Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II (KTS®-II)

Abstract

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II (KTS®-II) is a widely utilized self-report personality inventory designed to categorize individuals into one of 16 distinct character types. Developed by David Keirsey, this instrument operationalizes his interpretation of four fundamental human temperaments: the Guardians (SJ), the Artisans (SP), the Rationals (NT), and the Idealists (NF). The KTS-II uses forced-choice questions to determine an individual’s preferences across four dichotomous dimensions, providing a framework for understanding core motivations, values, and characteristic behaviors. It serves primarily as a tool for self-discovery, relationship counseling, and vocational guidance, distinguishing itself from other psychological typing instruments through its unique emphasis on characterology and the four classical temperaments.

The structure of the KTS-II is based on four key dichotomies—similar to the structure developed by Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs—but the interpretation and grouping of the resulting 16 types into four macro-temperaments are specific to Keirsey’s theory. Each of the four temperaments is associated with a primary life objective, such as “Security Seeking” (SJ) or “Knowledge Seeking” (NT), which guides the individual’s interactions and decision-making processes.

Keywords

Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II, KTS-II, Temperament, Personality Assessment, Psychological Type, Character Type, Four Temperaments, David Keirsey, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Personality Inventory, Vocational Guidance.

Authors

David Keirsey, Marilyn Bates.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II is to facilitate self-understanding and interpersonal communication by identifying an individual’s inherent temperament and resulting character type. By forcing choices between two contrasting preferences across 70 items, the instrument aims to reveal deep-seated psychological needs and preferred modes of action.

The resulting temperament profile is intended to help users recognize their natural strengths, their typical approach to work and relationships, and the kind of environment in which they are most likely to thrive. This information is frequently applied in educational settings, career planning, and marital or relationship counseling to enhance mutual understanding and reduce conflict based on differing core motivations.

Construct

The KTS-II measures the psychological construct of Temperament, defined by Keirsey as a configuration of observable personality traits, attitudes, and values. This construct is based on four fundamental dichotomies, which combine to form 16 unique character types. Keirsey then groups these 16 types into four overarching temperaments, each defined by two core characteristics: communication style (Concrete vs. Abstract) and action orientation (Utilitarian vs. Cooperative).

• The Guardians (SJ): Focus on concrete communication and cooperative action. Their primary objective is Security Seeking.
• The Artisans (SP): Focus on concrete communication and utilitarian action. Their primary objective is Sensation Seeking.
• The Rationals (NT): Focus on abstract communication and utilitarian action. Their primary objective is Knowledge Seeking.
• The Idealists (NF): Focus on abstract communication and cooperative action. Their primary objective is Identity Seeking.

Validity

The validity of the KTS-II is typically discussed in the context of its conceptual framework rather than standard psychometric criteria often applied to mainstream personality tests. Keirsey asserts that the instrument possesses high face validity and construct validity, specifically validating the consistency of the four temperaments as described in his characterology. The instrument demonstrates strong alignment with the 16 types derived from the MBTI, sharing the four-dichotomy structure, though Keirsey’s interpretation of these types, particularly their behavioral manifestations and motivational drives, is distinct.

While some academic research supports the statistical independence of the four dichotomous scales, critics often point out that the KTS-II, similar to other type-based instruments, sometimes lacks robust evidence for predictive and discriminant validity when compared to dimensional models of personality, such as the Big Five. However, proponents argue that its utility lies in its descriptive power and its success in helping individuals recognize and relate to their assigned character profile.

Reliability

Reliability estimates for the KTS-II, particularly test-retest reliability, tend to be reported as reasonably high for the four individual dichotomies, suggesting that an individual’s core preferences remain relatively stable over time. Consistency is strongest for the Extroversion/Introversion (E/I) and Judging/Perceiving (J/P) dimensions.

However, the reliability of the overall 16-type classification, which is sensitive to small preference shifts near the midpoint of a dichotomy scale, can be lower than that of dimensional measures. Keirsey’s model assumes that temperament is fixed and unchanging, suggesting that repeated testing should yield the same result, an assumption that generally holds true for most individuals taking the sorter, reinforcing its utility as a stable measure of character type.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytical studies performed on the KTS-II and similar instruments generally confirm the presence of four statistically distinct factors corresponding to the four primary dichotomies (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P). These analyses support the dimensional structure underlying the scale’s construction.

Crucially, the KTS-II’s major contribution is the reorganization of these factors into the four overarching Keirsey temperaments (SJ, SP, NT, NF). While factor analysis supports the individual dichotomies, the Keirsey model relies on theoretical grouping rather than purely statistical grouping to define the higher-order temperament constructs. This theoretical grouping is what drives the unique interpretative power and utility of the Keirsey model in counseling and practical application.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report personality inventory, forced-choice format.

Format: 70 binary, forced-choice questions (A or B), designed to measure preferences across four dichotomies.

Language Available: Primarily English (widely available online), with potential translations available through licensed distributors.

Population Group: General population.

Age Group: Typically adolescents (13+) and adults.

Population Details: The instrument is designed to measure fundamental character preferences and is applicable across diverse demographic and occupational groups.

Test Methodology: Respondents choose the preference (A or B) that best describes them. Scoring tallies responses across the four dichotomies (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P) to assign one of 16 four-letter types, which is then mapped to one of the four Keirsey temperaments.

Keywords

Personality Type, Characterology, Keirsey, Self-Assessment, Temperament Theory, Psychological Assessment, E/I S/N T/F J/P, Four Temperaments, Vocational Type, Character.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Keirsey passed away in 2013; ORCID was not standard practice during the scale’s development).

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Proprietary information managed by Keirsey.com).

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is typically directed through the official Keirsey website: http://www.keirsey.com/.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II (KTS-II) is a proprietary instrument. Permissions for use and licensing fees are required for commercial or formal application, managed by Keirsey.com. While a free, abbreviated version is often available online, the official, detailed report and full instrument usage usually require a fee. The KTS-II was introduced around 1998, succeeding the original Sorter published in 1978.

Reference’s

• Keirsey, David & Bates, Marilyn. (1987). Please Understand Me II: Character & Temperament type. Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

• Keirsey, David (1998) [1978]. Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence (1st ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Co.

• Montgomery, Stephen (2002). People Patterns: A Modern Guide to the Four Temperaments (1st ed.). Archer Publications. p. 20.

• The official instrument website can be found here: http://www.keirsey.com/ & http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx.

Items of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II (KTS®-II)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Do you tend to notice
   1. disorderliness
   2. opportunities for change
2. Are you swayed more by
   1. convincing evidence
   2. a touching appeal
3. In stories‚ do you prefer
   1. action and adventure
   2. fantasy and heroism
4. Are you inclined to be
   1. somewhat reserved
   2. easy to approach
5. In most situations are you more
   1. deliberate than spontaneous
   2. spontaneous than deliberate
6. When in charge of others do you tend to be
   1. firm and unbending
   2. forgiving and lenient
7. Children often do not
   1. exercise their fantasy enough
   2. make themselves useful enough
8. When the phone rings‚ do you
   1. hurry to get to it first
   2. hope someone else will answer it
9. Are you more
   1. routinized than whimsical
   2. whimsical than routinized
10. Which do you wish more for yourself
    1. strength of emotion
    2. strength of will
11. Is it easier for you to
    1. put others to good use
    2. identify with others
12. Are you more
    1. observant than introspective
    2. introspective than observant
13. When finishing a job‚ do you like to
    1. move on to something else
    2. tie up all loose ends
14. Are you more often
    1. a cool-headed person
    2. a warm-hearted person
15. Are you more frequently
    1. a practical sort of person
    2. a fanciful sort of person
16. Waiting in line‚ do you often
    1. chat with others
    2. stick to business
17. Are you more comfortable
    1. before a decision
    2. after a decision
18. Do you see yourself as basically
    1. thick-skinned
    2. thin-skinned
19. With people are you usually more
    1. firm than gentle
    2. gentle than firm
20. Is it worse to
    1. be in a rut
    2. have your head in the clouds
21. Do you prefer to work
    1. to deadlines
    2. just whenever
22. Which is more of a compliment
    1. “There’s a logical person”
    2. “There’s a sentimental person”
23. Do you speak more in
    1. generalities than particulars
    2. particulars than generalities
24. At a party‚ do you
    1. interact with a few friends
    2. interact with many‚ even strangers
25. At work‚ is it more natural for you to
    1. point out mistakes
    2. try to please others
26. Is clutter in the work place something you
    1. take time to straighten up
    2. tolerate pretty well
27. Are you more comfortable in making
    1. value judgments
    2. critical judgments
28. Are you more
    1. ideational than sensible
    2. sensible than ideational
29. Do you tend to choose
    1. rather carefully
    2. somewhat impulsively
30. Which rules you more
    1. your thoughts
    2. your feelings
31. Are you inclined to take what is said
    1. more literally
    2. more figuratively
32. Does interacting with strangers
    1. energize you
    2. tax your reserves
33. Is it your way to
    1. pick and choose at some length
    2. make up your mind quickly
34. In making up your mind are you more likely to go by
    1. desires
    2. data
35. Are you more interested in
    1. what is actual
    2. what is possible
36. Are you inclined to be more
    1. hurried than leisurely
    2. leisurely than hurried
37. It is worse to be
    1. a softy
    2. hard-nosed
38. Do you more often see
    1. what can only be imagined
    2. what’s right in front of you
39. Do you tend to
    1. say right out what’s on your mind
    2. keep your ears open
40. Do you prefer contracts to be
    1. signed‚ sealed‚ and delivered
    2. settled on a handshake
41. In sizing up others‚ do you tend to be
    1. friendly and personal
    2. objective and impersonal
42. Do you tend to be more
    1. factual than speculative
    2. speculative than factual
43. Do you usually want things
    1. just penciled in
    2. settled and decided
44. In hard circumstances‚ are you sometimes
    1. too sympathetic
    2. too unsympathetic
45. Are you more likely to trust
    1. your conceptions
    2. your experiences
46. Do you think of yourself as
    1. a private person
    2. an outgoing person
47. Are you more satisfied having
    1. work in progress
    2. a finished product
48. Which appeals to you more
    1. harmonious relationships
    2. consistency of thought
49. Do you like writers who
    1. use metaphors and symbolism
    2. say what they mean
50. Would you say you are more
    1. serious and determined
    2. easy going
51. Do you think of yourself as a
    1. tender-hearted person
    2. tough-minded person
52. Are you more inclined to feel
    1. somewhat removed
    2. down to earth
53. Are you the kind of person who
    1. is rather talkative
    2. doesn’t miss much
54. On the job‚ do you want your activities
    1. unscheduled
    2. scheduled
55. If you must disappoint someone are you usually
    1. frank and straightforward
    2. warm and considerate
56. Facts
    1. speak for themselves
    2. illustrate principles
57. Do you feel better about
    1. coming to closure
    2. keeping your options open
58. Do you value in yourself more that you are
    1. devoted
    2. reasonable
59. Do you prize in yourself
    1. a vivid imagination
    2. a strong hold on reality
60. At work do you tend to
    1. keep more to yourself
    2. be sociable with your colleagues
61. Do you more often prefer
    1. tentative preliminary statements
    2. final unalterable statements
62. In a heated discussion do you
    1. stick to your guns
    2. look for common ground
63. Do you find visionaries and theorists
    1. rather fascinating
    2. somewhat annoying
64. Is it preferable mostly to
    1. make sure things are arranged
    2. just let things happen naturally
65. Which seems the greater fault
    1. to be too dispassionate
    2. to be too compassionate
66. Are you drawn more to
    1. overtones
    2. fundamentals
67. Do you consider yourself
    1. a good conversationalist
    2. a good listener
68. Are you prone to
    1. nailing things down
    2. exploring the possibilities
69. Is it better to be
    1. merciful
    2. just
70. Common sense is
    1. frequently questionable
    2. usually reliable
71. Your gender is:
    1. Female
    2. Male

The resulting Keirsey Temperament groupings are:

• SJ – “The Guardians”: Keirsey describes the SJ group’s primary objective as Security Seeking. The SJ grouping includes the types:
  • ESTJ – “The Supervisors”
  • ISTJ – “The Inspectors”
  • ESFJ – “The Providers”
  • ISFJ – “The Protectors”
• SP – “The Artisans”: Keirsey describes the SP group’s primary objective as Sensation Seeking. The SP grouping includes the types:
  • ESTP – “The Promoters”
  • ISTP – “The Crafters”
  • ESFP – “The Performers”
  • ISFP – “The Composers”
• NT – “The Rationals”: Keirsey describes the NT group’s primary objective as Knowledge Seeking. The NT grouping includes the types:
  • ENTJ – “The Fieldmarshals”
  • INTJ – “The Masterminds”
  • ENTP – “The Inventors”
  • INTP – “The Architects”
• NF – “The Idealists”: Keirsey describes the NF group’s primary objective as Identity Seeking. The NF grouping includes the types:
  • ENFJ – “The Teachers”
  • INFJ – “The Counselors”
  • ENFP – “The Champions”
  • INFP – “The Healers”