of Biographical Information Form items (BIF), double-cross validation, and the total sample of validation. The double-cross validation design was done by splitting the female samples randomly into two groups. A reciprocal average was then conducted for each group.
The results from this table, below, show the correlation of the weighted BIF with each of the twenty MIQ subscales based on the Female Adult Sample test (Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1979). The scores based on the table below provide ranging correlations of .43 to .59. Thirteen scales out of twenty have .50 or greater coeffieicients. The median coeffiecient is .53. Each scale’s mean P-value are at the .01 level for the cross-validation correlations, except for Moral Values subscale.
The results from this table, below, show the correlation of the weighted BIF with each of the twenty MIQ subscales based on the Female Adult Sample test (Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1979). The scores based on the table below provide ranging correlations of .43 to .59. Thirteen scales out of twenty have .50 or greater coeffieicients. The median coeffiecient is .53. Each scale’s mean P-value are at the .01 level for the cross-validation correlations, except for Moral Values subscale.
Utility
The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire helps individuals identify important factors based on their values. The significance of this measure is to assist individuals in tying in their preferences to a given occupation. It links the constructs (vocational needs) and observable behaviors (activities and experiences) (Rounds, Henly, Daowis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981). The MIQ can be an indispensible tool for career planning. This measure assists in identifying occupational areas where the individual could achieve the most ideal profession and environment based on their preferences measured in the MIQ. This test should only be administrated under a licensed psychologist as indicated in the MIQ manual (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). This measure is often is administrated by counselors (Brown & Lent, 2005).
Conclusion
To further develop the MIQ measure, additional evidence of validity for each scale is recommended, as scale intercorrelations seem to be high. [A1] Another related technical factor to intercorrelations are skewed distributions of scale scores. Rating biases poses another concern for the MIQ. Such biases can result from intentional positive or negative distortion of response to the questionnaire.
The evidence of reliability and construct validity regarding the MIQ meet the criterion for use as an instrument in measuring vocational needs. The ease of administration, scoring, and reading level are contributing factors of to the success of the MIQ. The MIQ scales appear to be internally consistent lending to the reliability of the measure. Additionally, the MIQ scales yield sufficient stability.
Overall, the MIQ is good predictor and indicator for vocational needs. According to Dawis (2001, p. 464), it was the MIQ’s record of dependability that influenced the U.S. Department of Labor to construct a work value measure of their own. The MIQ is a successful measure that ties in constructs and observable behaviors.
References
Blain, M. D. & Thompson, J. M. (1992). Presenting feedback on the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Career Development Quarterly, 41(1), 62-66.
Brown, S. D. & Lent, R. W. (2005). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:
Dawis, R. V. (2001). Toward a psychology of values. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 462-464.
Gay, E. G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1971). Manual for the minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota, MA: Vocational Psychology Research Center. University of Minnesota.
Lachar, B. (2004). Review of Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Mental Measurement Yearbook.
Price, J. L. (1991). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. The international Journal of Mmanpower, 22(7), 600-624.
Puccio, G. J. & Murdock, M. C. (2007). Creativity assessment: Reading and resources. Hadley, MA: Creative Education Foundation.
Rounds, Jr., J. B., Henly, G. A., Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H. & Weiss, D. J. (1981). Manual for the minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota, MA: Vocational Psychology Research Center. University of Minnesota.
Rounds, J. B., Dawis R. V. & Lofquist L. H. (1979). Life History correlated of Vocational Needs for a Female Adult Sample. TheJ journal of Ccounseling Ppsychology, 26(6), 87-496.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Construct validation studies of the Minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota, MA: Vocational Psychology Research Center. University of Minnesota.
The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire helps individuals identify important factors based on their values. The significance of this measure is to assist individuals in tying in their preferences to a given occupation. It links the constructs (vocational needs) and observable behaviors (activities and experiences) (Rounds, Henly, Daowis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981). The MIQ can be an indispensible tool for career planning. This measure assists in identifying occupational areas where the individual could achieve the most ideal profession and environment based on their preferences measured in the MIQ. This test should only be administrated under a licensed psychologist as indicated in the MIQ manual (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). This measure is often is administrated by counselors (Brown & Lent, 2005).
Conclusion
To further develop the MIQ measure, additional evidence of validity for each scale is recommended, as scale intercorrelations seem to be high. [A1] Another related technical factor to intercorrelations are skewed distributions of scale scores. Rating biases poses another concern for the MIQ. Such biases can result from intentional positive or negative distortion of response to the questionnaire.
The evidence of reliability and construct validity regarding the MIQ meet the criterion for use as an instrument in measuring vocational needs. The ease of administration, scoring, and reading level are contributing factors of to the success of the MIQ. The MIQ scales appear to be internally consistent lending to the reliability of the measure. Additionally, the MIQ scales yield sufficient stability.
Overall, the MIQ is good predictor and indicator for vocational needs. According to Dawis (2001, p. 464), it was the MIQ’s record of dependability that influenced the U.S. Department of Labor to construct a work value measure of their own. The MIQ is a successful measure that ties in constructs and observable behaviors.
References
Blain, M. D. & Thompson, J. M. (1992). Presenting feedback on the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Career Development Quarterly, 41(1), 62-66.
Brown, S. D. & Lent, R. W. (2005). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:
Dawis, R. V. (2001). Toward a psychology of values. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 462-464.
Gay, E. G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1971). Manual for the minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota, MA: Vocational Psychology Research Center. University of Minnesota.
Lachar, B. (2004). Review of Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Mental Measurement Yearbook.
Price, J. L. (1991). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. The international Journal of Mmanpower, 22(7), 600-624.
Puccio, G. J. & Murdock, M. C. (2007). Creativity assessment: Reading and resources. Hadley, MA: Creative Education Foundation.
Rounds, Jr., J. B., Henly, G. A., Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H. & Weiss, D. J. (1981). Manual for the minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota, MA: Vocational Psychology Research Center. University of Minnesota.
Rounds, J. B., Dawis R. V. & Lofquist L. H. (1979). Life History correlated of Vocational Needs for a Female Adult Sample. TheJ journal of Ccounseling Ppsychology, 26(6), 87-496.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Construct validation studies of the Minnesota importance questionnaire. Minnesota, MA: Vocational Psychology Research Center. University of Minnesota.