Technical ReportPDF Available

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER ® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

March 2014

DOI:10.13140/2.1.3408.7366

Affiliation: Gallup

Authors:

Jim Asplund

Gallup, Inc.

Sangeeta Agrawal

Gallup, Inc. Omaha NE, United States

Tim Hodges

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Jim Harter

Gallup, Inc.

Show all 5 authorsHide

2014Gallup’s Clifton StrengthsFinder is an online assessment of personal talent that identifies areas in which an individual has the greatest potential for building strengths. The Clifton StrengthsFinder presents 177 items that each consists of a pair of potential self-descriptors. These items are based on the theory and research foundation associated with semi-structured personal interviews that Selection Research Incorporated and Gallup (Harter, Hayes, & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt & Rader, 1999) used for more than 30 years. Developed through rational and empirical processes, researchers have repeatedly subjected the Clifton StrengthsFinder to psychometric examination. A summary of reliability and validity evidence gathered to date appears in this report. The report also presents the primary application of the Clifton StrengthsFinder as the evaluation that initiates a strengths-based development process in work and academic settings.

Number of Statements Associated With Each Theme

…

Estimates of Internal Consistency Reliabilities

…

Test-Retest Reliability Estimates

…

Test-Retest Reliability Estimates

…

Figures - uploaded by Jim Asplund

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Jim Asplund

Content may be subject to copyright.

Jim Asplund, Gallup

Sangeeta Agrawal, Gallup

Tim Hodges, Gallup

Jim Harter, Gallup

Shane J. Lopez, Clifton Strengths Institute

UPDATED MARCH 2014

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER®

2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

is document contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of Gallup,

Inc. It is for your guidance only and is not to be copied, quoted, published, or divulged to others

outside of your organization. Gallup®, Selection Research Inc.™, Gallup Panel™, Gallup Management

Journal®, StrengthsQuest™, StrengthsFinder®, Clifton StrengthsFinder®, and each of the 34 Clifton

StrengthsFinder theme names are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are property of their

respective owners.

is document is of great value to both you and Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic laws

and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret protection safeguard the ideas,

concepts, and recommendations related within this document.

No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER®

2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

Jim Asplund, Gallup

Sangeeta Agrawal, Gallup

Tim Hodges, Gallup

Jim Harter, Gallup

Shane J. Lopez, Clifton Strengths Institute

UPDATED MARCH 2014

Gallup’s Clifton StrengthsFinder is an online assessment of personal talent that identiﬁes areas in

which an individual has the greatest potential for building strengths.

e Clifton StrengthsFinder presents 177 items that each consists of a pair of potential self-

descriptors. ese items are based on the theory and research foundation associated with

semi-structured personal interviews that Selection Research Incorporated and Gallup (Harter,

Hayes, & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt & Rader, 1999) used for more than 30 years. Developed

through rational and empirical processes, researchers have repeatedly subjected the Clifton

StrengthsFinder to psychometric examination. A summary of reliability and validity evidence

gathered to date appears in this report.

e report also presents the primary application of the Clifton StrengthsFinder as the evaluation

that initiates a strengths-based development process in work and academic settings.

For more information, please contact Jim Asplund at jim_asplund@gallup.com or 952-806-0630.

e Clifton StrengthsFinder (CSF) has been subjected to repeated psychometric scrutiny by

its developers. e purpose of this report is to describe the development and application of the

CSF and to summarize its psychometric support to date, in accordance with the Standards for

Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American

Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999).

e validity of an assessment must be evaluated with respect to its intended purpose. e CSF is

an online assessment of personal talent that identiﬁes areas where an individual’s greatest potential

for building strengths exists. By identifying one’s top themes of talent, the CSF provides a starting

point in the identiﬁcation of speciﬁc personal talents, and the related supporting materials help

individuals discover how to build on their talents to develop strengths within their roles. e

primary application of the CSF is as an evaluation that initiates a strengths-based development

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

THE PURPOSE

OF THE CLIFTON

STRENGTHSFINDER

process in work and academic settings. As an omnibus assessment based on positive

psychology, its main application has been in the work domain, but it has been used for

understanding individuals and groups in a variety of settings, including employee, executive

team, student, family, and personal development.

e CSF is not designed or validated for use in employee selection or mental health

screening. Given that CSF feedback is provided to foster intrapersonal development,

comparisons across proﬁles of individuals are discouraged.

e precise scoring of the CSF is proprietary to Gallup. What follows is a general

description of the scoring method so that readers can better understand the types of validity

analyses that can and cannot be done.

e CSF is an online assessment during which it presents each respondent with 177

stimuli. Each item lists a pair of potential self-descriptors such as “I get to know people

individually” versus “I accept many types of people.” e descriptors appear on the screen

as if anchoring opposite poles of a continuum. From that pair, the respondent is asked to

choose the statement that best describes him or her and the extent to which that chosen

option is descriptive of him or her. e participant gets 20 seconds to respond before the

system moves on to the next item pair. e intent of the time limit is to elicit top-of-mind

respondses; developmental research shows that the 20-second limit resulted in a negligible

item non-completion rate.

Figure 1 presents how each item pair appears on the screen:

UNDERSTANDING

SCORING FOR

THE CLIFTON

STRENGTHSFINDER

Figure 1: Clifton StrengthsFinder Assessment

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Most of these descriptors are associated with a “theme.” A theme is a category of talents,

which are deﬁned as recurring and consistent patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior. e

CSF measures the presence of talent in 34 distinct themes. (Appendix A includes a brief set

of theme descriptions.) For example, one of these themes is Positivity. Several statements

within the CSF measure Positivity. ere are 33 other themes conﬁgured in the same way;

that is, multiple statements measuring each theme. e number of statements varies by

theme, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of Statements Associated With Each Theme

CSF Theme Total Number

of Items CSF Theme Total Number

of Items

Achiever 6 Futuristic 8

Activator 7 Harmony 5

Adaptability 8Ideation 7

Analytical 11 Includer 7

Arranger 13 Individualization 6

Belief 11 Input 5

Command 9Intellection 10

Communication 9Learner 8

Competition 7Maximizer 7

Connectedness 8Positivity 12

Consistency 8Relator 8

Context 4Responsibility 11

Deliberative 8Restorative 6

Developer 10 Self-Assurance 13

Discipline 14 Signiﬁcance 12

Empathy 6Strategic 4

Focus 12 Woo 9

Some statements are linked to more than one theme. Also, for some items, each of the two

statements within that item is linked to a separate theme. us, one response on an item

can contribute to two or more theme scores. A proprietary formula assigns a value to each

response category. Values for items in the theme are aggregated to derive a theme score.

e calculation of scores is based on the mean of the intensity of self-description. Scores

are recorded in Gallup’s database as theme means, standard scores, and percentiles (derived

from Gallup’s database of more than 10 million respondents at the time of this writing).

Results appear to the respondent as a ranked ordering of “Signature emes,” or the ﬁve

highest scoring themes. Absolute scores are used to rank the themes, with percentiles

against the database norms and theme reliabilities used as subsidiary ranking factors.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

ese theme-rank data are also recorded in the Gallup database. Given the intended use of the

CSF for intrapersonal development, these theme-rank data are the focus of feedback that the

respondent receives.

When educational psychologist Donald O. Clifton ﬁrst designed the interviews that subsequently

became the basis for the CSF, he began by asking, “What would happen if we studied what

is right with people?” us emerged a philosophy of using talents as the basis for consistent

achievement of excellence (strength). Speciﬁcally, the strengths philosophy is the assertion that

individuals can gain far more when they expend eﬀort to build on their greatest talents than when

they spend a comparable amount of eﬀort to remediate their weaknesses (Clifton & Harter, 2003).

Clifton hypothesized that these talents were “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or

behavior that can be productively applied” (Hodges & Clifton, 2004, p. 257). “Strengths” are the

result of maximized talents. Speciﬁcally, a strength is mastery created when one’s most powerful

talents are reﬁned with practice and combined with acquired relevant skills and knowledge. e

CSF is designed to measure the raw talents that can serve as the foundation of strengths. us, the

purpose of the instrument is to identify Signature emes of talent that serve as a starting point in

the discovery of talents that can be productively applied to achieve success.

Gallup — widely known for its polls (Gallup, 2004; Newport, 2004) and employee selection

research (Harter, Hayes, & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt & Rader, 1999) — developed numerous

semi-structured interviews to identify talent that could be enhanced and used to pursue positive

outcomes in work and school. In the 1990s, under the leadership of Clifton, Gallup developed

the CSF as an objective measure of personal talent that could be administered online in less than

an hour.

Clifton, over his 50-year career at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Selection Research

Incorporated, and Gallup, studied “frames of reference” (Clifton, Hollingsworth, & Hall, 1952),

teacher-student rapport (Dodge & Clifton, 1956), management (Clifton, 1970; 1975; 1980),

and success across a wide variety of domains in business and education (Buckingham & Clifton,

2000; Clifton & Anderson, 2002; Clifton & Nelson, 1992). He based his research and practice on

straightforward notions that stood the test of time and empirical scrutiny.

First, he believed that talents could be operationalized, studied, and capitalized on in work and

academic settings. Talents manifest themselves in life experiences, characterized by yearnings,

rapid learning, satisfactions, and timelessness. Researchers believe these trait-like “raw materials”

are the products of normal healthy development and successful experiences over childhood and

adolescence. “Strengths” are extensions of talent. More precisely, the strength construct combines

talents with associated knowledge and skills, which becomes the ability to consistently provide

near-perfect performance in a speciﬁc task. (ough labeled the Clifton StrengthsFinder, the

instrument actually measures the talents that serve as the foundations for strengths development.)

Second, Clifton considered success to be closely associated with personal talents and strengths

in addition to the traditional constructs linked with analytical intelligence. In accordance with

those beliefs, he worked to identify hundreds of “themes” (categories) of personal talents that

predicted work and academic success, and he constructed empirically based, semi-structured

STRENGTHS

THEORY

DEVELOPMENT

OF THE CLIFTON

STRENGTHSFINDER

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

interviews for identifying these themes. When developing the interviews, Clifton and analysts

examined the prescribed roles of a person (e.g., student, salesperson, or administrator), visited

the job site or academic setting, identiﬁed outstanding performers in these roles and settings,

and determined the long-standing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with situational

success. Many of the interviews developed provided useful predictions of positive outcomes

(Schmidt & Rader, 1999). Subsequently, Gallup analysts administered these interviews to more

than 2 million individuals for the purposes of personal development and employee selection.

In the mid-1990s, when considering the creation of an objective measure of talent, Clifton and

colleagues systematically reviewed these interviews and the data they generated to capitalize on

the accumulated knowledge and experience of Gallup’s strengths-based practice.

e prominence of dimensions and items relating to motivation and to values in much of the

interview research informed the design of an instrument that can identify those enduring human

qualities. Researchers constructed an initial pool of more than 5,000 items based on traditional

validity evidence. Given the breadth of talent assessed, the pool of items was considered large

and diverse. A smaller pool was derived subsequent to quantitative review of item functioning

and a content review of the representativeness of themes and items within themes (with an eye

toward the construct validity of the entire assessment). Speciﬁcally, researchers took evidence

used to evaluate the item pairs from a database of criterion-related validity studies, including more

than 100 predictive validity studies (Schmidt & Rader, 1999). In multiple samples, researchers

conducted factor and reliability analyses to assess the contribution of items to measurement of

themes and the consistency and stability of theme scores — thereby achieving the goal of a balance

between maximized theme information and eﬃciency in instrument length. During development

phases, researchers pilot tested numerous sets of items. e items with the strongest psychometric

properties (including item correlation to theme) were retained.

In 1999, Gallup launched a 35-theme version of the CSF. After collecting data for several months,

researchers revisited the instrument and, based on analyses of theme uniqueness and redundancy,

decided on 180 items and 34 themes. Since 1999, some theme names have changed, but the theme

descriptions have not changed substantially. (See Appendix A for a listing and descriptions of the

34 themes.)

In 2006, Gallup researchers undertook a comprehensive review of CSF psychometrics, which led

to some revisions in the instrument. Conﬁrmatory studies (presented in a subsequent section)

validated the 34-theme structure in both adult and student populations. In the course of reviewing

more than 1 million cases in multiple studies, researchers identiﬁed some possible improvements

in theme validities and reliabilities. Some of these improvements involved rescoring of existing

items, whereas others required the addition of new items. ese new items were drawn from

Gallup’s library of talent-related items and from researchers’ experience in building structured

interviews and providing talent feedback. Finally, there were items that were included in the 180-

item version of the CSF but never used in theme scores. A thorough review of each of these items

showed many to be unnecessary as either distracters or scored items, so they were removed. e

result of all of these item changes was a slight reduction in the length of the instrument, from 180

items to 177.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Today, the CSF is available in more than 25 languages and is modiﬁable for individuals with

disabilities. Worldwide, more than 10 million individuals have taken the CSF. It is appropriate for

administration to adolescents and adults with a reading level of grade 10 or higher. (Reading level

is assessed with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment built into Microsoft Word.)

Researchers both inside and outside Gallup contributed a number of the investigations into the

CSF’s continuing reliability, validity, and applicability to both the general population and college

students in particular. e following lists recent studies:

Conﬁrmatory studies for internal structure:

•Sireci (University of Massachusetts):

n=10,000

•Lopez (University of Kansas), Hodges

(Gallup), Harter (Gallup): n=601,049

•Asplund (Gallup): n=110,438

•Asplund: n=250,000

•Asplund: n=472,850

•Agrawal (Gallup): n=250,000

Reliability studies:

•Schreiner (Azusa Paciﬁc): n=438

•Lopez, Harter, Hodges: n=706

•Asplund: n=110,438

•Asplund: n=250,000

•Asplund: n=472,850

•Asplund: n=2,219

•Asplund: n=46,905

•Agrawal: n=250,000

Other validity studies:

•Lopez, Hodges, Harter: n=297

•Schreiner: n=438

•Stone (Harvard): n=278

•Yang (Gallup), Blacksmith

(Gallup): n=1,462

Utility studies:

•Asplund: n=90,000 employees in more than 900 business units

•Asplund, Blacksmith: n=555 employees in 82 business units

Separately, each of these studies aﬃrms the ongoing viability of the CSF. More importantly, the

collective evidence of all this work is convergent regarding the psychometric properties of the

CSF, as well as regarding the details of its validity.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Feedback varies in accordance with the reason the person completes the CSF. Respondents do not

receive summary scores. In most cases, the respondent receives a report listing his or her top ﬁve

talent themes — those in which the person received his or her highest scores, in order of intensity

— the aforementioned Signature emes. In other situations, the respondent may review his or

her sequence of all 34 themes, along with “action items” for each theme, in a personal feedback

session with a Gallup consultant or in a supervised team-building session with colleagues. In

programs designed to promote strengths-based development, feedback is often accompanied by

instruction, experiential learning, and mentoring activities designed to help people make the most

of their talents (i.e., develop strengths associated with occupational or educational roles).

As part of the updates to CSF in 2006, Gallup now provides a more detailed type of feedback:

talent descriptions that go beyond the Signature emes by looking at item-level responses.

Respondents now receive a series of insight statements built from item responses and organized

by their top ﬁve themes. ese “strengths insights” provide a more customized version of the

respondent’s Signature emes report featuring a more in-depth look into the nuances of what

makes him or her unique, using nearly 6,000 new personalized strengths insights that Gallup

researchers discovered. is feedback based on theme and item-level data provides a richer

description of the particular combination of responses the participant provided.

e number of possible combinations and permutations of themes and insight statements is

large, at 278,256 unique combinations of top ﬁve themes (independent of order) and more

than 33 million permutations (order-dependent). As this last ﬁgure exceeds the total number

of respondents as of this writing, Gallup has yet to observe every possible permutation of top

ﬁve themes. However, Gallup has observed an appreciable fraction of the 278,256 possible

combinations. When the CSF database reached 8.4 million respondents, Gallup researchers

examined the results of the entire population and found 233,282 unique combinations and more

than 4 million permutations of top ﬁve themes.

ADMINISTRATION

AND FEEDBACK

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

e CSF is often used as a starting point for self-discovery in Gallup strengths-based development

programs. After a respondent has completed the assessment and talent feedback is provided, a set

of developmental suggestions is customized to the individual’s Signature emes and to his or her

role to help integrate his or her talents into a more informed view of self. As the identiﬁcation and

integration stages of strengths development unfold, behavioral change is encouraged. Speciﬁcally,

the strengths-based development process encourages individuals to build strengths by acquiring

skills (i.e., basic abilities) and knowledge (i.e., what you know) that can complement their greatest

talents in application to speciﬁc tasks.

e CSF’s intended purpose is to facilitate personal development and growth. It is intended

and used as a springboard for discussion with managers, friends, colleagues and advisers and

as a tool for self-awareness. CSF results are a preliminary hypothesis to be veriﬁed with the

respondent. Accordingly, feedback about talents and strengths development often forms the basis

of further interventions that help individuals capitalize on their greatest talents and apply them to

new challenges.

e reliability of a score is an estimate of its stability, or the portion of the score not a result

of random variation. For instruments like the CSF, two types of reliability estimates are

generally used:

•Internal Consistency. In general, this involves looking at how well the items designed to

measure the same thing produce the same results. Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly used

measure of this type of reliability.

•Test-Retest Reliability. is is employed by administering the instrument to the same

sample at two diﬀerent time periods. It is generally more diﬃcult to acquire these data

because the respondent has to complete the instrument twice.

Mathematically speaking, a scale with more items will tend to have higher reliability. e same is

true for validity: having more items should usually imply more coverage of the construct domain.

ere will be a cumulative eﬀect on validity because each item taps into a slightly diﬀerent aspect

of the construct in question or the criterion being predicted.

Table 2 includes estimates of internal consistency reliabilities for the CSF. Estimates come from

three independent samples: a random sample of 46,902 respondents from 2008, a random sample

of 250,000 respondents from 2012, and the 2,219 respondents from the test-retest study described

in the following section. (Alphas shown are from the initial test.) Readers will note the strong

similarity of the three sets of results.

APPLICATION:

STRENGTHS-

BASED

DEVELOPMENT

RELIABILITY

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 2: Estimates of Internal Consistency Reliabilities

Theme Alpha: Sample #1 (n=46,902) Alpha: Sample #2 (n=2,219) Alpha: Sample #3 (n=250,000)

Achiever 0.66 0.67 0.66

Activator 0.62 0.59 0.59

Adaptability 0.71 0.71 0.70

Analytical 0.72 0.75 0.72

Arranger 0.64 0.65 0.62

Belief 0.60 0.62 0.59

Command 0.69 0.68 0.67

Communication 0.73 0.72 0.71

Competition 0.73 0.71 0.70

Connectedness 0.65 0.66 0.62

Consistency 0.65 0.62 0.63

Context 0.61 0.62 0.58

Deliberative 0.73 0.74 0.71

Developer 0.65 0.70 0.65

Discipline 0.78 0.78 0.77

Empathy 0.61 0.63 0.60

Focus 0.71 0.68 0.68

Futuristic 0.73 0.70 0.69

Harmony 0.68 0.65 0.65

Ideation 0.71 0.69 0.68

Includer 0.61 0.63 0.59

Individualization 0.56 0.55 0.53

Input 0.52 0.57 0.52

Intellection 0.70 0.72 0.68

Learner 0.75 0.78 0 .74

Maximizer 0.72 0.64 0.66

Positivity 0.78 0.76 0.76

Relator 0.54 0.60 0.52

Responsibility 0.66 0.68 0.65

Restorative 0.70 0.67 0.67

Self-Assurance 0.68 0.67 0.64

Signiﬁcance 0.70 0.70 0.68

Strategic 0.69 0.66 0.65

Woo 0.79 0.76 0.78

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Cronbach’s alpha is heavily inﬂuenced by the number of items in a theme. It is very diﬃcult to

obtain extremely high alphas for an instrument that measures 34 dimensions such as the CSF.

Because the goal of the CSF was to create an eﬃcient assessment that optimized validity, eﬀorts

to increase the alphas could potentially be detrimental to the purpose of the CSF. at is, alphas

could be optimized by making the instrument considerably longer.

In 2008, Gallup conducted a test-retest study consisting of 2,219 members of the Gallup Panel,

a nationally representative, probability-based panel of U.S. households that have agreed to

participate in Gallup Panel surveys by phone, Web, or mail on any topic at any time. Respondents

were recruited to complete the CSF assessment in February 2008. ose who completed the

assessment received no feedback or output of any kind regarding their Signature emes; nor

were they informed that they were participating in a study of the CSF. Researchers did this to

enable as pure an evaluation of the CSF’s test-retest reliabilities as possible. After completing the

assessment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three retest periods: (1) one month

(n=538), (2) three months (n=390), and (3) six months (n=376) after their ﬁrst assessment. Table 3

shows the results of this study.

Table 3: Test-Retest Reliability Estimates

Theme Month 1 Month 3 Month 6

Full Proﬁle 0.70 0.70 0.70

Achiever 0.66 0.69 0.68

Activator 0.69 0.68 0.64

Adaptability 0.69 0.72 0.66

Analytical 0.77 0.76 0.75

Arranger 0.53 0.50 0.53

Belief 0.66 0.67 0.70

Command 0.61 0.58 0.64

Communication 0.69 0.69 0.70

Competition 0.73 0.71 0.67

Connectedness 0.70 0.71 0.71

Consistency 0.62 0.65 0.65

Context 0.70 0.71 0.69

Deliberative 0.79 0.79 0.80

Developer 0.67 0.63 0.54

Discipline 0.81 0.82 0.76

Empathy 0.73 0.71 0.65

Focus 0.72 0.73 0.60

Futuristic 0.66 0.67 0.61

Harmony 0.64 0 .61 0.61

Ideation 0.75 0.73 0.71

Includer 0.69 0.67 0.67

Individualization 0.60 0.61 0.58

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 3: Test-Retest Reliability Estimates

Theme Month 1 Month 3 Month 6

Input 0.79 0.78 0.75

Intellection 0.80 0.78 0.76

Learner 0.80 0.80 0.78

Maximizer 0.61 0.63 0.48

Positivity 0.76 0.77 0.69

Relator 0.63 0.63 0.67

Responsibility 0.69 0.72 0.65

Restorative 0.63 0.65 0.51

Self-Assurance 0.73 0.74 0.72

Signiﬁcance 0.72 0.71 0.65

Strategic 0.68 0.67 0.71

Woo 0.80 0.82 0.76

As Table 3 shows, test-retest correlations were generally consistent over the varying time intervals.

Only a handful of themes showed notable changes over the longest retest period.

Recruiting from the Gallup Panel provided the opportunity to test the eﬀects of numerous

covariates on CSF responses. Researchers found very few of these covariates to have any

diﬀerential eﬀects on the test-retest reliabilities:

•Signiﬁcance means dropped slightly more among women in the three-month and

six-month retests.

•Analytical means dropped slightly more among women in the three-month retest. Men’s

scores increased slightly more in the six-month retest.

•Individualization mean changes varied by education level in both the three-month and

six-month retests, but because these changes were not directionally consistent, the eﬀects of

education on reliabilities appear artifactual.

Given that the “scores” presented to respondents are rank-ordered themes, the reliability of the

score proﬁle is also a critical issue. Researchers conducted a Chi-Square test of independence

on each theme, with the dichotomous variables labeled as “theme in top ﬁve during pretest” and

“theme in top ﬁve during post-test.” Of the 34 themes, 33 had signiﬁcant Chi-Square results,

indicating that their presence in the top ﬁve on the pretest was signiﬁcantly related to their

presence in the top ﬁve in the post-test. is ﬁnding provides evidence for the stability of the

vast majority of the themes from the pretest to the post-test. However, one theme’s post-test was

independent of its pretest, meaning it was less stable over time in this sample. at theme was

Self-Assurance, the rarest theme in the sample. For most respondents, any new Signature emes

in the post-test were in the respondent’s top 10 themes on the pretest, indicating that some of the

apparent lack of temporal consistency is an artifact of how the results are reported.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

e full 34-theme proﬁle was also examined, with the results shown in Table 3. Respondents’

full, ordered, 34-theme proﬁles were highly correlated over all three retest periods. ese

test-retest results illustrate the temporal and situational stability of the theme scores and

proﬁles — important features given CSF’s intended uses.

From a validity standpoint, the CSF looks very strong. at is, it seems to measure what it is

supposed to measure. Studies have produced evidence of congruence with the Big Five personality

traits (Harter & Hodges, 2003 and Yang & Blacksmith, 2013), 16PF (Schreiner, 2006), and CPI

(Schreiner, 2006). Gallup researchers have also produced evidence of construct validity from large

conﬁrmatory studies looking at how the items “cluster.” ese will be examined in turn.

Content Validity

An assessment should be inclusive of all aspects of the domain it is measuring. It is diﬃcult to

provide content validity evidence for personality-type assessments. Clifton and other Gallup

researchers spent more than 30 years studying the traits that led to optimal functioning in a broad

array of areas — including schools and numerous and varied work environments — and across

a wide expanse of time. e assessments that were developed as part of this research have been

used to select or develop more than 2 million individuals, giving Gallup researchers conﬁdence in

the content coverage of the CSF items and themes. Gallup continues to investigate this issue and

welcomes any discussions about how to improve the content validity of any of the CSF themes or

the overall instrument.

Construct Validity

e paired-statement design of the CSF limits the methods that can be used to show construct

validity. Some statements are linked to multiple themes, and when these statements are chosen,

the respondent’s score is counted multiple times, once for each theme. When statements within

an item are treated as two diﬀerent items, this builds a direct correlation between these “diﬀerent”

items that systematically biases inter-theme correlations.

Also, for those item pairs for which both statements are attached to themes, the selection of one

statement assigns points to the themes aligned with both statements. is last type of statement

pair, where endorsing one statement also precludes a score for the other statement, produces some

of the properties of ipsativity in the data set.

Ipsative scores compare the individual with himself by forcing him to choose preferences; the

resulting data show the relative importance of the stimulus for that person (Kaplan and Saccuzzo,

1982). One of the classical signs of ipsativity would be equal means and standard deviations in the

themes. Because less than 30% of the items are ipsatively scored, we know that the instrument

VALIDIT Y

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

has limited ipsativity. Nevertheless, researchers examined theme means and standard deviations

to judge the amount of ipsativity present. is examination showed that ipsativity was not a

problem in the interpretation of the overall instrument. For the purposes of this study, the primary

ramiﬁcations of having some ipsatively scored items are that these built-in item dependencies

limit the types of conﬁrmatory analyses researchers can perform. In particular, because knowing

the scores of some items deﬁnes the scores on other items, the data matrix may be singular and

incapable of being inverted.

Because some of the items are used in multiple themes, there is also the potential risk of

multicollinearity in these data. Deeper investigations into this have found that multicollinearity is

not a problem for the CSF instrument (see Plake, 1999), and the 2006 revisions to the instrument

reduced this further. But, the multiple use of some items does mean that a traditional conﬁrmatory

factor analysis (CFA) is problematic. To represent the internal structure of the CSF and show

generalizability of the theme taxonomy, researchers took a diﬀerent approach.

Researchers decided to examine themes in pairs by performing a hierarchical cluster analysis using

the items from two themes at a time and repeating this process for all theme pairs in which the

items are independent. is provided a good representation of how well the statements of a given

theme cluster together. is approach is similar to factor analysis, although it diﬀers in the way

variables are grouped. e between-groups linkage method measured with Pearson’s correlation

was employed because it uses information from all pairs of distances, not just the farthest or the

nearest. e nearer to the origin the cluster combines, the stronger is the correlation between the

statements. Appendix B shows sample dendrograms from these analyses.

Table 4 shows the results of the most recent series of cluster analyses. ese results are from a

sample of 250,000 respondents measured in 2012. Each cell represents the mean percentage of

items in each theme that clustered together. For example, in the Achiever/Activator cell, 100%

of the statements for each theme were clustered with the other statements that are linked to

that theme. A score of 100% means that the cluster analysis perfectly replicated the statement

combinations used in scoring their respective themes. For themes that share items, researchers

removed the shared items prior to the analysis. Clearly, the shared items are already known to be

associated with each theme, and the analysis was meant to show the results for all other items.

ere is no standard criterion for determining what proportion of items measuring a theme or

content area should be grouped together for the theme to be considered “validated.” Clearly, if all

items in a theme are clustered and no items from other themes are in that same cluster, the results

support the theory that the items are strongly associated enough to warrant a common designation

(i.e., theme).

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 4: Cluster Analyses Results (%)

Achiever

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Context

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Consistency

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

Self-Assurance

Signiﬁcance

Strategic

Woo

Achiever 100 100 10 0 95 100 87 10 0 92 100 10 0 100 10 0 95 100 100 88 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 100 100 86 82 10 0 89 89 100 10 0

Activator 100 10 0 90 94 81 69 93 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 100 10 0 93 100 93 93 92 100 10 0 100 93 89 93 94 100 85 89 91 88

Adaptability 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 100 100 94 10 0 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 93 95 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Analytical 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 100 96 10 0 100 91 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 90 100 10 0 100 10 0 95 94 100 100 10 0 100

Arranger 96 95 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 96 96 10 0 100 10 0 90 100 100 75 94 100 10 0 95 95 10 0 71 91 100 88 96 10 0 100

Belief 100 95 100 89 10 0 100 89 10 0 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 100 69 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 90 100 96 96 10 0 95

Command 100 94 100 10 0 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 95 100 10 0 100 89 100 92 94

Communication 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 93 100 10 0 95 100 10 0 90 94 95 100 95 95 10 0 67

Competition 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 90 100 10 0 100

Connectedness 100 100 89 10 0 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 93 100 100 69 89 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Context 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Deliberative 100 95 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 89 100 100 10 0 88 95 100 95 100 10 0 100

Developer 100 71 100 10 0 100 93 100 71 10 0 93 100 10 0 100 85 100 95 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100

Discipline 100 100 92 95 95 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 86 100 10 0 95 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Empathy 100 100 100 91 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 92 94 100 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 93

Consistency 100 100 91 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Focus 100 100 10 0 100 83 100 91 89 94 10 0 90 87 100 10 0 90 100 10 0

Futuristic 100 93 100 10 0 92 100 100 93 95 94 100 10 0 90 95 91 94

Harmony 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Ideation 100 100 83 100 93 92 95 10 0 100 10 0 80 100 91 93

Includer 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 93

Individualization 91 94 100 92 100 93 94 92 95 10 0 100 10 0

Input 92 92 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 89 10 0 89 100

Intellection 88 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Learner 100 100 10 0 100 93 10 0 100 10 0 100

Maximizer 100 93 100 10 0 95 100 100 94

Positivity 100 100 10 0 96 100 100 10 0

Relator 94 100 85 95 100 10 0

Responsibility 100 96 96 10 0 100

Restorative 100 10 0 100 10 0

Self-Assurance 83 94 95

Signiﬁcance 10 0 100

Strategic 10 0

Woo

It is unrealistic to expect such perfect results across the entire instrument. In the content validity

literature, where subject-matter experts are used to group test items into content categories, a

rule of thumb has been proposed (by Popham, 1992, and supported by Sireci, 1998): If 70%

of the experts classify an item into its hypothesized category, the item should be considered

matched to that category. O’Neil, Sireci, and Huﬀ (2004) extended that criterion to content

areas by considering an area congruent with its test speciﬁcations if at least 70% of its items

were appropriately matched. For this analysis, researchers evaluated themes by determining the

proportions of items that clustered and comparing the results to this 70% criterion. emes were

considered validated if 70% of the items clustered in the two-cluster solution.

Applying this criterion to Table 4, the themes look to be quite distinct as a group. e vast

majority of cells show a proportion much higher than the 70% criterion, but a handful of theme

combinations fall below 70%. For example, Communication and Woo show less separation, with

only 67% of the items clustering together. Given their conceptual similarity, this makes sense.

is analysis replicated one conducted in 2006, using a separate random sample of 472,850

respondents. e results of that analysis appear in Table 5.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 5: Cluster Analyses Results (%)

Achiever

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Context

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Consistency

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

Self-Assurance

Signiﬁcance

Strategic

Woo

Achiever 100 100 10 0 92 100 10 0 100 92 100 10 0 100 10 0 96 100 10 0 91 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 83 83 10 0 100 10 0 90 100 94 86 88 100

Activator 100 10 0 89 100 86 81 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 94 100 93 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 97 89 81 95 100 83 71 88 86

Adaptability 100 10 0 95 100 100 10 0 94 100 10 0 94 100 85 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Analytical 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 90 100 85 10 0 100 90 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 95 80 100 10 0 100 10 0 95 92 100 10 0 100 10 0

Arranger 95 90 100 10 0 95 100 100 90 95 10 0 100 75 90 100 10 0 85 75 88 100 95 87 10 0 70 74 100 63 96 10 0 100

Belief 10 0 95 95 75 100 10 0 85 96 95 90 100 85 95 10 0 95 85 75 100 80 93 95 88 74 10 0 85 96 100 10 0

Command 10 0 81 100 10 0 94 100 100 86 10 0 74 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 93 100 10 0 81 100 70 73 10 0 100

Communication 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 100 10 0 100 71 94 95 10 0 100 10 0 100 61

Competition 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 83 91 10 0 100

Connectedness 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 92 100 10 0 75 88 100 10 0 100 88 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Context 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Deliberative 10 0 96 100 10 0 96 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 85 100 100 10 0 100 95 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Developer 100 68 10 0 100 10 0 70 100 10 0 100 88 100 85 10 0 90 95 85 100 95 10 0 100 10 0

Discipline 10 0 64 82 100 93 10 0 100 96 100 10 0 82 100 10 0 96 90 100 100 10 0 100 10 0

Empathy 100 10 0 100 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 85 100 94 10 0 100 92 100 10 0 100

Consistency 10 0 100 75 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 88 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Focus 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 93 93 93 93 100 10 0 82 10 0 92 60 92 100

Futuristic 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 96 81 100 10 0 100 77 94 94

Harmony 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Ideation 10 0 92 92 92 100 10 0 96 88 10 0 100 84 96 88 94

Includer 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 73 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88

Individualization 88 75 100 93 100 88 96 90 10 0 96 100 10 0

Input 72 74 88 96 84 72 93 95 96 90 95

Intellection 84 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Learner 94 100 10 0 100 94 100 10 0 100 10 0

Maximizer 10 0 93 100 10 0 87 10 0 100 10 0

Positivity 10 0 100 10 0 94 10 0 100 71

Relator 96 94 79 74 67 91

Responsibility 10 0 95 96 95 10 0

Restorative 100 10 0 100 10 0

Self-Assurance 67 88 89

Signiﬁcance 10 0 100

Strategic 82

Woo

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Taken as a whole, Table 4 and Table 5 provide convincing evidence of the validity of the

CSF theme structure, with less than 1% of the theme pairs failing to meet the 70% criterion.

Researchers have replicated this method in multiple independent samples of CSF respondents,

including one entirely composed of college students (Schreiner, 2006). e overall results are very

positive, with the cluster analyses supporting the viability of the 34 themes.

Using the same sample of 250,000 from Table 4, researchers conducted within-gender cluster

analyses to test the validity of the factor structure for men and women. e results of these

analyses appear in Tables 6 and 7.

Appendix B presents sample dendrograms from the analysis. e vertical lines indicate the relative

distance at which two clusters are combined. e two-cluster solution can be found by locating the

highest horizontal line and seeing the two groups of items it combines. In some cases, all items

within a theme clustered with one or two items from another theme. However, in general, few

items from diﬀerent themes clustered together, and no cross-theme clusters emerged in any of the

561 separate analyses of theme pairs.

is cluster approach circumvents the problem of the dependencies involved in items that measure

more than one theme. In addition to supporting the presence of all of the 34 CSF themes, this

type of analysis can be used to evaluate all of the themes individually. For example, clusters

of items within a theme could indicate subtleties of employees’ talents that have not yet been

considered or to identify subsets of items that need tweaking to become more congruent with the

other items in the theme. is hierarchical approach was therefore one of the main methods used

to reconﬁgure the CSF instrument into its current 177-item version.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 6: Cluster Analyses Results for Women (%) (n=135,800)

Achiever

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Context

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Consistency

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

Self-Assurance

Signiﬁcance

Strategic

Woo

Achiever 100 100 87 10 0 100 10 0 100 92 100 10 0 100 10 0 96 10 0 100 91 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 83 83 100 10 0 100 86 10 0 86 100 10 0 100

Activator 100 10 0 90 80 86 66 93 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 10 0 100 94 100 93 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 93 96 81 96 10 0 94 80 88 86

Adaptability 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 10 0 100 94 100 92 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 93 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Analytical 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 80 10 0 91 100 10 0 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 95 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 10 0 92 100 85 10 0 100

Arranger 87 100 88 85 10 0 100 10 0 82 10 0 100 10 0 92 85 10 0 100 88 96 96 10 0 92 64 100 62 83 10 0 80 92 100 10 0

Belief 10 0 100 10 0 85 10 0 100 79 10 0 95 100 10 0 94 10 0 100 95 100 80 10 0 100 93 10 0 80 85 100 90 92 10 0 95

Command 94 93 100 10 0 94 10 0 100 94 100 84 94 90 94 10 0 100 88 94 10 0 94 94 88 100 10 0 83 94 88 94

Communication 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 90 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 10 0 100 10 0 100 96 100 67

Competition 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 88 10 0 100 10 0 95 10 0 100

Connectedness 10 0 100 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 92 100 10 0 75 88 10 0 93 100 88 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Context 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Deliberative 10 0 96 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 66 10 0 100 10 0 88 91 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Developer 100 68 10 0 100 10 0 90 10 0 90 100 95 10 0 100 93 85 90 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Discipline 10 0 92 88 94 90 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Empathy 100 10 0 100 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 92 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 10 0 100 92

Consistency 10 0 100 88 100 88 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Focus 10 0 100 10 0 100 86 90 92 88 100 10 0 77 87 10 0 100 78 10 0 100

Futuristic 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 10 0 10 0 93 94 94 10 0 100 10 0 94 94 94

Harmony 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Ideation 10 0 100 79 83 85 93 96 100 10 0 100 81 92 88 94

Includer 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88

Individualization 88 90 100 93 100 88 95 82 10 0 96 100 10 0

Input 69 80 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 82 96 100 10 0

Intellection 79 100 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Learner 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100

Maximizer 10 0 93 100 10 0 93 10 0 93 93

Positivity 10 0 100 10 0 89 10 0 100 96

Relator 77 100 85 90 100 10 0

Responsibility 10 0 96 96 10 0 100

Restorative 100 10 0 100 10 0

Self-Assurance 7188 89

Signiﬁcance 10 0 100

Strategic 10 0

Woo

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 7: Cluster Analyses Results for Men (%) (n=103,594)

Achiever

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Context

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Consistency

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

Self-Assurance

Signiﬁcance

Strategic

Woo

Achiever 100 100 10 0 95 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 91 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 83 10 0 100 81 91 10 0 94 67 100 10 0

Activator 100 10 0 90 95 79 66 93 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 10 0 100 94 100 93 93 100 10 0 100 10 0 93 93 81 96 10 0 82 62 88 87

Adaptability 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 10 0 100 94 100 92 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Analytical 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 85 10 0 91 100 10 0 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 95 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Arranger 88 92 100 10 0 96 10 0 100 81 96 100 10 0 88 85 10 0 100 85 77 88 10 0 100 90 100 76 87 10 0 65 88 100 10 0

Belief 10 0 100 10 0 76 10 0 100 83 10 0 100 10 0 100 95 100 10 0 95 100 88 10 0 75 100 10 0 100 84 100 94 96 10 0 100

Command 94 93 100 10 0 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 90 83 100 94 10 0 100 88 94 10 0 94 94 88 100 10 0 94 84 88 94

Communication 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 94 90 10 0 94 94 100 10 0 92 94 95 100 94 96 10 0 61

Competition 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 88 10 0 100 10 0 95 88 10 0

Connectedness 10 0 100 75 10 0 94 100 10 0 100 10 0 92 10 0 100 75 88 100 10 0 10 0 100 95 100 10 0 96 10 0 100

Context 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Deliberative 10 0 84 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 71 10 0 100 10 0 88 82 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Developer 100 70 10 0 100 10 0 90 10 0 80 100 88 10 0 85 100 85 10 0 90 100 94 10 0 100 10 0

Discipline 10 0 89 69 100 93 10 0 100 90 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 88 90 100 10 0 100 10 0 10 0

Empathy 100 10 0 100 90 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 92 100 92 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Consistency 10 0 100 88 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 88 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Focus 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 88 10 0 100 88 86 100 92 84 10 0 100

Futuristic 100 94 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 93 94 94 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 94

Harmony 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 88 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Ideation 10 0 100 92 92 10 0 93 96 100 10 0 100 72 100 88 94

Includer 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 83 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0

Individualization 90 90 100 93 100 88 95 82 10 0 96 100 10 0

Input 69 80 100 10 0 100 88 100 94 96 10 0 100

Intellection 95 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100 10 0 100

Learner 10 0 100 10 0 100 94 10 0 100 10 0 100

Maximizer 10 0 80 100 10 0 93 10 0 93 93

Positivity 10 0 100 10 0 83 10 0 100 96

Relator 89 88 88 90 88 100

Responsibility 10 0 96 86 96 10 0

Restorative 100 10 0 100 10 0

Self-Assurance 7188 89

Signiﬁcance 10 0 100

Strategic 10 0

Woo

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

A construct validity study (Harter & Hodges, 2003) explored the relationship between the CSF

and the ﬁve-factor model of personality in a sample of 297 undergraduate business students

attending a Midwestern university. e “Big Five” factors of personality are Emotional Stability

or Neuroticism (tendency to experience unpleasant emotions), Extraversion (seeking the

company of others), Openness/Intellectence (interest in new experiences, ideas, and so forth),

Agreeableness (likability and other prosocial behaviors), and Conscientiousness (rule abidance,

discipline, integrity) (McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae, Costa, Lima, et al., 1999; McCrae, Costa,

Ostendorf, et al., 2000). A priori hypotheses linking themes and personality variables included

Conscientiousness correlating positively with Achiever, Discipline, Focus, and Responsibility;

Extraversion correlating positively with Activator, Communication, and Woo; Agreeableness

correlating positively with Includer and Positivity; and Intellectence correlating positively

with Ideation, Input, Intellection, and Strategic. Researchers found several of these expected

associations between CSF themes and ﬁve-factor model constructs.

In 2011, Yang and Blacksmith administered the 50-item Big Five scale by Goldberg (Goldberg,

1999; Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, et al., 2006) to 17,150 members of the Gallup Panel. Of

these Panel members, 1,462 had completed the CSF sometime earlier. e correlations of CSF

theme means to ﬁve-factor model scores appear in Table 8. (ese correlations have been corrected

for reliability.)

Revisiting the hypotheses from the earlier comparison to ﬁve-factor model constructs showed

Communication and Woo correlating positively with Extraversion; Positivity and Developer as

the themes with the strongest correlations to Agreeableness; Ideation, Input, Intellection, Learner,

and Strategic correlating highly with Intellectence; and Achiever, Discipline, and Responsibility

having the strongest correlations to Conscientiousness. Positivity and Arranger have the strongest

relationships to Emotional Stability, although none of these correlations is notably large.

Schreiner conducted an independent study of construct validity among 438 college students

(Schreiner, 2006). In this study, the vast majority of a priori hypotheses were conﬁrmed

when correlating CSF themes with their expected counterparts on other well-validated

personality instruments.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 8: Five-Factor Model

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness

Emotional

Stability/

Neuroticism

Openness/

Intellectence

Achiever 0.20 0.19 0.49 0.22 0.38

Activator 0.51 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.35

Adaptability 0.01 0.11 -0.27 0.00 0.05

Analytical -0.15 -0.28 0.30 0.04 0.28

Arranger 0.34 0.34 0.22 0.28 0.27

Belief 0.19 0.37 0.12 0.06 0.08

Command 0.30 -0.14 0.07 -0.06 0.49

Communication 0.71 0.34 0.05 0.11 0.26

Competition 0.19 -0.20 0.06 -0.07 0.41

Connectedness 0.13 0.43 0.01 0.11 0.27

Consistency -0.21 0.11 0.40 -0.01 -0.41

Context 0.05 -0.15 -0.01 -0.01 0.28

Deliberative -0.46 -0.42 0.15 -0.21 0.07

Developer 0.14 0.63 0.05 0.07 0.00

Discipline -0.10 0.12 0.60 -0.09 -0.12

Empathy 0.10 0.48 -0.05 -0.07 - 0.15

Focus 0.14 -0.03 0.33 -0.03 0.39

Futuristic 0.23 0.12 0.05 -0.01 0.50

Harmony -0.18 0.15 0.27 0.06 -0.44

Ideation 0.19 0.01 -0.16 0.10 0.64

Includer 0.29 0.44 0.04 0.22 -0.09

Individualization 0.33 0.16 0.15 -0.01 0.53

Input 0.06 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.53

Intellection -0.12 0.01 -0.02 -0.08 0.50

Learner 0.11 0.15 0.21 0 .14 0.56

Maximizer 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.23 0.27

Positivity 0.49 0.59 0.07 0.28 0.07

Relator 0.08 0.17 0.33 0.14 0.31

Responsibility 0.00 0.28 0.44 0.15 0.08

Restorative 0.04 0.15 -0.04 -0.20 0.12

Self-Assurance 0.29 -0.04 0.23 0.20 0.45

Signiﬁcance 0.22 - 0.16 0 .17 -0.13 0.33

Strategic 0.29 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.65

Woo 0.69 0.39 -0.01 0 .14 0.11

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

In 2012, Louis published a review of research on the eﬀects of student strengths development

eﬀorts in secondary and postsecondary education. Many researchers and practitioners have applied

strengths-based development principles to improve student outcomes; some of these applications

have been evaluated using experimental or cross-sectional methods. Louis references studies that

demonstrate evidence of strengths-based interventions improving student GPA, absenteeism,

hope, academic engagement, retention, and other outcomes. e relative merits of the individual

studies are discussed, and suggestions are provided for future research on strengths eﬀorts within

the education domain.

In 2007, Gallup researchers used a random sample of 50,000 respondents to investigate the extent

to which the 34 CSF themes cluster into larger groups. Researchers used a range of methods in

this investigation, including exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis, as well as

clinical reviews by experienced strengths consultants. ese investigations produced four groups

of themes that were highly convergent with a completely separate body of Gallup research on

leadership talents. Accordingly, the names of the four theme groups reﬂect this leadership research

as described in Rath & Conchie (2008).

e purpose of this theme clustering was to give a broader framework to the collection of themes

to help CSF respondents think about how they can best contribute to their teams. e more

detailed theme language is needed for individual development, but these broader leadership

domains are useful when thinking about how teams can be put together and managed. Table 9

includes some descriptive statistics about these four leadership domains.

Table 9: The Four Domains of Leadership Strengths

Executing Inﬂuencing Relationship

Building

Strategic

Thinking

Constituent Themes

Achiever Activator Adaptability Analytical

Arranger Command Connectedness Context

Belief Communication Developer Futuristic

Consistency Competition Empathy Ideation

Deliberative Maximizer Harmony Input

Discipline Self-Assurance Includer Intellection

Focus Signiﬁcance Individualization Learner

Responsibility Woo Positivity Strategic

Restorative Relator

Correlations to Five-Factor Model Traits (corrected for reliability)

Extraversion 0.01 0.58 0.25 0.14

Agreeableness 0.19 0.08 0.59 0.04

Conscientiousness 0.49 0.14 0.11 0.08

Emotional Stability

or Neuroticism 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.04

Openness/Intellectence 0.16 0.48 0.08 0.73

LEADERSHIP

GROUPS

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Each theme group is most highly correlated with the ﬁve-factor model trait most conceptually

related to its constituent themes. Executing themes are most highly correlated with

Conscientiousness; Inﬂuencing with Extraversion; Relationship Building with Agreeableness;

and Strategic inking with Intellectence. As with the CSF themes individually, none of the four

theme domains has a strong correlation with Emotional Stability.

Utility of Strengths Interventions

Successful strengths-based development results in desired behavioral change (Clifton & Harter,

2003; Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Indeed, Gallup (Black, 2001; Connelly, 2002; Krueger, 2004)

reports that client-sponsored studies have provided evidence that strengths-based development

relates to various positive outcomes, including increases in employee engagement and productivity.

Furthermore, managers who create environments in which employees can make the most of their

talents have more productive work units with less employee turnover (Clifton & Harter, 2003).

Studies also show that strengths-based development increases self-conﬁdence, direction, hope,

and altruism (Hodges & Clifton, 2004) in college students.

Ongoing research continues to explore the beneﬁts of strengths-based development on desired

outcomes in both work and academic settings. In a recent study of the gains made by individuals

and work units among Gallup clients, individuals or teams that invested in their own strengths

development made signiﬁcant gains. Speciﬁcally, evidence was accumulated across client data to

estimate the average performance increase experienced by them as a result of applying strengths-

based management practices. Gallup included 11 companies, representing an estimated 90,000

employees across 900 business units in ﬁve diﬀerent industries. None of the performance measures

were available across the entire population, but adequate data existed in multiple sub-populations

to indicate signiﬁcant gains in employee engagement, productivity, proﬁt, and employee

retention. Most of the individuals in the study were sited in North America, but at least one of

the studied companies has a sizable international workforce scattered across Europe, Asia, and

South America.

In 896 business units, pre- and post-measures of employee engagement were available in the

form of survey data from Gallup’s Q12 survey. (For information on the Q12 see Wagner & Harter,

2006). e core Q12 survey consists of 12 Likert items rated on a ﬁve-point scale. In interpreting

the amount of growth on the Q12 GrandMean (calculated as the mean of the responses to the 12

statements) to consider substantial growth, Gallup researchers have considered numerous criteria,

including various sources of possible error (sampling, measurement, transient) and the relationship

of changes in engagement to changes in business outcomes. Considering all of this information,

Gallup researchers have adopted, as a general guideline, using 0.20 as criteria for business unit

growth, or a 0.10 improvement for larger groups with more than 1,000 employees.

Among the 896 business units with Q12 data, those whose managers received a strengths

intervention (generally involving some personalized feedback, but not universally) showed 0.16

more improvement on their Q12 GrandMean score relative to those units where the manager

received nothing. is was a simple wait-list control rather than a placebo-controlled study, but

given the size of these workgroups (less than n=1,000 but generally larger than n=100), this

EMPLOYEE

ENGAGEMENT

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

indicates some evidence of signiﬁcant increase in engagement from the strengths intervention.

is is particularly notable because only the managers of these groups received strengths

feedback during the study period; the other 100+ employees in both the study and control groups

received nothing.

Data on individual engagement responses were also available for 12,157 employees. Among

those employees receiving a strengths intervention, engagement improved by 0.33 relative to

employees without the intervention. is was also largely a simple wait-list control, where most

of the “control” employees in this study subsequently received strengths feedback and coaching as

well. Nevertheless, the substantial gains in employee engagement among the employees receiving

strengths feedback are a very positive indication of the utility of the intervention.

Turnover data were available for 65,672 employees. Among employees receiving some strengths

feedback, turnover rates were 14.9% lower than for those employees receiving nothing (controlling

for job type and tenure). Presumably, some of this gain in utility ﬂows through the improvement in

engagement discussed previously, given the large body of evidence linking employee engagement

to employee turnover. Gallup researchers intend to explore the structure of this multivariate

relationship among strengths, engagement, and performance as data become available.

ere were 530 business units with productivity data. ose whose managers received strengths

feedback showed 12.5% greater productivity post-intervention relative to those units where

the manager received nothing. Similar to the engagement data discussed previously, this is

particularly notable because only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback

during the study period, with the remainder of the employees in both the study and control

groups receiving nothing in most cases. Also similar to the engagement studies, the “control”

managers were wait-list controls. Researchers also examined data on the productivity of 1,874

individual employees for the eﬀects of strengths feedback. Most of these employees were

engaged in sales functions, where the productivity data represent sales. Among those employees

receiving a strengths intervention, productivity improved by 7.8% relative to employees without

the intervention. is was also largely a simple wait-list control, where many of the “control”

employees in this study subsequently received strengths feedback and coaching as well.

Nevertheless, the substantial gains in productivity among the employees receiving strengths

feedback are a very positive indication of the utility of the intervention. ere is also thought to be

a signiﬁcant amount of range restriction in the measurable talents of many of these individuals, as

a large percentage of them were selected for their current position via a strengths-based selection

instrument. at is, participants were required to possess at a minimum the required levels of the

talents measured by these selection instruments to be eligible for the strengths intervention in the

ﬁrst place.

Proﬁt data were available for 469 business units, ranging from retail stores to large manufacturing

facilities. ose units whose managers received strengths feedback showed 8.9% greater

proﬁtability post-intervention relative to units where the manager received nothing. Again, this is

EMPLOYEE

TURNOVER

PRODUCTIVITY

PROFITABILITY

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

extremely positive evidence of the utility of investing in talent; only the managers of these groups

received strengths feedback during the study period, with the remainder of the employees in both

the study and control groups receiving nothing in most cases. Also similar to the engagement

studies, the “control” managers were wait-list controls for the most part.

Since 1998, Gallup has used the CSF as the company’s talent identiﬁcation tool in development

programs with academic institutions, faith-based organizations, major businesses, and other

organizations. As mentioned previously, Gallup researchers continue to examine the psychometric

properties of the instrument and modify it based on research ﬁndings.

e CSF has been used to facilitate the development of individuals across dozens of roles,

including executive, student, teacher, manager, customer service representative, salesperson,

administrative assistant, nurse, lawyer, pastor, leader, and school administrator. Strengths-based

development programs, grounded in traditional Gallup practices, are now being reﬁned based

on the principles of Positive Psychology, the scientiﬁc study of and evidence-based promotion

of optimal human functioning (as summarized in Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Keyes &

Haidt, 2003; Linley & Joseph, 2004; Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Snyder & Lopez, 2002).

e preponderance of the validity evidence to date shows strong evidence of the utility of these

strengths-based development programs, with large identiﬁed gains in performance among those

studied. Gallup continues to evaluate these relationships as data become available from clients or

research partners.

CLOSING

COMMENTS

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National

Council on Measurement in Education (AER A/APA/NCME). (1999). Standards for educational

and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Asplund, J. W. (2009). Strengths. In S. Lopez (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology, Volume 2.

Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford, UK and Malden, MA), 2009.

Asplund, J.W. & Blacksmith, N. (2011). Productivity through strengths. In Cameron, K. C. &

Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. (pp. 353-365).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Black, B. (2001). e road to recovery. Gallup Management Journal, 1(4), 10 -12 .

Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2000). Now, discover your strengths. New York: Free Press.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Clifton, D. O. (1970, March). e magniﬁcence of management. A reprint of an address presented

to the 8th Annual Life Agency Management Program. Boston, Mass.

Clifton, D. O. (1975). Interaction is: Where the action is. A reprint of a report prepared by

Donald O. Clifton and presented at the 1972 Chartered Life Underwriters (CLU) Forum.

Clifton, D. O. (1980). Varsity Management: A way to increase productivity. A reprint of an address

presented to the 29th Annual Consumer Credit Insurance Association (CCIA) Program on June

24, 1980. Napa, California.

Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths in

academics, career, and beyond. New York: Gallup Press.

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Strengths investment. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.

Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 111-121). San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Clifton, D. O., Hollingsworth, F. L., & Hall, W. E. (1952). A projective technique for measuring

positive and negative attitudes towards people in a real-life situation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 43.

Clifton, D. O., & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with your strengths. New York: Delacorte Press.

Connelly, J. (2002). All together now. Gallup Management Journal, 2(1), 13-18 .

Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological

Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Dodge, G. W., & Clifton, D. O. (1956). Teacher-pupil rapport and student teacher characteristics,

Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 6.

Gallup, G. (2004). e Gallup Poll: Public opinion 2003. Lanham, MD. Roman and Littleﬁeld.

REFERENCES

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring

the lower-level facets of several ﬁve-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &

F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Netherlands: Tilburg

University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. C. (2006). e International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain

personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Harter, J. K., Hayes, T. L., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Meta-analytic predictive validity of Gallup

Selection Research Instruments [technical report]. Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Harter, J. K., & Hodges, T. D. (2003) Construct validity study: StrengthsFinder and the Five Factor

Model [technical report]. Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Hodges, T. D., & Asplund, Jim (2009). Strengths Development in the Workplace. In A. Linley, P.

A., Harrington, S., & Page, N. (Eds.) Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In A. Linley &

S. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc.

Kane, M. T. (1992a). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1982). Psychological testing. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-

lived. Washington, DC: APA. Krueger, J. (2004, November). How Marriott Vacation Club

International engages talent. Gallup Management Journal, 4.

Linley, A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Lopez, S. (2009). e Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lopez, S., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2005, January). e Clifton StrengthsFinder technical report:

Development and validation. Unpublished report.

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). 2003. Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models

and measures. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Louis, M.C. (2012). The Clifton StrengthsFinder and student strengths development: A review of

research. Omaha, NE: Gallup.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the ﬁve-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., de Lima, M. P., et al. (1999). Age diﬀerences in personality across

the adult life span: Parallels in ﬁve cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 4 66 –77.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Ostendorf, F., et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament,

personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173 –86 .

Newport, F. (2004). Polling matters. New York: Warner Books.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated

approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Plake, B. (1999). An investigation of ipsativity and multicollinearity properties of the StrengthsFinder

Instrument [technical report]. Lincoln, NE: Gallup.

Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people

follow. New York: Gallup Press.

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, 445-464.

Schreiner, Laurie A. (2006). A technical report on the Clifton StrengthsFinder with college students.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). e handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.

Sireci, S. G. (2001). Standard setting using cluster analysis. In C. J. Cizek (Ed.), Standard setting:

Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 339-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sireci, S. G. (1998a). Gathering and analyzing content validity data.

Educational Assessment, 5, 299-321.

Sireci, S. G. (1998b). e construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83-117.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 34 THEMES OF TALENT

MEASURED BY THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER

People especially talented in the Achiever theme have a great deal of stamina and work hard. ey

take great satisfaction from being busy and productive.

People especially talented in the Activator theme can make things happen by turning thoughts

into action. ey are often impatient.

People especially talented in the Adaptability theme prefer to “go with the ﬂow.” ey tend to be

“now” people who take things as they come and discover the future one day at a time.

People especially talented in the Analytical theme search for reasons and causes. ey have the

ability to think about all the factors that might aﬀect a situation.

People especially talented in the Arranger theme can organize, but they also have a ﬂexibility

that complements this ability. ey like to ﬁgure out how all of the pieces and resources can be

arranged for maximum productivity.

People especially talented in the Belief theme have certain core values that are unchanging. Out of

these values emerges a deﬁned purpose for their life.

People especially talented in the Command theme have presence. ey can take control of a

situation and make decisions.

People especially talented in the Communication theme generally ﬁnd it easy to put their thoughts

into words. ey are good conversationalists and presenters.

People especially talented in the Competition theme measure their progress against the

performance of others. ey strive to win ﬁrst place and revel in contests.

People especially talented in the Connectedness theme have faith in the links between all things.

ey believe there are few coincidences and that almost every event has a reason.

People especially talented in the Consistency theme are keenly aware of the need to treat people

the same. ey try to treat everyone in the world with consistency by setting up clear rules and

adhering to them.

People especially talented in the Context theme enjoy thinking about the past. ey understand

the present by researching its history.

APPENDIX A:

Achiever

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Consistency

Context

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

People especially talented in the Deliberative theme are best described by the serious care they

take in making decisions or choices. ey anticipate the obstacles.

People especially talented in the Developer theme recognize and cultivate the potential in others.

ey spot the signs of each small improvement and derive satisfaction from these improvements.

People especially talented in the Discipline theme enjoy routine and structure. eir world is best

described by the order they create.

People especially talented in the Empathy theme can sense the feelings of other people by

imagining themselves in others’ lives or others’ situations.

People especially talented in the Focus theme can take a direction, follow through, and make the

corrections necessary to stay on track. ey prioritize, then act.

People especially talented in the Futuristic theme are inspired by the future and what could be.

ey inspire others with their visions of the future.

People especially talented in the Harmony theme look for consensus. ey don’t enjoy conﬂict;

rather, they seek areas of agreement.

People especially talented in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. ey are able to ﬁnd

connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.

People especially talented in the Includer theme are accepting of others. ey show awareness of

those who feel left out, and make an eﬀort to include them.

People especially talented in the Individualization theme are intrigued with the unique qualities

of each person. ey have a gift for ﬁguring out how people who are diﬀerent can work

together productively.

People especially talented in the Input theme have a craving to know more. Often they like to

collect and archive all kinds of information.

People especially talented in the Intellection theme are characterized by their intellectual activity.

ey are introspective and appreciate intellectual discussions.

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

People especially talented in the Learner theme have a great desire to learn and want to

continuously improve. In particular, the process of learning, rather than the outcome,

excites them.

People especially talented in the Maximizer theme focus on strengths as a way to stimulate

personal and group excellence. ey seek to transform something strong into something superb.

People especially talented in the Positivity theme have an enthusiasm that is contagious. ey are

upbeat and can get others excited about what they are going to do.

People especially talented in the Relator theme enjoy close relationships with others. ey ﬁnd

deep satisfaction in working hard with friends to achieve a goal.

People especially talented in the Responsibility theme take psychological ownership of what they

say they will do. ey are committed to stable values such as honesty and loyalty.

People especially talented in the Restorative theme are adept at dealing with problems. ey are

good at ﬁguring out what is wrong and resolving it.

People especially talented in the Self-Assurance theme feel conﬁdent in their ability to manage

their own lives. ey possess an inner compass that gives them conﬁdence that their decisions

are right.

People especially talented in the Signiﬁcance theme want to be very important in the eyes of

others. ey are independent and want to be recognized.

People especially talented in the Strategic theme create alternative ways to proceed. Faced with

any given scenario, they can quickly spot the relevant patterns and issues.

People especially talented in the Woo theme love the challenge of meeting new people and

winning them over. ey derive satisfaction from breaking the ice and making a connection with

another person.

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

Self-Assurance

Signicance

Strategic

Woo

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

EXAMPLE DENDROGRAMS FROM HIERARCHICAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS

is dendrogram shows 100% clustering of items in the correct themes.

Dendrogram Using Average Linkage (Between Groups)

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

Theme 1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Theme 2

APPENDIX B:

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

is dendrogram shows an imperfect clustering of items by theme.

Dendrogram Using Average Linkage (Between Groups)

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

0 5 10 15 20 25

Theme 1

Theme 2

Theme 1

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix C: Frequency of Themes Appearing Together in Top Five Themes in a Random Sample of 250,000 (%)

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Context

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Consistency

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

Self-Assurance

Signiﬁcance

Strategic

Woo

Achiever 2.6 2.3 4.0 3.7 2.9 1.2 2 .7 4.4 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 3. 2 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.9 3. 2 2.1 4.4 5.2 3 .1 12.4 3.8 3.5 7. 8 9.9 2.8 1.2 1. 8 7.7 2 .0

Activator 1.3 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.1 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.6 0. 2 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.5 1. 6 0.6 2.1 0.6 1.7 1.5 0.6 1.8 1.7 1 .9 1.9 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 3.4 1.9

Adaptability 0.7 1.7 2.0 0.5 2.4 1.0 2 .8 1.5 1.7 3.6 0.2 6.6 2.5 0.1 1.1 4.2 3 .1 2.6 1.4 2.9 2 .1 1.8 2.3 3.9 3.6 3.7 2 .7 0.4 0.4 3.3 2.3

Analytical 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.4 0 .7 1.4 2.7 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.5 1. 3 1.0 2.2 1.5 0.4 1.9 1.4 1. 3 4.0 1.0 0.2 3.5 3.8 1.5 0.4 0.7 2.3 0. 2

Arranger 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.7 0.5 1. 8 0.5 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.9 2 .1 0.8 1.3 2.3 1.4 0.5 2.7 2.3 2 .5 3.5 4.9 1.0 0.5 0.4 2.2 1.1

Belief 0.2 1.2 0.5 3.4 1.0 0.8 3 .4 0.6 2.6 1.1 0.3 1.0 2.1 1.0 1. 3 1.1 1.6 0.8 2.5 1.1 2 .1 2.7 5.9 1.6 0.3 0.3 2 .0 1.0

Command 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 0 .1 1.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0 .1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.3

Communication 1.2 1. 2 0.6 0.1 1.6 0.6 2.8 0 .9 0.4 1.3 1.8 1.4 2 .0 1.7 1.8 0.3 1.3 1.9 4 .1 1.7 2.2 1.1 0.3 0.6 3.4 6.1

Competition 0.1 0 .7 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.9 0 .7 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.5 1. 6 1.2 0.8 1.8 1.0 0 .9 0.5 1.7 2.5 1.0

Connectedness 1.4 0.7 3.4 0.4 4.5 0 .9 0.1 1.0 2.1 2. 3 1.1 2.2 4.2 3.1 4.2 1.6 2.5 3. 2 3.8 1.7 0.2 0.1 3. 2 1.0

Context 1 .1 0.9 0.4 1.3 0 .9 0.3 0.5 1.7 1.1 0.5 1.2 2.2 1.8 2 .9 0.7 0.8 1.6 2 .1 1.4 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.5

Deliberative 0.6 0.9 1. 3 1.8 0.7 0.7 2.3 0 .9 0.2 1.0 1.4 1. 8 2.4 0.8 0.1 2 .9 3.5 1.7 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.0

Developer 0.9 8.2 2.1 0 .1 0.6 4.2 0.9 2.3 1.9 2.2 1. 2 2.3 1.3 4.6 3.2 4.7 2.2 0 .1 0.1 1.6 1.4

Discipline 1.3 2.2 0.9 0.6 2 .4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.4 0.6 0.4 1. 6 2.9 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.5 0. 3

Empathy 3.4 0.2 1.2 6.1 1.8 2.8 3.0 3.6 2.5 2.7 2.2 5 .1 3.8 5.1 3.3 0.1 0 .1 2.8 2.5

Consistency 0.4 0.5 6.8 0.1 1.4 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.4 0 .9 1.2 2.5 4.6 1.8 0 .1 0.3 0.4 0.5

Focus 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0. 2 1.7 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.3 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.2

Futuristic 0.7 2.6 0.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 2 .7 1.8 1.5 2.5 1.9 1. 3 0.6 1.0 4.2 1.0

Harmony 0.3 2 .1 1.7 2.4 1.7 3.1 1.6 2 .7 3.8 6.9 3.2 0 .1 0.4 0.1 1.2

Ideation 0.8 2.5 3.8 2.8 4.3 2 .1 1.7 3.0 1.9 1.4 0.7 0.5 6.8 1.2

Includer 0.6 0.9 0.2 1.2 0 .9 3.8 1.2 2.4 1. 2 0.2 0.2 1.2 2.4

Individualization 2.8 1.3 4.9 1.8 1.7 4. 2 3.4 2.0 0.4 0.5 4.2 1.2

Input 7. 2 9. 3 1.7 2.2 2.7 4.2 2.2 0.2 0.3 4.6 1. 2

Intellection 6.6 1.0 0.6 2.6 2.6 1.7 0.1 0. 2 3.0 0.1

Learner 2 .7 2.3 6.4 8.1 2.9 0 .9 0.7 6.8 1.0

Maximizer 2.6 3.6 3.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 4.0 1.4

Positivity 2.4 3.1 1.3 0.3 0. 2 3.0 5.3

Relator 9.1 2.6 1.1 1.1 6.0 0.9

Responsibility 3.8 0.8 0.9 4 .4 1.3

Restorative 0.2 0.6 1.6 0.8

Self-Assurance 0.3 1.3 0.2

Signiﬁcance 1.1 0.4

Strategic

2.3

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix D: Conditional Probability of Column Theme in Top Five Themes Given Presence of Row Theme in a Random Sample of 250,000

Achiever

Activator

Adaptability

Analytical

Arranger

Belief

Command

Communication

Competition

Connectedness

Context

Deliberative

Developer

Discipline

Empathy

Consistency

Focus

Futuristic

Harmony

Ideation

Includer

Individualization

Input

Intellection

Learner

Maximizer

Positivity

Relator

Responsibility

Restorative

SelfAssurance

Signiﬁcance

Strategic

Woo

Achiever 0. 08 0.07 0.1 3 0.12 0.10 0 .04 0.09 0 .14 0.08 0.07 0. 09 0.08 0.09 0 .10 0.0 8 0.10 0.11 0 .13 0 .10 0.07 0.14 0 .17 0.10 0.4 0 0.12 0.11 0 .25 0.32 0 .09 0.04 0.06 0. 25 0.07

Activator 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.09 10 .80 0. 26 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.02 0. 07 0.03 0.1 2 0.03 0.05 0.16 0 .06 0.20 0.0 6 0.16 0.14 0.06 0.17 0. 16 0.18 0.19 0.15 0 .08 0.05 0.0 7 0 .33 0.19

Adaptability 0.1 3 0.07 0.0 4 0.09 0. 11 0.03 0 .13 0.05 0.16 0 .08 0.09 0.2 0 0 .01 0.36 0.14 0 .01 0.06 0.2 3 0.17 0 .14 0.0 8 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.13 0 .21 0.20 0. 20 0.15 0 .02 0.02 0 .18 0.13

Analytical 0.35 0. 04 0.06 0.0 8 0 .05 0.05 0.0 4 0.12 0.06 0.12 0. 23 0 .04 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.11 0.0 9 0 .20 0.13 0.03 0 .16 0.1 3 0.12 0 .35 0.09 0. 02 0 .30 0.33 0 .13 0.04 0.0 6 0 .20 0.02

Arranger 0.30 0.0 9 0.14 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.1 2 0.04 0 .11 0.06 0. 04 0. 14 0.0 4 0.14 0.08 0. 03 0.07 0 .17 0. 07 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.04 0.2 2 0.19 0. 20 0.28 0.40 0. 08 0.04 0.03 0.18 0. 09

Belief 0.23 0. 07 0.16 0.05 0 .11 0.02 0 .09 0 .04 0.26 0.0 8 0. 06 0.26 0.05 0. 20 0.09 0.02 0.0 8 0.16 0 .08 0.10 0.09 0.1 2 0.06 0 .19 0.0 8 0.16 0 .21 0.46 0 .12 0.03 0 .02 0.15 0 .08

Command 0.29 0.2 8 0.13 0 .13 0.0 6 0. 06 0.12 0.26 0.04 0.0 6 0.13 0. 01 0.01 0.04 0. 03 0.10 0.17 0.03 0. 25 0.03 0 .14 0.11 0.05 0 .17 0.10 0 .03 0.21 0 .14 0.10 0 .14 0.17 0.35 0.0 8

Communication 0. 20 0 .20 0.18 0.04 0 .11 0.09 0.0 4 0.09 0 .09 0.05 0.01 0.12 0. 04 0.21 0.0 7 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.13 0 .02 0.10 0 .14 0. 30 0.12 0.16 0 .08 0.02 0.05 0 .25 0.45

Competition 0.49 0 .15 0 .11 0.1 5 0.06 0.0 5 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.08 0 .10 0.02 0 .05 0.06 0.06 0.16 0 .21 0.08 0 .14 0.06 0.1 3 0.08 0.0 5 0.18 0.14 0.09 0. 20 0.11 0.10 0.05 0 .18 0.28 0 .11

Connectedness 0.16 0.07 0 .18 0.04 0. 09 0.22 0.01 0. 08 0.01 0.09 0.05 0 .21 0.03 0.2 9 0.06 0.01 0.0 6 0.13 0 .15 0.07 0.14 0.27 0. 20 0.27 0. 10 0.16 0.21 0. 24 0.11 0.01 0.01 0 .21 0.06

Context 0 .22 0.06 0 .16 0 .15 0.08 0.11 0 .03 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.10 0. 05 0. 14 0.10 0 .03 0.05 0 .19 0.1 2 0.06 0 .14 0.24 0 .19 0. 32 0.08 0.08 0.18 0. 23 0.15 0 .02 0.03 0 .17 0 .05

Deliberative 0.27 0. 02 0. 17 0.27 0 .05 0.08 0.05 0. 01 0. 09 0.07 0 .11 0.0 6 0.10 0 .13 0.18 0. 07 0.07 0.23 0. 09 0.02 0.10 0 .14 0.18 0. 24 0 .08 0.01 0. 30 0 .36 0 .17 0. 02 0.05 0 .14 0.0 0

Developer 0.16 0.0 4 0 .22 0.03 0 .11 0. 21 0 .00 0.10 0 .01 0.20 0.06 0. 04 0 .05 0.50 0.13 0 .01 0.04 0.25 0. 06 0. 14 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.07 0 .14 0.08 0.28 0.19 0 .29 0 .14 0 .01 0.00 0 .10 0.09

Discipline 0.38 0.0 4 0 .03 0.16 0.07 0.0 9 0 .01 0.08 0 .07 0.06 0.06 0 .13 0 .13 0.19 0.31 0 .13 0.08 0 .35 0.00 0.0 6 0.10 0.10 0. 07 0 .20 0.09 0.0 6 0. 22 0.42 0.1 2 0.01 0. 05 0 .08 0.04

Empathy 0.14 0.06 0.3 0 0. 02 0.08 0.1 2 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.20 0.0 6 0. 06 0.37 0.0 6 0.15 0 .01 0.06 0.2 7 0. 08 0.13 0. 14 0 .16 0 .11 0.1 2 0.10 0.23 0 .17 0. 23 0.15 0 .00 0.01 0 .12 0 .11

Consistency 0.22 0.03 0. 21 0.13 0.08 0.09 0 .01 0.08 0. 04 0.08 0.08 0 .15 0 .18 0. 18 0.29 0. 04 0.04 0. 57 0.01 0.1 2 0.04 0.0 8 0 .07 0.12 0 .08 0.11 0.21 0. 39 0.15 0.01 0.02 0. 04 0.04

Focus 0.55 0 .08 0.02 0.2 3 0 .06 0.05 0.08 0 .07 0.27 0.02 0. 05 0.12 0 .03 0. 17 0.0 4 0. 08 0. 24 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.11 0 .08 0.04 0. 31 0 .10 0.05 0. 21 0.23 0 .10 0.04 0 .19 0.17 0.04

Futuristic 0.29 0 .14 0.10 0. 09 0.08 0.09 0. 06 0.11 0. 17 0.09 0. 04 0.06 0.06 0 .05 0.11 0.04 0.1 2 0.06 0. 23 0.06 0 .14 0. 14 0.09 0. 23 0.15 0.13 0 .21 0 .17 0.11 0 .05 0.08 0. 37 0 .09

Harmony 0. 20 0.03 0.2 2 0 .12 0 .11 0 .11 0.01 0. 09 0.04 0 .11 0.09 0 .12 0.2 2 0 .13 0. 32 0.35 0.0 3 0 .04 0.01 0.11 0 .09 0.13 0.09 0 .16 0.09 0.14 0.20 0. 36 0.17 0.01 0. 02 0 .00 0.06

Ideation 0.21 0 .14 0.21 0 .10 0.06 0 .07 0.07 0 .10 0.09 0 .16 0.0 8 0 .06 0.06 0.0 0 0 .12 0. 01 0.02 0 .17 0. 02 0. 05 0.17 0.26 0.19 0 .29 0 .14 0.11 0. 20 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.4 6 0 .08

Includer 0.21 0.0 6 0. 26 0.04 0.1 3 0 .14 0 .01 0.21 0. 05 0.11 0.05 0.02 0. 23 0 .04 0.28 0 .14 0.02 0.07 0 .21 0.08 0. 06 0.09 0.02 0 .12 0.0 9 0. 38 0.12 0 .24 0.12 0.02 0.02 0 .12 0.2 4

Individualization 0.28 0 .11 0.09 0 .12 0.1 5 0.07 0.0 4 0.11 0. 08 0. 14 0.0 8 0 .07 0.12 0.05 0. 19 0.03 0.0 4 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.0 8 0.31 0.12 0.11 0. 27 0.22 0.13 0.03 0.03 0. 27 0.08

Input 0.26 0.0 7 0.14 0.07 0. 07 0.08 0.02 0. 09 0 .04 0.21 0.11 0 .07 0.11 0.03 0 .18 0.05 0. 02 0 .08 0.1 2 0.19 0.05 0 .14 0. 36 0.46 0.09 0.11 0.13 0 .21 0.11 0.01 0.0 2 0. 23 0.06

Intellection 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.10 0 .03 0.06 0.02 0 .02 0.03 0.23 0 .13 0 .13 0.09 0.0 4 0.18 0 .06 0.02 0.08 0.13 0. 21 0.02 0 .10 0. 53 0 .48 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.01 0.01 0 .22 0.01

Learner 0.44 0.0 6 0 .06 0 .14 0.10 0. 09 0.02 0.05 0.0 6 0.15 0.10 0 .09 0.08 0.05 0.10 0 .05 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.16 0 .04 0 .17 0. 33 0. 24 0.10 0.08 0. 23 0.29 0 .10 0.03 0.0 3 0. 24 0.04

Maximizer 0.28 0.1 2 0 .17 0.0 8 0.17 0.08 0. 03 0. 14 0.09 0 .12 0.0 5 0 .06 0.09 0.05 0.16 0.07 0.04 0 .13 0.1 2 0.1 5 0.07 0 .14 0.13 0. 08 0.2 0.19 0.27 0.22 0.0 0 0.05 0.05 0. 30 0.11

Positivity 0.20 0 .11 0.2 2 0 .01 0. 14 0 .12 0.01 0. 24 0.05 0 .14 0.04 0.00 0. 27 0.03 0.30 0.0 7 0.02 0.09 0 .16 0 .10 0.22 0.10 0 .13 0.0 4 0 .133 0. 148 0. 14 0 .18 0.07 0 .02 0.01 0 .18 0. 31

Relator 0.31 0.0 8 0. 14 0 .14 0. 14 0 .11 0.03 0 .07 0.07 0.1 3 0.07 0 .12 0.1 3 0.06 0 .15 0.10 0.05 0 .10 0.1 5 0.12 0.05 0 .17 0.11 0.10 0. 25 0. 14 0 .10 0. 36 0.10 0 .05 0.04 0.2 4 0. 03

Responsibility 0.33 0 .05 0.12 0.13 0.16 0 .20 0.02 0.0 7 0 .03 0.13 0.07 0.1 2 0.16 0.10 0. 17 0.1 5 0.04 0.0 6 0 .23 0.06 0.0 8 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.269 0.099 0 .104 0.302 0 .13 0.03 0. 03 0.15 0. 04

Restorative 0.21 0.06 0.2 0 0.11 0. 07 0.12 0 .03 0.08 0.07 0 .13 0 .10 0.1 3 0 .17 0.0 6 0. 25 0.13 0.04 0 .10 0.24 0 .11 0.0 9 0.15 0.17 0.13 0. 22 0.001 0.097 0 .194 0.283 0. 01 0.04 0.1 2 0.06

Self-Assurance 0.35 0 .14 0.12 0 .12 0 .16 0 .10 0 .16 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.0 6 0.07 0.02 0. 02 0.02 0.03 0.0 6 0.16 0.03 0 .19 0.05 0 .12 0.07 0. 04 0.25 0.2 0 0. 08 0.33 0.23 0. 05 0. 09 0 .36 0.06

Signiﬁcance 0.38 0 .16 0.08 0.15 0. 08 0.07 0 .14 0.13 0 .35 0.02 0.0 6 0.11 0 .01 0.07 0.03 0 .06 0.23 0.2 0 0. 09 0.10 0 .04 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.13 0 .05 0.22 0 .19 0.1 2 0.07 0. 22 0.08

Strategic 0.32 0.14 0 .14 0.10 0 .09 0.08 0.0 6 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.0 6 0 .07 0.02 0.1 2 0.02 0.0 4 0.18 0. 00 0.29 0.05 0.18 0.19 0.13 0 .29 0. 17 0 .13 0.25 0.19 0 .07 0.05 0.05 0.10

Woo 0.18 0. 17 0. 21 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.03 0 .55 0. 09 0.09 0.04 0.0 0 0.13 0 .02 0.22 0.04 0. 02 0.09 0. 11 0.11 0.22 0 .11 0 .11 0.01 0. 09 0.13 0.48 0.08 0 .12 0.07 0 .02 0.03 0. 21

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

40,000.0

30,000.0

20,000.0

10,000.0

0.0

1.00.00 2.00 3.00

logn

4.00

Frequency

Mean = .9603

Std. Dev. = .67259

n = 233,282

DISTRIBUTION OF TOP FIVE THEME COMBINATIONS IN TOTAL DATABASE

is histogram shows the frequency distribution of the 233,282 combinations of top ﬁve themes

currently in the CSF database. e graph is shown on a log scale to aid visibility of the most

common theme sets. Note that more than 30,000 of the top ﬁve theme combinations occur only

once in the database. e average number of occurrences is nine, but 620 combinations have

occurred at least 1,000 times each.

APPENDIX E:

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Gallup StrengthsFinder in Engineering

Conference Paper

Jun 2018

Development and Validation of the Behavioural Index of Occupational Strengths (BIOS)

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2021

When employees develop their personal strengths at work, they thrive. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of what their strengths are. This encouraged the construction of strengths assessment tools such as the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths and the Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0. However, these inventories may be unsatisfactory in describing all types of work-related strengths employees can identify with. Therefore, we test the comprehensiveness of these indices in the context of work. Based on our findings, we design an iterative procedure guided by the Critical Incident Technique to develop a novel index of occupational strengths. First, we inductively generate the index from 954 strengths reported by 231 Dutch employees and 87 of their colleagues and test its internal reliability (Study 1). Then, we translate the index and assess its applicability with 1056 strengths reported by 176 employees from English-speaking countries (Study 2). Finally, we examine the robustness and generalizability of both versions with an additional Dutch (N = 218) and English (N = 216) sample (Study 3). By building an index through the language of the employee, we generate a specialized tool for human resource development professionals and managers to help employees focus on and apply their best selves.

Assessments in Career Counseling

Chapter

Apr 2023

Personality assessment for work: Legal, I-O, and clinical perspective

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2019

Personality assessment for work: Legal, I-O, and clinical perspective - Volume 12 Issue 2 - Stephan Dilchert, Deniz S. Ones, Robert F. Krueger

Strengths-based coaching and sustainability leadership

Chapter

Oct 2021

Doug Mackie

Strength-based leadership coaching has demonstrated significant efficacy in the development of individual agency-based leadership capability. Unlike many coaching methodologies, this effect has been demonstrated beyond the level of self-report and in addition, there is convincing evidence that is the specific strength-based methodology rather than the generic coaching approach that is responsible for the observed enhancements in transformational leadership effectiveness. Despite a consensus emerging around the development of positive leadership behaviours as a key dependent variable in the evaluation of coaching effectiveness, the construct of contemporary leadership has recently been criticised for containing within it, several unsustainable assumptions that if unchecked, can lead to poorer outcomes at the societal and planetary level. Sustainability leadership offers the opportunity to redress that imbalance by aligning strength-based coaching with sustainable outcomes beyond individual, shareholder and organisational value. This chapter explores the core elements of a strength-based approach to leadership development and how they can be repurposed towards the development and enhancement of sustainability leadership within organisations.

Nurturing Happiness at Work Through Strengths Use

Chapter

Oct 2020

Strength-Based Coaching and Sustainability Leadership

Chapter

Full-text available

Aug 2020

Doug Mackie

Strength-Based leadership coaching has demonstrated significant efficacy in the development of individual agency-based leadership capability, (MacKie, 2014). Unlike many coaching methodologies, this effect has been demonstrated beyond the level of self-report and in addition, there is convincing evidence that is the specific strength-based methodology rather than the generic coaching approach that is responsible for the observed enhancements in transformational leadership effectiveness. Despite a consensus emerging around leadership as being a key dependent variable in the evaluation of coaching effectiveness, the construct of contemporary leadership has recently been criticised for containing within in several unsustainable assumptions that if unchecked, can lead to poorer outcomes at the societal and planetary level. Sustainability leadership offers the opportunity to redress that imbalance by aligning strength-based coaching with sustainable outcomes beyond individual, shareholder and organisational value. This chapter explores the core elements of a strength-based approach to leadership development and how they can be repurposed towards the development and enhancement of sustainability leadership within organisations.

Response to Impact of Students' Strengths, Critical Thinking Skills and Disposition on Academic Success in the First Year of a PharmD Program

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2020
AM J PHARM EDUC

Resiliente Organisationen: Was Unternehmen krisenfest, gesund, agil und wirksam macht: Stürmische Zeiten besser meistern

Chapter

Jan 2019

Mirjam Rolfe

Eine Stärkung der Resilienz und Agilität auf organisationaler Ebene hilft Unternehmen, von der VUCA-Welt zu profitieren, die Chancen der Digitalisierung nachhaltig zu nutzen und positiv mit Veränderungen umzugehen. Dafür lohnt es sich, in vier Lernfelder zu investieren: Unternehmenskultur (z. B. Sinn und Werte, Vertrauen statt Macht und Kontrolle, organisationales Lernen und Fehlerkultur sowie Stärkenorientierung), bewusste, positive Führung, organisationale Energie sowie resilienzfördernde Strukturen und Prozesse (z. B. Förderung der Selbstorganisation und von Netzwerken). Ein Blick auf hochzuverlässige Organisationen (HRO) kann dabei hilfreiche Erkenntnisse liefern. Dieses Kapitel befasst sich mit den Fragen, was resiliente Organisationen auszeichnet, wie organisationale Resilienz entsteht und wie Resilienz und Agilität zusammenhängen. Die wichtigsten Ansätze und Hebel zur Förderung von Resilienz in Unternehmen werden aufgezeigt und Fallbeispiele genannt. Ein Exkurs in das Thema erweiterte Verfügbarkeit geht auf den gesunden Umgang mit den neuen Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien ein.

Clinician's Commentary on Desveaux et al. 1

Article

Jan 2016

Emer Mcgowan

An Introduction to Positive Organizational Scholarship

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2003

Gathering and Analyzing Content Validity Data

Article

Full-text available

Oct 1998

Stephen G. Sireci

If the scores from educational assessments are to be useful and defensible, the content validity of the tests must be established This article briefly describes content validity theory and illustrates new and traditional approaches for conducting content validity studies. Newer approaches are based on multidimensional scaling analysis of item-similarity ratings Traditional approaches are based on ratings of item-objective congruence and relevance Drawing on previous research in this area, guidelines for gathering and analyzing content validity data are provided.

Age differences in person-ality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures

Article

Full-text available

Nov 1998

The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, (2 Ed.)

Book

Sep 2012

The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology studies the burgeoning field of positive psychology, which, in recent years, has transcended academia to capture the imagination of the general public. The book provides a roadmap for the psychology needed by the majority of the population-those who don't need treatment, but want to achieve the lives to which they aspire. The articles summarize all of the relevant literature in the field, and each is essentially defining a lifetime of research. The content's breadth and depth provide a cross-disciplinary look at positive psychology from diverse fields and all branches of psychology, including social, clinical, personality, counseling, school, and developmental psychology. Topics include not only happiness-which has been perhaps misrepresented in the popular media as the entirety of the field-but also hope, strengths, positive emotions, life longings, creativity, emotional creativity, courage, and more, plus guidelines for applying what has worked for people across time and cultures.

The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship

Book

Nov 2012

Positive organizational scholarship (POS) is an umbrella concept used to emphasize what elevates and what is inspiring to individuals and organizations by defining the possibilities for positive deviance rather than just improving on the challenging, broken, and needlessly difficult. Just as positive psychology explores optimal individual psychological states rather than pathological ones, POS focuses attention on the generative dynamics in organizations that lead to the development of human strength, foster resiliency in employees, enable healing and restoration, and cultivate extraordinary individual and organizational performance. While POS does not ignore dysfunctional or typical patterns of behavior, it is most interested in the motivations and effects associated with remarkably positive phenomena how they are facilitated, why they work, how they can be identified, and how organizations can capitalize on them. This book is a major resource on POS. Eighty articles review basic principles, empirical evidence, and ideas for future research relating to POS. They focus on using a positive lens to address problems and challenges in organizational life and they draw on POS to expand the domain of other disciplines including ethics, economics, peace, spirituality, social movements, and sustainability.

Productivity Through Strengths

Article

Jan 2012

This chapter discusses how organizations can drive performance through strengths-based development practices. Specifically, we report the results of 40 years conducting behavioral research that has led to the development of the Clifton StrengthsFinder, an online measure of personal talent that identifies areas in which an individual's greatest potential for building strengths exists. Through the use of this tool, managers and individuals can leverage strengths to improve employee and organization performance. This chapter reports findings, from studies of large organizations using this tool, that suggest strengths-based employee development leads to higher levels of engagement and performance within business units.

Strengths Development in the Workplace

Article

Jan 2009

This article discusses issues concerning strengths development in the workplace. It describes several different types of strengths interventions and explains that the typical process of strengths development begins with identification, moves into integration, and ultimately to changed behaviors and outcomes. It provides evidence on the impact on strength development initiatives on employee engagement, employee turnover, employee productivity, and profitability.

Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach.

Article

Jan 1994

Construct Validity in Psychological Test

Article

Aug 1955

"Construct validation was introduced in order to specify types of research required in developing tests for which the conventional views on validation are inappropriate. Personality tests, and some tests of ability, are interpreted in terms of attributes for which there is no adequate criterion. This paper indicates what sorts of evidence can substantiate such an interpretation, and how such evidence is to be interpreted." 60 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Positive Psychology in Practice

Book

Jan 2004

A thorough and up-to-date guide to putting positive psychology into practice From the Foreword: "This volume is the cutting edge of positive psychology and the emblem of its future." -Martin E. P. Seligman, Ph.D., Fox Leadership Professor of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, and author of Authentic Happiness Positive psychology is an exciting new orientation in the field, going beyond psychology's traditional focus on illness and pathology to look at areas like well-being and fulfillment. While the larger question of optimal human functioning is hardly new - Aristotle addressed it in his treatises on eudaimonia - positive psychology offers a common language on this subject to professionals working in a variety of subdisciplines and practices. Applicable in many settings and relevant for individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and societies, positive psychology is a genuinely integrative approach to professional practice. Positive Psychology in Practice fills the need for a broad, comprehensive, and state-of-the-art reference for this burgeoning new perspective. Cutting across traditional lines of thinking in psychology, this resource bridges theory, research, and applications to offer valuable information to a wide range of professionals and students in the social and behavioral sciences. A group of major international contributors covers: The applied positive psychology perspective Historical and philosophical foundations Values and choices in pursuit of the good life Lifestyle practices for health and well-being Methods and processes for teaching and learning Positive psychology at work.

THE CLIFTON STRENGTHSFINDER ® 2.0 TECHNICAL REPORT

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Creating a question: a historian's approach to the body with Jaime Humberto Borja

The process of negotiations towards acceptance of the montreal protocol in Malaysia: Focusing on env...

[Midwife as a person, an interview: a desire for early return to work to utilize personal experience...

Psychometric properties of the german version of the St. George's respiratory questionnaire in the c...