Talk:DISC assessment

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

message: This article has turned into a major commercial for DISC distributors and companies selling DISC and DISC type products. The Success Insights Wheel is a product by TTI and is not the DISC as Marston designed it. It is an adaptation developed for commercial use and to be sold by distributors. Reference to it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The PIAV is not DISC and has nothing to do with DISC, other than it is an assessment sold by TTI (free advertising). The references in this article are to commercial sites seeking to improve their Google Pageranks. Footnote #1 is to a commercial site selling a DISC product and it appears this article references commercial copy to footnote, rather than research. You also have someone putting in a plug for their version of the insight wheel, by attaching a link to their PDF. Please take down or rewrite this article to make it accurate. --John--JCG 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now cleaned up. 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup <nowiki>{{advert}}</nowiki> added 

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

message: Typically, I see it spelled with a lowercased "i". I think this is the way it is supposed to be.
Also, the last paragraph about the pastor doesn't seem to be all that notable. Overall, this article could benefit from some sourcing. I shall see what I can do. CuTop 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe DISC (with a capital I) is the generic name for the methodology behind it, while DiSC (with a small i) is a brand name for a company's distribution of it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed some research and you appear to be correct. I have self-reverted. CuTop 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Having taken this assessment repeatedly over the years at my workplace, I have become fairly familiar with it, albeit no expert.  In the description of the graph the author uses mathematic terminology ascribing four dimension to the graph where the results are plotted.  This seems incorrect or inaccurate.  Better wording would say two dimensions instead of four dimensions.  The Extrovertive and Introvertive are two ends of one axis (first diminsion).  The Task-orientate and Social-oriented are two ends of a second axis (second dimension).  Dominance, Infuence, Steadiness and Concientiousnew are just the target (range) of a mathematical transform (rotation) of a point from two dimensions to a different coordinate system of two dimensions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.95.150.205 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems this system was developed by people who don't really understand what the word "dimension" means. Not sure how to handle that in this article. Vectro (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More Accurate Mathematic Terminology (Two Dimensions)

message: Are there any studies concerning the validity of this method? I have made a search in PsycInfo, with no results except for two advertisements. So my conclusion would be that the test is only valid as a way of making money. Maybe I'm not right, but then you have to provide arguments. Lebatsnok (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you go online, most of what you're going to find about DISC is about Inscape's "DiSC" product.  Your better bet is probably to go to a library and look around there in books, since the method was developed during the first half of the 20th century.  Might be worth a look that way.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity? 

message: My partner and I are working to extend/edit this article.  We noticed that there is not much information regarding the development of the DISC from Marston's original theory.  The article also lacks information about each dimension of DISC and what it reveals about a person's personality/behavior patterns.  We also feel that it is necessary to share professional opinions regarding the validity and reliability, as well as studies applying DISC assessment to the workplace.  We planning on writing our article in the following format:
=== I.	Intro ===
a.DISC: Assessment of four aspects of personality (Dominance, Inducement, Submission, Compliance)--Defines subject by one of the four aspects, First developed by William Marston (link), then Walter Clarke (link) then John Geier (link), Most often used in workplace/business management
=== II.	History === 
a.	William Marston--Published idea/model in book “DISC, Integrative Psychology” (1931) (link), Did not originally come up with assessment, Original DISC concepts/theory
b.	Walter Clarke--Came up with assessment (by accident), Developed a better version later, Self DISCription
c.	John Greier--Created a personality profile based on the works of Marston and Clarke, Personal Profile System, Has since been simplified to create a better, more concise exam
=== III.	Most-Used types of DiSC Assessment ===
a.	Everything DiSC Workplace--Focuses on behavior in the workplace, Offers insight to work habits based on personality traits, Assists in hiring process
b.	Everything DiSC Management--Focuses on management potential and ability, Offers insight to management styles from a personality perspective
c.	DiSC Classic--Self-report, Self-scored, Used for career development, communication, conflict managing, etc., 28 questions
(Thinking about discussing DISC in broader sense in order to avoid bias towards company)
=== IV.	Dimensions of DISC ===
a.	Dominance--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns
b.	Influence--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns
c.	Steadiness--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns
d.	Conscientiousness--Motivations, Values, Goals, Needs in others…, Patterns
=== V.	Studies of DiSC ===
Content included: Validity--Inscape, the company that makes it, says is valid, Reviewers say otherwise--Incomplete study.  Reliability--Inscape says is reliable, Reviewers say otherwise--Bias towards one race/Socioeconomic Satus  
=== Links/sources we plan on using ===    
Please Note that the links to www.*discprofile.com are to a commercial site that is a distributor for and seller of Inscape Publishing DiSC profiles and NOT a to Inscape Publishing, the publisher of the DiSC, which has created and researched their version of the DISC Assessment. By referencing this online distributor's store, rather than the primary reference site, www.*inscapepublishing.com there are inappropriate external links being used.
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.bc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=106&sid=cb3e76df-cfa6-4cab-9681-62a894a361db%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=loh&AN=16122999
http://www.*discprofile.com/what-is-disc/history.htm
http://www.*discprofile.com/reliability-and-validity.htm
https://www.*discinsights.com/whatisdisc
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1463545&show=abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563207000763
http://sbaweb.wayne.edu/~absel/bkl/.%5Cvol33%5C33cb.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001209206602767
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kefabian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  APSWI Outline 

message: Content included: Validity--Inscape, the company that makes it, says is valid, Reviewers say otherwise--Incomplete study.  Reliability--Inscape says is reliable, Reviewers say otherwise--Bias towards one race/Socioeconomic Satus  
=== Links/sources we plan on using ===    
Please Note that the links to www.*discprofile.com are to a commercial site that is a distributor for and seller of Inscape Publishing DiSC profiles and NOT a to Inscape Publishing, the publisher of the DiSC, which has created and researched their version of the DISC Assessment. By referencing this online distributor's store, rather than the primary reference site, www.*inscapepublishing.com there are inappropriate external links being used.
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.bc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=106&sid=cb3e76df-cfa6-4cab-9681-62a894a361db%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=loh&AN=16122999
http://www.*discprofile.com/what-is-disc/history.htm
http://www.*discprofile.com/reliability-and-validity.htm
https://www.*discinsights.com/whatisdisc
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1463545&show=abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563207000763
http://sbaweb.wayne.edu/~absel/bkl/.%5Cvol33%5C33cb.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001209206602767
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kefabian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  V.	Studies of DiSC 

message: Cf.</br>
* http://atavas.com/staffing-service/disc-profil/
* http://www.marshallgoldsmithfeedforward.com/html/DISC.html
* http://ethostotalwellness.com/knowledge-and-resources/neurology-psychology/163-disc-personality-assessment-tool</br>
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed: 'Dimensions of DISC' section- copyvio. 

message: There are many books on DISC.  Here are two.  Based on sufficient published reference material I removed the significance tag.
https://www.amazon.com/Dimensional-Manager-Strategies-Managing-Different/dp/157675135X/ref=sr_1_22?keywords=DISC+profile&qid=1561170927&s=gateway&sr=8-22
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Flight-Master-Transform-Relationships-ebook/dp/B00A4GGPJK/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=DiSC+styles&qid=1561170735&s=gateway&sr=8-1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerdwyer (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed: 'may not meet significance standard 

message: It appears the 'Everything DISC' sellers are attempting to use the article to promote their product as 'the only' verified profile. See [Theory] section paragraph. No citations. Just text repeating the book & product name with some supposed data.
I removed the promotion but see that user 73.228.211.19 pasted it back in again. They appear to exist only to edit the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.228.211.19
How do we get the 'Everything DISC' paragraph removed from [Theory] permanently w/o having these 'disc' anon users simply pasting the promotion back on the page?
Eturk001 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything DISC advertising 

message: I added a section examining the validity of the DISC assessment. I would like to discuss in the article that both sources I mention are biased in the discussion of the DISC assessment.
"It is worth noting that both Inscape Publishing and Dr. Wendell Williams are not unbiased sources, Inscape Publishing is responsible for publishing the leading DiSC assessment, and Dr. Wendell Williams is managing director of a company that provides workplace assessments that rival DiSC."
Suggestions on how to integrate this into the article and how to improve the sentence itself would be helpful.
I would also like to point out that Dr. Wendell Williams is cited a few times in this article. A disclaimer mentioning his bias is necessary, as he is not an unbiased source commenting on the DISC, but an individual with stakes in this discussion, as his business promotes materials that are designed to be used in place of DiSC. Disclaimers on Inscape Publishing are needed as well as they are one of the companies that makes money through DiSC assessments. --Tigerfair (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sources 

message: After doing the research and including the test-retest reliability for the Disc model, two of the lines in the criticism section bemoaning the lack of test-retest reliability results do not make sense anymore. These lines are "This means we have no way of knowing if people give consistent answers to the questions over weeks or months." from the Dan Katz criticism, and from R. Wendell Williams criticism- "a good job performance test should... have test-retest reliability... DISC matches none of these criteria". Should these be removed? They are false information as the assessment has established test-retest reliability results. --Tigerfair (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of article should't even have a "criticism" section. If the subject is best known for negative views or controversy that needs to be at the top and not hived away in a section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two lines in Criticism are inaccurate 

message: Many edits are missing the point of the article. The point of this page is to explain what DISC is and how and where it is used. The purpose of the page is not solely centered on if or if not DISC is valid. This language should be in its own section and should not be in the first paragraph of the article. Additionally, sections that provided context and explanation to DISC were deleted. These need to be reinstated as they are vital to the point of the article. Users who go to this page are not looking for various users opinions on DISC, which this article has become.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerfair (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I totally disagree. If DISC assessments are based on a pseudo-scientific theory then it's just about the most important thing we can say about it. If we fail to do that in the lead section then we are guilty of promoting a fringe theory as if it were mainstream or well-regarded science. It absolutely isn't! --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

message: The Swedish article widely cited in this article "How Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time" concerning the book 'Surrounded By Idiots' does not outright prove that DISC is not scientifically valid, as it is mainly concerned with an adaption of DISC created by the book's author, as well as discussing two outdated DISC assessments that are currently not in use.
It is important to note that there are different DISC assessments and related theories that have changed over time. It is true that old and outdated DISC assessments are not valid. Even some DISC assessments in use today are not valid. However, there are some that are valid, criteria for this is included in the page. This Swedish article only discusses non-valid examples. This is some of DISC, not all of DISC.
- The author discusses that part of William Moulton Marston's 'Emotions of Normal People' made unscientific claims about 'psychons.' However these claims were never included in the formation of the DISC theory. This one claim does not disprove all of Marston's information.
- Walter Clark's 1956 DISC assessment has been found to be not scientifically valid. However, this assessment has been out of use for decades.
- A large part of the article is about how the author of 'Surrounded by Idiots' falsified his academic background. While this is very important to the article, it doesn't have much to do with DISC. Author Thomas Erikson adapts the theory behind DISC for his own use; his own faulty interpretation does not have any marking on DISC's validity.
The article also makes the case that DISC could lead to bad organizational behavior, but this all depends on its application. Faulty application by an individual organization (ex. an example in the article which is sending an employee away for 'bad behavior') does not have any bearing on the overall quality.
Tigerfair (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please establish consensus before making this kind of edit in future. I notice you replaced the Swedish article with a self-published source from a publisher that has a close connection with this subject. In other words, you replaced a thing you thought was bad with something clearly worse. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

text: Yes, DISC assessments that are normative (non-ipsative) and that do not claim to analyze 'adaptive style' are valid. However, I am not sure how to bridge the issue of mentioning what traits a DISC assessment has to have or not have to be valid in the article without running into issues of sourcing from publishers. More scholarly sources on this would be helpful but they are difficult to find. Tigerfair (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with the good sources. Summarize what the good sources say. Do not use any sources that are inappropriate. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Swedish article used widely in this page cannot be used to describe all of DISC, only specifics 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved   -- Calidum 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: DISC assessment → ? – I am proposing this move to explicitly include the theory behind the assessment. I'm not 100% sure what name would be best - I suggest DISC personalities, DISC personality theory or DISC theory. I prefer DISC personalities because its the shortest one that is absolutely clear what the topic is about, and because I saw it described at least as often as I saw the other two forms that I've suggested. It's impossible to properly discuss the testing without discussing the underlying theory, and if there was a separate article discussing the DISC personalities, then I would propose to merge with it.
I have described part of my argument in another discussion on this talk page, so I'll just quote it here for simplicity: 
Having the tests in the theory article is better than the theory in the tests article because the theory is the umbrella topic. Discussion of every disc assessment automatically is referring to the theory, but the theory can be discussed in the absence of any of the tests. It would therefore be inappropriate to discuss some parts of the theory in the tests article but testing is entirely within the scope of a theory article. Xurizuri (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

message: — Assignment last updated by JonKush (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Project Team Management

message: — Assignment last updated by Anubhutij28 (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

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