Use a scored assessment instead of self-typing

If you want to know your stage, take a sentence completion test scored by a trained rater rather than matching yourself to descriptions.

Por qué funciona

Stage descriptions invite people to pick the one that flatters them, and a person cannot see from inside what they are subject to. The sentence completion test asks you to finish open-ended stems ("When people are helpless…") and is scored by trained raters on how meaning is made, not what is said, so it reads structure you cannot easily perform. The STAGES assessment is one version; the MAP and Loevinger’s WUSCT are others in the same lineage.

Cómo hacerlo

1. Decide why you want to know. Curiosity and coaching are good reasons; ranking yourself or others is not.
2. Choose an assessment in the sentence-completion lineage scored by a certified rater (STAGES, Cook-Greuter’s MAP, or the Washington University Sentence Completion Test).
3. Read your report as one data point about how you made meaning on one day, and discuss it with someone trained in the model.
4. Do not use the result to make decisions about other people.

Evidencia

Sentence completion tests of ego development have a long research record: a meta-analysis found Loevinger’s measure predicts outcomes beyond intelligence, and reviews report strong inter-rater reliability. A peer-reviewed study (O’Fallon et al., 2020, Heliyon) found STAGES scoring closely reproduced Cook-Greuter’s MAP scoring up to the 4.5 stage. Loevinger herself judged the test adequate for research but not for diagnosing an individual unsupported by other data. (observational)

The STAGES validation was led by the model’s developer, with an affiliated organization; one of its four trained scorers, the one who had also learned the MAP scoring method, was described as the more experienced scorer, and the paper does not say that scorer was the developer. Independent replication has not been published. Evidence for the 5.0–6.5 stages is thinner than for earlier stages.

Fuentes

• O’Fallon, T., Polissar, N., Neradilek, M. B., & Murray, T. (2020). The validation of a new scoring method for assessing ego development based on three dimensions of language. Heliyon, 6(3), e03472.
• Cohn, L. D., & Westenberg, P. M. (2004). Intelligence and maturity: Meta-analytic evidence for the incremental and discriminant validity of Loevinger’s measure of ego development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 760–772.
• Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct Validity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(3), 281–311.
• Manners, J., & Durkin, K. (2001). A Critical Review of the Validity of Ego Development Theory and Its Measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(3), 541–567.

Error común

Treating the score as a fixed identity or a ranking of worth. A score describes how meaning was made in one test, and people score differently under stress.