Technical Review

Technical Review of the Thinking Pattern ProfileTM


Thinking Pattern Profile (based on Hartman Value Profile)


Identify thinking and decision-making style, and resulting strengths and development areas


Business, Family, Relationships, Academic


Unlike self-report instruments, this instrument measures, not what a person reports they are like, but how they actually think. Not what they think, but how they think. It has the respondent perform a thinking task and then, using complex mathematics, produces a detailed picture of the person’s preferred thinking process. It provides objective information regarding such variables as one’s strategic thinking ability, attention to concrete detail, intuitive insight, persistence, consistency, systems orientation, sensitivity to others, confidence, optimism, self-regard, emotional control and drive level. In addition to its validity and reliability, the instrument has been tested according to EEOC criteria and found to be nondiscriminatory toward race, sex, or gender.

The advantages of the assessment include the following: administration takes about 15-20 minutes, it is objective and cannot be biased, it is simple in that it consists of the rank ordering of 18 items and 18 statements, it is nonobtrusive in that respondents are not asked to describe themselves or their experience, it is available in multiple languages including pictograph, it is supported by research, and its users report very high face validity. It has been very successfully used for recruitment, professional development, teambuilding, succession planning, self-esteem building and relationship building.

The original profile was developed by Robert Hartman, Nobel nominee. (The Hartman Institute at the University of Tennessee was named after him and is devoted to research on his work.)


Since its basis is symbolic logic, it does not fit into the traditional psychological testing mode. Even though a top psychometrician at one of the leading big four consulting firms has given it a very positive review, some trained only in psychological metrics are uncomfortable when faced with its unusual accuracy and simple format.




 K. T. Connor, Ph.D.


 K. T. Connor, Ph.D.

Validations/Approvals *

  • 1980’s: Construct validity-random samples, 40,000 Dollar General EEOC validity items, Hartman math, clinical variables, retest every 5 years
  • 1988: Criterion validity
  • 1988: Validity study, Chuck McDonald and Bill Murphy with Vanderbilt psychometrician
  • 1990: Reviewed and approved by legal department, AIB
  • 1991: Reviewed and approved, Drake Beam Morin
  • 1988: Reviewed and approved, GTE legal and psychometric-used until Training Center closed in Norwich, CT (10 years later)
  • 1985: Reviewed and approved, legal department, CUNY mutual, used for all employees until 1996 when company was bought
  • 1990: Reviewed and approved, psychometrics, at AT&T
  • 1991: Reviewed and approved, legal and psychometric, USPS, Lamon Mosely, Asst. Postmaster General
  • 1996: Reviewed and approved, KPMG, for leadership
  • 1996: Reviewed and approved, psychometrics, Arthur Andersen Consulting, Ann Mueller, psychometrician and adjunct faculty, University of Chicago
  • 1996: Reviewed and approved through peer review of Academic Psychometricians from Harvard, Princeton and Yale
  • 1996: Reviewed and approved, legal commission, Ernst and Young
  • 2000: Reviewed and approved, Graduate school of Education, Georgetown University, Marshal Saskin
  • 2003: Reviewed and approved, Chief HR Office, Chief Nursing Officer, CEO, HCA

*The above represent the key validations and reviews conducted by and for the psychometric and legal specialists within client companies. The results, while theoretically rigorous, are also targeted toward actual organizational usage. Since they involve internal data, privacy concerns require that the studies remain proprietary. There have been numerous tests done on original Hartman material as well. These are available on request. Email to request a copy.

Additional Validity Studies

View this PDF report to see additional validity studies performed on the Thinking Pattern Profile.

To bring the Thinking Pattern Profile to your organization, call or email Dr. Connor at