PPS - Revision history

Flc: /* Orthogonality */

2026-03-13T00:02:23Z

Orthogonality

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 13 March 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:

	=====Orthogonality=====		=====Orthogonality=====
	~~The dimensions lack orthogonality as~~ the comparison with the adaptive indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM ~~model~~ (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal ~~behavior~~ factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS ~~created by Geier~~.		As the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates, the four Disc dimensions may look orthogonal, but lack the understanding of the other poles associated with the four dimensions D, I, S, C. The factors were created long before the more advanced calculations associated with the FFM (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavioral factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC. Various DISC publishers have regularly revisited the explanations associated with the four dimensions, although the way the measures are taken has not really changed.

	=====Adaptation=====		=====Adaptation=====

Flc: /* General validity */

2025-10-15T05:58:49Z

General validity

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 15 October 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:

	=====General validity=====		=====General validity=====
	People may generally agree with the information in the reports and feedback sessions. This corresponds to the general experience that people agree with the information they provided ~~about themselves~~ through the survey, and corresponds with their knowledge of themselves.		People may generally agree with the information in the reports and feedback sessions. This corresponds to the general experience that people agree with the information they provided through the survey, and corresponds with their knowledge of themselves.
	However, looking at the reports and comparing the narratives with the adaptive profiles, the narratives are either neutral (35%), imprecise and misleading (45%), or valid (20%), the three types of narrative being mixed together. Additionally, 60% of the propositions were repetitive<ref>The estimate is based on comparisons between DISC reports and adaptive profiles of the same individuals.</ref>.		However, looking at the reports and comparing the narratives with the adaptive profiles, the narratives are either neutral (35%), imprecise and misleading (45%), or valid (20%), the three types of narrative being mixed together. Additionally, 60% of the propositions were repetitive<ref>The estimate is based on comparisons between DISC reports and adaptive profiles of the same individuals.</ref>.

Flc: /* Introduction */

2025-10-12T06:01:05Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:01, 12 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Introduction=		=Introduction=
	PPS stands for Personality Profile System, not to be confused with the PPS, which stands for the Proactive Personality Scale. The PPS is the origin of the DISC version that’s the most used today, published by Wiley ~~and~~ Sons under the name Everything DiSC (with a lowercase “i”).		PPS stands for Personality Profile System, not to be confused with the PPS, which stands for the Proactive Personality Scale. The PPS is the origin of the DISC version that’s the most used today, published by Wiley & Sons under the name Everything DiSC (with a lowercase “i”).

	=History=		=History=

Flc: /* History */

2025-10-12T06:00:25Z

History

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 12 October 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Self Discription was itself inspired by Walter Clark’s work on AVA (Activity Vector Analysis) in the 1950s. Clark was mainly influenced by Louis Thurstone’s work on factorial analysis and his identification of five basic clusters of adjectives describing personality traits		Self Discription was itself inspired by Walter Clark’s work on AVA (Activity Vector Analysis) in the 1950s. Clark was mainly influenced by Louis Thurstone’s work on factorial analysis and his identification of five basic clusters of adjectives describing personality traits
	<ref>Thurstone L. L. (1934). The Vectors of Mind. Psychological Review, Vol. 41, p. 1-32.</ref>, rather than the work by Moulton Marston<ref>Marston W. M. (2002). Emotions of Normal People. Routledge. First published in 1928.</ref>, which is often claimed. The latter was more popular and easier to relate to. In any case, the four dimensions of the PPS derive from that early work on AVA, which also influenced other popular techniques that used factors evidenced from that era.		<ref>Thurstone L. L. (1934). The Vectors of Mind. Psychological Review, Vol. 41, p. 1-32.</ref>, rather than the work by Moulton Marston<ref>Marston W. M. (2002). Emotions of Normal People. Routledge. First published in 1928.</ref>, which is often claimed. The latter was more popular and easier to relate to. In any case, the four dimensions of the PPS derive from that early work on AVA, which also influenced other popular techniques that used the factors evidenced from that era.

	Geier formed a company called Performax, which was later acquired by the Carlson Learning Company in 1984. The company was renamed Inscape Publishing at Carlson’s death in 2000. Since 2012, Inscape has been part of the Professional Development division of Wiley & Sons. Personal Profile Solutions remained Wiley distributor and owns the right to discprofile.com website. The PPS was named PPS 2800 (Personal Profile System 2800 Series) after statistics made in 1994. The PPS DISC ~~version~~ is still in use at some companies.		Geier formed a company called Performax, which was later acquired by the Carlson Learning Company in 1984. The company was renamed Inscape Publishing at Carlson’s death in 2000. Since 2012, Inscape has been part of the Professional Development division of Wiley & Sons. Personal Profile Solutions remained a Wiley distributor and owns the right to discprofile.com website.

			The PPS was named PPS 2800 (Personal Profile System 2800 Series) after statistics made in 1994. The PPS version of DISC is still in use at some companies.

	=Assessment=		=Assessment=

Flc: /* Assessment */

2025-10-12T05:58:58Z

Assessment

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 12 October 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:

	=Assessment=		=Assessment=
	The PPS functions the same way as all other DISC versions with the 28 force-choice ~~propositions~~. ~~The~~ four dimensions with ~~GRI’s~~ a priori ~~correspondance are~~ the following:		The PPS functions the same way as all other DISC versions, with the 24 force-choice groups of adjectives, and 28 groups since the PPS 2800 version. For each participant are asked to check the adjective that corresponds the most and least to them. Then, the system produces a report based on the four dimensions D, I, S, and C. A brief definition of the dimensions with a GRI a priori correspondence is provided in the following table:

	{\| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"		{\| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
	! Dimension !! Description !! GRI a priori		! Dimension !! Description !! GRI a priori
	\|-		\|-
	\| Dominance (D) \|\| ~~Strong-willed and competitive. Action~~-oriented~~. Strive~~ for success~~. Enjoy~~ challenges~~. Push~~ for their opinions. \|\| High 1, low 3~~, low 4~~		\| Dominance (D) \|\| Competitive, action-oriented, strive for success, enjoy challenges, and push for their opinions. \|\| High 1, low 3
	\|-		\|-
	\| Influence (I) \|\| ~~High~~-spirited, lively, optimistic, warm, and social~~. More likely to shape their environments by influencing or persuading others~~. \|\| High 2, low 4		\| Influence (I) \|\| Outgoing, influential, high-spirited, lively, optimistic, warm, and social, and enjoy interactions. \|\| High 2, low 4
	\|-		\|-
	\| Steadiness (S) \|\| ~~Calm~~, peaceful, even-tempered, ~~dependable~~ and enjoy collaboration~~. Show a great deal of~~ concern for ~~the feelings~~ of ~~the people around them~~. \|\| High 3		\| Steadiness (S) \|\| Steady, calm, dependable, peaceful, even-tempered, and enjoy collaboration, show concern for others, and are cautious of change. \|\| High 3, low 1, high 2
	\|-		\|-
	\| Conscientiousness (C) \|\| ~~Objective analysis~~, ~~determination~~ to stick with a problem until it's solved, ~~strong critical thinker~~, ~~skeptical~~ and self-controlled. \|\| High 4, low 2		\| Conscientiousness (C) \|\| Value structure, rules, accuracy, determined to stick with a problem until it's solved, skeptical, and self-controlled. \|\| High 4, low 2
	\|}		\|}
	[[File:DISC_PPS.png\|right\|300px]]		[[File:DISC_PPS.png\|right\|300px]]
	Originally, the results were shown with a graph like the one here on the right. The profile representation was later dropped in favor of reports, or the graphs ~~were~~ sometimes mentioned in some reports. Wiley’s Everything DiSC version, which is an evolution of the PPS, has since replaced the profiles with a circumplex representation.		Originally, the results were shown with a graph like the one here on the right. The profile representation was later dropped in favor of reports only, or with the graphs sometimes mentioned in some reports. Wiley’s Everything DiSC version, which is an evolution of the PPS, has since replaced the profiles with a circumplex representation.

	The 1996 technical report published by Inscape Publishing revealed the interdependence ~~of the factors,~~ the overlap between the three graphs, and ~~other limitations of the measures. Four response groups were added to the 24 original groups~~.		The 1996 technical report published by Inscape Publishing revealed the factors' interdependence and the overlap between the three graphs, along with other statistics such as reliability and Cronbach’s alpha.

	=Use=		=Use=

Flc: /* Orthogonality */

2025-10-12T05:55:14Z

Orthogonality

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 12 October 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	=====Orthogonality=====		=====Orthogonality=====
	The dimensions lack orthogonality. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The factors ~~also gained~~ more understanding afterward, which partially ~~aligned~~ with ~~early findings from~~ Thurstone and Clark, and ~~were later incorporated into~~ the PPS ~~model~~ by Geier.		The dimensions lack orthogonality as the comparison with the adaptive indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS created by Geier.

	=====Adaptation=====		=====Adaptation=====

Flc: /* Critics */

2025-10-12T05:48:00Z

Critics

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 12 October 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:

	=Critics=		=Critics=
	=====~~Scales~~=====		=====Intensity=====
	The ~~intention~~ of the original forced-choice technique by selecting the most and the least was to reduce social desirability biases and eliminate ~~the variance created~~ by participants’ response ~~style; Also~~, ~~to take account of~~ the ~~effects~~ of ~~people scoring on~~ the ~~higher or lower ranges of scales when using Likert rating scales~~. ~~But~~ the ~~forced-choice constrains~~ the ~~measures and prevents an accurate calculation of a factor’s~~ intensity, ~~which could be obtained by normative scoring~~ and ~~standard deviation scales~~.		The ipsative and forced-choice format prevents an accurate assessment of the factors' intensity, similar to comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose whether they prefer one over the other does not reveal how strongly they like or dislike salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person hates or loves both of them.

			The purpose of the original forced-choice technique, which involved selecting the most and the least, was to reduce social desirability biases and eliminate variability caused by participants’ response styles. However, choosing one dimension over three others means the model cannot, by design, capture the intensity of each dimension or how the four dimensions accurately relate to one another.

			The model only measures the preference of one dimension over the other three without considering its intensity. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least and most preferred.

	=====Orthogonality=====		=====Orthogonality=====
	The dimensions lack orthogonality. The factors were ~~devised~~ long before ~~the advent of~~ more ~~sophisticated~~ calculations ~~that came~~ with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of ~~the universality of~~ behavior factors in the 1990s, and more understanding ~~about those factors that came after this period~~, ~~but~~ which partially ~~converged~~ with early findings from Thurstone and Clark, and later ~~taken by Geier~~ into the PPS model.		The dimensions lack orthogonality. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The factors also gained more understanding afterward, which partially aligned with early findings from Thurstone and Clark, and were later incorporated into the PPS model by Geier.

	~~=====Ipsativity=====~~
	~~The measurement of the four dimensions is forced-choice and ipsative. Choosing one factor over three others, the system cannot,~~ by construction, account of how the four dimensions accurately relate to each other. It measures the preference of one dimension over the three others. It may evidence the least preferred dimension. But it cannot know how the two other dimensions relate to the two others.

	=====Adaptation=====		=====Adaptation=====
	The PPS model doesn’t ~~take into consideration~~ the behaviors ~~that~~ people feel ~~the~~ need to act out in order to adapt to ~~the~~ environment. PPS measurement ~~thus mixes the two aspects of~~ natural and adapted behaviors into ~~one measurement~~. In PPS model ~~the~~ person’s natural self is ~~biased~~ by perceived adaptation, ~~as in fact adaptation~~ only reflects ~~the person’s reality~~ at the ~~time~~ they answered the survey.		The PPS model doesn’t consider the behaviors people feel they need to act out in order to adapt to their environment. Consequently, PPS measurement combines natural and adapted behaviors into a single metric. In the PPS model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which actually only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they answered the survey.
	How people adapt their behavior and how they are engaged are ~~critical aspects~~ that ~~connect~~ the ~~person~~ to their environment~~, their~~ job ~~demand~~, and ~~that’s~~ not ~~taken into account~~ by PPS (and DISC in general).
			How people adapt their behavior and how they are engaged are crucial information that link the individual to their environment and job demands, and these are not accounted for by PPS (and DISC in general).

	=====Work relatedness=====		=====Work relatedness=====
	Although the AVA from which the PPS ~~emerged~~ was ~~devised~~ for work applications, the PPS ~~was~~ not~~, doesn’t~~ consider how ~~the~~ measures relate to job demand, ~~restricting~~ its ~~ability to be used~~ in recruitment.		Although the AVA from which the PPS originated was designed for work applications, the PPS itself does not consider how measures relate to job demand, limiting its usefulness in recruitment. There is no method to measure expectations within jobs, so there are no capabilities to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or for developing a tailored plan. Additionally, no studies can prove non-discrimination against protected classes of employees as required by the EEOC, which further restricts the use of the PPS recruitment.
	There is no ~~technique~~ to measure expectations in jobs, ~~and thus,~~ there are no capabilities to analyze the potential fit and adjustments ~~needed from~~ the candidate ~~to the position, or from~~ the position ~~to the candidate~~, or for a ~~development~~ plan. ~~There is~~ no ~~study made on~~ non-discrimination, further ~~preventing~~ the use of the PPS in recruitment.

	=====Representation Model=====		=====Representation Model=====
	The ~~representations with the~~ three graphs~~, when used in addition to the text, are in fact~~ the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The ~~third~~ graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.		The three graphs calculated by PPS represent the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.

	With its representation, the PPS only values one side of the dimensions being measured. That’s, for instance, measuring “Dominance” rather than “Agreeableness” (as the FFM assesses it). ~~This~~ other lower side of the continuum is only taken into account when it is ~~the most~~ extreme~~, along with another remaining dimension on the other side of the continuum~~. ~~In short,~~ the ~~system~~ cannot account for the four factors’ intensity, ~~factors that should be measured along~~ their ~~continuum on both sides~~.		With its calculations and representation, the PPS only values one side of the dimensions being measured. That’s, for instance, measuring “Dominance” rather than “Agreeableness” (as the FFM assesses it). The other lower side of the continuum is eventually only taken into account when it is extreme. As the model cannot account for the four factors’ intensity, their representation in the graph gets distorted as well.

	=====General validity=====		=====General validity=====
	People may generally agree with the ~~informationcoming from~~ the reports and ~~through~~ feedback sessions. This corresponds to ~~the~~ the general experience that people agree to the information they provided about themselves through the survey and corresponds with their knowledge of ~~their self~~. However, looking at the reports and ~~by comparison~~ with ~~GRI’s~~ adaptive profiles, the ~~narraiteve where~~ either imprecise and misleading (45~~%), neutral (35~~%), or valid (20%), the three mixed together. Additionally 60% of the propositions were repetitive.		People may generally agree with the information in the reports and feedback sessions. This corresponds to the general experience that people agree with the information they provided about themselves through the survey, and corresponds with their knowledge of themselves.
			However, looking at the reports and comparing the narratives with the adaptive profiles, the narratives are either neutral (35%), imprecise and misleading (45%), or valid (20%), the three types of narrative being mixed together. Additionally, 60% of the propositions were repetitive<ref>The estimate is based on comparisons between DISC reports and adaptive profiles of the same individuals.</ref>.

	~~Orher~~ information ~~are~~ available about DISC and Everything DiSC that ~~apply~~ to earlier and more recent versions like PPS.		Other information is available about DISC and Everything DiSC that applies to earlier and more recent versions, like PPS.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

	[[Category:Personality Assessment]]		[[Category:Personality Assessment]]

Flc: /* Critics */

2025-10-11T23:20:12Z

Critics

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 11 October 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:

	=Critics=		=Critics=
	The intention of the original forced-choice technique by selecting the most and the least was ~~apparently~~ to reduce biases and eliminate the variance created by participants’ response style. ~~At the same time,~~ the forced-choice constrains the measures~~. It~~ prevents an accurate calculation of a factor’s intensity and ~~of the efforts it takes to adapt behavior~~.		=====Scales=====
			The intention of the original forced-choice technique by selecting the most and the least was to reduce social desirability biases and eliminate the variance created by participants’ response style; Also, to take account of the effects of people scoring on the higher or lower ranges of scales when using Likert rating scales. But the forced-choice constrains the measures and prevents an accurate calculation of a factor’s intensity, which could be obtained by normative scoring and standard deviation scales.

	The ~~system is quick to take and simple~~. The ~~results are produced immediately. The number~~ of ~~dimensions~~, ~~four~~, ~~is parsimonious~~.		=====Orthogonality=====
			The dimensions lack orthogonality. The factors were devised long before the advent of more sophisticated calculations that came with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of the universality of behavior factors in the 1990s, and more understanding about those factors that came after this period, but which partially converged with early findings from Thurstone and Clark, and later taken by Geier into the PPS model.

	~~PPS early version however~~, ~~as it emerged before~~ the ~~Internet age~~, ~~lacks a decent user interface and~~ may ~~still be seen on paper~~.		=====Ipsativity=====
			The measurement of the four dimensions is forced-choice and ipsative. Choosing one factor over three others, the system cannot, by construction, account of how the four dimensions accurately relate to each other. It measures the preference of one dimension over the three others. It may evidence the least preferred dimension. But it cannot know how the two other dimensions relate to the two others.

	The ~~dimensions lack orthogonality~~. ~~The factors were devised long before~~ the ~~discovery~~ of the ~~universality of behavior factors~~ in the ~~1990s~~ and ~~more about them~~ that ~~came after~~.		=====Adaptation=====
			The PPS model doesn’t take into consideration the behaviors that people feel the need to act out in order to adapt to the environment. PPS measurement thus mixes the two aspects of natural and adapted behaviors into one measurement. In PPS model the person’s natural self is biased by perceived adaptation, as in fact adaptation only reflects the person’s reality at the time they answered the survey.
			How people adapt their behavior and how they are engaged are critical aspects that connect the person to their environment, their job demand, and that’s not taken into account by PPS (and DISC in general).

	~~The system~~ doesn’t measure the ~~efforts it takes~~ to ~~adapt one’s behavior~~ to the ~~environment and how people are engaged~~. ~~This~~ is ~~a critical aspect that connects~~ the ~~person to their environment, their job demand that’s not taken in account by~~ PPS ~~(and DISC~~ in ~~general)~~.		=====Work relatedness=====
			Although the AVA from which the PPS emerged was devised for work applications, the PPS was not, doesn’t consider how the measures relate to job demand, restricting its ability to be used in recruitment.
			There is no technique to measure expectations in jobs, and thus, there are no capabilities to analyze the potential fit and adjustments needed from the candidate to the position, or from the position to the candidate, or for a development plan. There is no study made on non-discrimination, further preventing the use of the PPS in recruitment.

	The ~~measurement of~~ the ~~four dimensions is forced-choise and ipsative~~, ~~but then~~, ~~how~~ the dimensions ~~relate to each other is influenced by the scales being used and how each dimension relates to a larger population~~. ~~This is an important aspect referred to as as normativity. It’s doubtful~~ that the ~~force-choise technique~~, ~~by construction~~, ~~can ever make accurate account~~ of ~~how~~ the ~~dimensions relate to each other~~.		=====Representation Model=====
			The representations with the three graphs, when used in addition to the text, are in fact the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The third graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.

	~~Although~~ the ~~AVA from which~~ the ~~PPS emerged was devised~~ for ~~work applications~~, the ~~PPS was not~~, ~~doesn’t consider how~~ the ~~measures relate to job demand~~, ~~restricting its ability to~~ be ~~used in recruitment~~.		With its representation, the PPS only values one side of the dimensions being measured. That’s, for instance, measuring “Dominance” rather than “Agreeableness” (as the FFM assesses it). This other lower side of the continuum is only taken into account when it is the most extreme, along with another remaining dimension on the other side of the continuum. In short, the system cannot account for the four factors’ intensity, factors that should be measured along their continuum on both sides.

	~~There is no technique~~ to ~~measure expectations in jobs~~, and ~~thus there is no capabilities to analyze~~ the ~~potential fit~~ and ~~adjustments needed form the candidate~~ or the ~~position~~. ~~There is no study made on non-descrimnations, further preventing the use~~ of the ~~PPS in recruitment~~.		=====General validity=====
			People may generally agree with the informationcoming from the reports and through feedback sessions. This corresponds to the the general experience that people agree to the information they provided about themselves through the survey and corresponds with their knowledge of their self. However, looking at the reports and by comparison with GRI’s adaptive profiles, the narraiteve where either imprecise and misleading (45%), neutral (35%), or valid (20%), the three mixed together. Additionally 60% of the propositions were repetitive.

	~~The representations with the three graphs, when used in addition to the text,~~ are in fact representing the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. The three graphs were later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.		Orher information are available about DISC and Everything DiSC that apply to earlier and more recent versions like PPS.


	~~Please see general information~~ about DISC and Everything DiSC ~~for more details about DISC or more recent versions,~~ that ~~also~~ apply to earlier versions like PPS.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

	[[Category:Personality Assessment]]		[[Category:Personality Assessment]]

Flc: /* Use */

2025-10-11T23:18:42Z

Use

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 11 October 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:
	=Use=		=Use=
	The PSS is used for personal development, coaching, team building, and management training, but not in recruitment. Although we still see it used by consulting companies, from time to time, in various regions of the world, it’s often been replaced by newer DISC versions or other systems.		The PSS is used for personal development, coaching, team building, and management training, but not in recruitment. Although we still see it used by consulting companies, from time to time, in various regions of the world, it’s often been replaced by newer DISC versions or other systems.
	The PPS is essentially used with ~~its~~ reports, which, over the years, have been copied and embellished in many other DISC versions.
			The PPS is essentially used with reports, which, over the years, have been copied and embellished in many other DISC versions. The system is quick to take and simple. The results are produced immediately. The number of dimensions, four, is parsimonious. PPS early version, however, as it emerged before the Internet age, lacks a decent user interface and may still be seen on paper.

	=Critics=		=Critics=

Flc: /* Assessment */

2025-10-11T17:10:59Z

Assessment

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 11 October 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	Originally, the results were shown with a graph like the one here on the right. The profile representation was later dropped in favor of reports, or the graphs were sometimes mentioned in some reports. Wiley’s Everything DiSC version, which is an evolution of the PPS, has since replaced the profiles with a circumplex representation.		Originally, the results were shown with a graph like the one here on the right. The profile representation was later dropped in favor of reports, or the graphs were sometimes mentioned in some reports. Wiley’s Everything DiSC version, which is an evolution of the PPS, has since replaced the profiles with a circumplex representation.

	The 1996 technical report published by Inscape Publishing revealed the interdependence of the factors, the overlap between the three graphs, and other limitations of the measures. Four response groups were added to the 24 original groups~~. Test-retest has only been computed on small periods of time~~.		The 1996 technical report published by Inscape Publishing revealed the interdependence of the factors, the overlap between the three graphs, and other limitations of the measures. Four response groups were added to the 24 original groups.

	=Use=		=Use=