When a leader, HR partner, or teammate asks whether assessments hold up, you need research you can point to. This summary gives you the theory, reliability, and validity research behind eight Cloverleaf assessments and names who ran each study.
What you’ll learn
Which research supports each assessment covered here
Whether the publisher, outside researchers, or Cloverleaf ran the validation work
Where to find the full references for each study
Which assessments does this article cover?
This article covers 16 Types, DISC, Enneagram, Instinctive Drives, CliftonStrengths, Strengthscope, VIA, and Energy Rhythm. For an overview of every other assessment in Cloverleaf, including HBDI, Insights Discovery, Culture Pulse, and Motivating Values, see the Cloverleaf Assessment Guide.
Which terms and limits should I know before I read the research?
Construct validity: Whether an assessment measures what it claims to measure.
Inter-item reliability: Whether the questions within a scale produce consistent results.
Test-retest reliability: Whether your results hold steady when you retake the assessment.
Factor structure: Whether the questions group into the dimensions the assessment reports.
The source of the research varies by assessment, and each section below names it. CliftonStrengths is completed on Gallup’s platform and added to Cloverleaf, so its research comes from Gallup and external researchers.
Which section should I read?
If you need research on how people tend to behave at work, go to Behavioral Assessments.
If you need research on strengths and character, go to Strengths Assessments.
If you need research on daily energy patterns, go to Productivity Assessments.
If you need full citations, go to References.
Who validated each assessment?
16 Types: External researchers
DISC: Cloverleaf
Enneagram: External researchers
Instinctive Drives: Link-Up! International with the University of Western Sydney
CliftonStrengths: Gallup and external researchers
Strengthscope: Strengthscope LTD with City, University of London
VIA: VIA Institute on Character and external researchers
Energy Rhythm: Cloverleaf
Behavioral Assessments
What does the research say about the 16 Types assessment?
16 Types is based on Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types, which proposes four primary dimensions for evaluating personality traits. Personality traits stay relatively consistent across time and situations, so 16 Types results connect easily to observable workplace behaviors.
Cloverleaf uses a variant of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. It differs from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in one key way. MBTI relies on self-reports of how you feel or think, while Cloverleaf’s version relies on self-reports of observable behaviors. External researchers, unaffiliated with the assessment, have shown construct validity and reliability.
Theoretical background: references 1 to 3.
Reliability and validity: references 4 to 9.
What does the research say about the DISC assessment?
DISC comes from William Marston’s work, which traces individual tendencies to emotional responses to environmental stressors. It focuses on how you view your environment and how you prefer to influence others in it. That makes DISC useful for explaining why colleagues react and behave the way they do.
Cloverleaf uses Cleaver Company’s version of DISC, which follows the original theory and its four dimensions: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness. Cloverleaf tested construct validity using its own user database. The findings show appropriate inter-item reliability, factor structure, and test-retest reliability.
Cloverleaf ran this validation itself. Contact Cloverleaf at cloverleaf.me for more information.
Theoretical background: references 10 and 11.
Reliability and validity: reference 12.
What does the research say about the Enneagram assessment?
The Enneagram describes your preferred or habitual way of dealing with the world. It has nine types, and each represents a basic belief about what you need in life for survival and satisfaction. Philosophers and academics including George Gurdjieff, Oscar Ichazo, and Claudio Naranjo shaped the theory, and Helen Palmer first presented it as a measure in 1988.
The assessment rank-orders the nine types so you can see which tendencies you rely on most. This helps colleagues work together because it shows there are several valid ways to view the world and approach work.
Cloverleaf uses an iteration of the most popular version, the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI). Several studies by external researchers show this version’s construct validity and reliability. For a deeper walkthrough, see the Enneagram Assessment Construct Validity article.
Theoretical background: references 13 and 14.
Reliability and validity: references 15 to 17.
What does the research say about the Instinctive Drives assessment?
Link-Up! International developed Instinctive Drives (also called the I.D. System) to measure your innate behavioral tendencies. Instincts work like traits because they dictate sets of behaviors. They also explain why you prefer those behaviors, meaning what motivates them. Understanding these drivers builds self-awareness and open-mindedness, which supports empathetic communication and conflict management.
The 32-question assessment asks you to rank four items per question.
Results show whether you prefer to “use” or “avoid” four instinctive drives: verify, authenticate, complete, and improvise. Link-Up! International and the University of Western Sydney ran several studies that demonstrate construct validity.
Theoretical background: references 18 and 19.
Reliability and validity: references 20 and 21.
Strengths Assessments
What does the research say about the CliftonStrengths®️ assessment?
Gallup developed CliftonStrengths, which outlines 34 unique strengths, after a thematic analysis covering two million interviews. Each strength reflects a combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities that helps you perform consistently well at a specific task.
Understanding your strengths helps you maximize your time and energy.
Understanding your teammates’ strengths helps teams talk about which people fit which tasks.
Gallup has run extensive construct validity testing on CliftonStrengths. Several studies by external researchers also support its psychometric properties.
Theoretical background: references 22 and 23.
Reliability and validity: references 24 to 26.
What does the research say about the Strengthscope®️ assessment?
Strengthscope LTD developed Strengthscope to capture the intrinsically motivating strengths that lead to higher performance. It covers 24 strengths organized on a circumplex with two dimensions: internal versus external and task versus people. This creates four clusters: emotional, relational, thinking, and execution.
Strengthscope pinpoints strengths you find energizing, so you work in ways that are both effective and fulfilling. The 186-question assessment uses a five-point Likert scale and highlights your top seven strengths and cluster themes.
Strengthscope LTD partnered with City, University of London on a study of more than 10,000 global users. It demonstrated construct validity and test-retest reliability.
Theoretical background: reference 27.
Reliability and validity: reference 28.
What does the research say about the VIA assessment?
The VIA Institute on Character developed VIA, which identifies 24 unique character strengths. Character covers your moral qualities. Strengths are the knowledge, skills, and abilities that help you perform well. Together they show how you can contribute to shared goals as your authentic self.
When team members know each other’s character strengths, they are more likely to encourage each other to use them. Cloverleaf uses the VIA-IS-R, a 96-item assessment with 4 items per strength. The VIA Institute and external researchers have validated it.
Theoretical background: references 29 and 30.
Reliability and validity: references 31 to 33.
Productivity Assessments
What does the research say about the Energy Rhythm assessment?
Cloverleaf developed Energy Rhythm to show your energy patterns across the workday. The theory draws on physiological and psychological research on circadian rhythms (your natural sleep-wake cycle) and chronotypes (the behavioral effects of those rhythms).
The assessment produces three types: starters (morning), pacers (mid-day), and anchors (evening). Knowing your type helps you match tasks, such as deep thinking or brainstorming, to the times your energy peaks, dips, or recovers.
Cloverleaf tested construct validity for this seven-item scale. The findings show appropriate inter-item reliability, factor structure, and convergent and divergent validity. Contact Cloverleaf at cloverleaf.me for more information.
Theoretical background: references 34 to 36.
Reliability and validity: reference 37.
References
1 Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
3 Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Prometheus
Nemesis Book Company.
4 Abramson, N. R. (2010). Internal reliability of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter® II: Cross-national
application to American, Canadian, and Korean samples. Journal of Psychological Type, 70(2),
19–30.
5 Dodd, N., & Bayne, R. (2007). Internal reliability and item analysis of the Keirsey Temperament
Sorter II. Journal of Psychological Type, 67(8), 71–83.
6 Kelly, K. R., & Jugovic, H. (2001). Concurrent validity of the online version of the Keirsey Tempera
ment Sorter II. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(1), 49–59.
7 Quinn, M. T., Lewis, R. J., & Fischer, K. L. (1992). A cross-correlation of the Myers-Briggs and
Keirsey instruments. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 279-280.
8 Tucker, I. F., & Gillespie, B. V. (1993). Correlations among three measures of personality type.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 650.
9 Waskel, S. A. (1995). Temperament types: Midlife death concerns, demographics, and intensity of
crisis. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 221-233.
10 Marston, W. M. (1928/2013). Emotions of normal people. Vol. 158. Routledge.
11 Merenda, P. F., & Clarke, W. V. (1965). Self-description and personality measurement. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 21, 52–56.
12 Contact Cloverleaf at https://cloverleaf.me/ for more information.
13 Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The wisdom of the Enneagram: The complete guide to psychologi
cal and spiritual growth for the nine personality types. Bantam.
14 Palmer, H. (1988). The Enneagram – Understanding yourself and the others in your life. San
Francisco: HarperCollins.
15 Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. H., Newman, I., & Wiggins, K. K. (2004). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram type
indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity. Measurement and evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 36(4), 226-237.
16 Sutton, A., Allinson, C., & Williams, H. (2013). Personality type and work-related outcomes: An
exploratory application of the Enneagram model. European Management Journal, 31(3), 234-249.
17 Wagner, J. P., & Walker, R. E. (1983). Reliability and validity study of a Sufi personality typology:
The Enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(5), 712-717.
19 De Raad, B., & Doddema-Winsemius, M. (1999). Instincts and personality. Personality and Individu
al Differences, 27(2), 293–305.
20 Fitzgerald, J. A., Ferres, N., Dadich, A., & Hamilton, K. (2005). The Instinctive Drives SystemTM: A
reliable and valid catalyst for improving team performance. Sydney, NSW: InCITe Research Group,
College of Law and Business, University of Western Sydney.
21 Fitzgerald, A., Sloan, T. R., Hayes, K. J., Dadich, A. M., & Chapman, G. R. (2011). Instinctive Drives®
Profiles: Exploring Data, Presenting Results and Expanding Horizons. Sydney, NSW: InCITe
Research Group, College of Law and Business, University of Western Sydney.
23 Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline, 111-121.
24 Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., Harter, J. Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., Harter, J.
(2014). The CliftonStrengths® 2.0 technical report: Development and validation. Princeton,
NJ: The Gallup® Organization.
25 Louis, M. C. (2011). Strengths interventions in higher education: The effect of identification versus
development approaches on implicit self-theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 204-215.
26 Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity: Meta‐analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 445-464.
27 Brook, J., & Brewerton, P. (2006). Strengthscope technical manual. Strengths Partnership, London.
28 Whitefoot, A., & Pangallo, A. (2015). External validation study of the Strengthscope® psychometric tool. https://www.strengthscope.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Etenal-Validation-of-
Strengthscope-by-City-University-London-2015.pdf
30 Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and
handbook. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
31 McGrath, R. E. (2019). Technical report: The VIA Assessment Suite for Adults: Development and
initial evaluation (rev. ed.). Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute on Character.
32 Ruch, W., Martinez-Marti, M. L., Proye R. T., & Harzer, C. (2014). The character strengths rating form
(CSRF): Development and initial assessment of a 24-item rating scale to assess character
strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 53-58.
33 Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Values in
action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the
development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138-149.
34 Di Milia, L., Smith, P. A., & Folkard, S. (2004). Refining the psychometric properties of the circadian
type inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1953-1964.
35 Adan, A., & Almirall, H. (1991). Horne & Östberg morningness-eveningness questionnaire: A
reduced scale. Personality and Individual differences, 12(3), 241-253.
36 Adan, A., Archer, S. N., Hidalgo, M. P., Di Milia, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2012). Circadian typolo
gy: a comprehensive review. Chronobiology International, 29(9), 1153-1175.
37 Contact Cloverleaf at https://cloverleaf.me/ for more information.There's more to learn about applying what you've learned, so check out our blog or other articles about the TEAM Dashboard.