imah/Blog/Could MBTI® be coupled with Spiral Dynamics?

Could MBTI® be coupled with Spiral Dynamics?

We received this question after the publication of articles Simple SDTEST^® Gives Great Possibilities and Mathematical Psychology. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI^®) and Spiral Dynamics are two systems that categorize personality traits and motivational values, respectively. This article is dedicated to answering this question. It will show with a real example how to use the SDTEST^® V.U.C.A. poll designer.

Brief Overviews of the Systems

MBTI^® categorizes personality into 16 types based on preferences across four dichotomies: Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving. It has been extensively validated and applied in career development, leadership, and team-building.

Spiral Dynamics maps the evolution of motivational value systems in a spectrum of colors or levels, from basic survivalist Beige to holistic-minded Turquoise. It builds on Clare Graves' theory of levels of human existence and has been used extensively in organizational development and coaching. SDTEST^®has 87297 results from 171 countries, results clustered into 8048 unique motivational patterns.

While both systems group people into "types", MBTI^® reflects non-hierarchical preferences while Spiral Dynamics depicts hierarchical development.

Possible Connections Between the Systems

Some relationships could potentially be theorized between MBTI^® types and Spiral levels based on apparent similarities in focus:

Intuitive types (N) may gravitate toward the holistic Yellow and Turquoise levels.
Sensing types (S) match the practical Red and Blue levels.
Thinking types (T) resonate with the objective, logical Orange level.
Feeling types (F) align with the harmonic Green level.

So Intuitive, Feeling types like INFJ could speculatively be associated with later Green and Yellow Spiral levels, while Sensing, Thinking types such as ISTJ fit earlier Blue and Orange levels.

Studying the correlation between Spiral Dynamics developmental stages and MBTI^® personality types could potentially yield some useful insights, but it also has limitations:

Potential benefits:

Seeing relationships between motivational values and personality preferences - e.g., Achiever Orange correlated with Thinking preference
Understanding interactions between developmental level and type - e.g., how INFJs may express differently at different Spiral levels
Explaining tensions within types via value differences - e.g., INTJs driven by power versus achievement
Mapping types/functions to transitional stages - e.g., Intuition in late Orange, Feeling in early Green

Limitations:

Differences in goals and validation of the two systems
Individuals express both multiple values and multifaceted personalities
Correlations may reinforce stereotypes about both frameworks

Intriguing connections may emerge, directly linking MBTI^® types to Spiral Dynamics levels.

The SDTEST^® V.U.C.A. poll designer

The SDTEST^® V.U.C.A. poll designer is as simple as Google Forms. Watch this two-minute video to get acquainted and compare. The main difference of the SDTEST® V.U.C.A. poll designer is the presence of an independent multilingual UI for changing the site language and poll form. If, for example, your primary site language is English, and you do the poll in 6 international UN languages, then you only need to use the language change window for the poll form. If you are doing this work together with colleagues whose primary language is Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, German, French, or other languages, then for their convenience, they can change the language of the site.

Create and share your Poll (MBTI^®)

Now you know the functionality of the Designer, and you can create your own, for example, MBTI^®.

We invite you to look “under the hood” of the poll Psychological Wellbeing (by Carol D. Ryff) we have already created. Developed by psychologist Carol D. Ryff, the 42-item Psychological Wellbeing (PWB) Scale. Source: Ryff, Carol D., Psychological Well-Being Revisited: Advances in Science and Practice, NIH Public Access, Psychother Psychosom, Vol.83, No.1, Pp.31, (2014). Watch the next two-minute video.

Now you need to share the link to your survey, and survey participants choose the language in which they are comfortable answering the questions. Watch the next one-minute video.

Poll results and their analysis

We do not have the results of the MBTI^® poll, so for example, we will use the poll “Psychological Wellbeing (by Carol D. Ryff)“ we used above.

Below you can read an abridged version of the results of our VUCA poll “Psychological Wellbeing (by Carol D. Ryff)“. The full version of the results is available for free in the FAQ section after login or registration.

Sumanget psikologis

grafikKorelasi

VUCA

Kabeh patarosan

1) Otonomi (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

2) Perancis lingkungan (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

3) Tumuwuh pribadi (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

4) Hubungan positip sareng batur (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

5) Tujuan dina kahirupan (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

6) Ditampi diri (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

1) Otonomi (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

Answer 1

34%

✔

Answer 2

34%

✔

Answer 3

15%

✔

Answer 4

✔

Answer 5

✔

Answer 6

✔

Answer 7

✔

Answer 8

24%

✔

Answer 9

34%

✔

Answer 10

17%

✔

Answer 11

✔

Answer 12

10%

✔

Answer 13

✔

Answer 14

✔

Answer 15

✔

Answer 16

20%

✔

Answer 17

23%

✔

Answer 18

14%

✔

Answer 19

✔

Answer 20

15%

✔

Answer 21

14%

✔

Answer 22

30%

✔

Answer 23

35%

✔

Answer 24

16%

✔

Answer 25

✔

Answer 26

✔

Answer 27

✔

Answer 28

✔

Answer 29

✔

Answer 30

18%

✔

Answer 31

16%

✔

Answer 32

10%

✔

Answer 33

11%

✔

Answer 34

17%

✔

Answer 35

22%

✔

Answer 36

11%

✔

Answer 37

19%

✔

Answer 38

21%

✔

Answer 39

11%

✔

Answer 40

10%

✔

Answer 41

14%

✔

Answer 42

14%

✔

Answer 43

43%

✔

Answer 44

27%

✔

Answer 45

13%

✔

Answer 46

✔

Answer 47

✔

Answer 48

✔

Answer 49

✔

2) Perancis lingkungan (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

Answer 50

28%

✔

Answer 51

36%

✔

Answer 52

15%

✔

Answer 53

✔

Answer 54

✔

Answer 55

✔

Answer 56

✔

Answer 57

✔

Answer 58

18%

✔

Answer 59

18%

✔

Answer 60

✔

Answer 61

12%

✔

Answer 62

17%

✔

Answer 63

18%

✔

Answer 64

✔

Answer 65

15%

✔

Answer 66

22%

✔

Answer 67

12%

✔

Answer 68

11%

✔

Answer 69

16%

✔

Answer 70

16%

✔

Answer 71

21%

✔

Answer 72

33%

✔

Answer 73

19%

✔

Answer 74

✔

Answer 75

✔

Answer 76

✔

Answer 77

✔

Answer 78

✔

Answer 79

14%

✔

Answer 80

14%

✔

Answer 81

12%

✔

Answer 82

10%

✔

Answer 83

18%

✔

Answer 84

22%

✔

Answer 85

33%

✔

Answer 86

33%

✔

Answer 87

14%

✔

Answer 88

✔

Answer 89

✔

Answer 90

✔

Answer 91

✔

Answer 92

10%

✔

Answer 93

16%

✔

Answer 94

20%

✔

Answer 95

10%

✔

Answer 96

10%

✔

Answer 97

16%

✔

Answer 98

18%

✔

3) Tumuwuh pribadi (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

Answer 99

74%

✔

Answer 100

16%

✔

Answer 101

✔

Answer 102

✔

Answer 103

✔

Answer 104

✔

Answer 105

✔

Answer 106

✔

Answer 107

✔

Answer 108

✔

Answer 109

✔

Answer 110

✔

Answer 111

13%

✔

Answer 112

65%

✔

Answer 113

✔

Answer 114

✔

Answer 115

✔

Answer 116

✔

Answer 117

✔

Answer 118

15%

✔

Answer 119

63%

✔

Answer 120

62%

✔

Answer 121

24%

✔

Answer 122

✔

Answer 123

✔

Answer 124

✔

Answer 125

✔

Answer 126

✔

Answer 127

✔

Answer 128

10%

✔

Answer 129

14%

✔

Answer 130

11%

✔

Answer 131

✔

Answer 132

22%

✔

Answer 133

28%

✔

Answer 134

✔

Answer 135

✔

Answer 136

✔

Answer 137

✔

Answer 138

✔

Answer 139

16%

✔

Answer 140

56%

✔

Answer 141

57%

✔

Answer 142

24%

✔

Answer 143

✔

Answer 144

✔

Answer 145

✔

Answer 146

✔

Answer 147

✔

4) Hubungan positip sareng batur (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

Answer 148

37%

✔

Answer 149

35%

✔

Answer 150

14%

✔

Answer 151

✔

Answer 152

✔

Answer 153

✔

Answer 154

✔

Answer 155

28%

✔

Answer 156

33%

✔

Answer 157

17%

✔

Answer 158

10%

✔

Answer 159

✔

Answer 160

✔

Answer 161

✔

Answer 162

10%

✔

Answer 163

13%

✔

Answer 164

12%

✔

Answer 165

✔

Answer 166

11%

✔

Answer 167

18%

✔

Answer 168

27%

✔

Answer 169

✔

Answer 170

10%

✔

Answer 171

10%

✔

Answer 172

10%

✔

Answer 173

✔

Answer 174

19%

✔

Answer 175

34%

✔

Answer 176

46%

✔

Answer 177

29%

✔

Answer 178

10%

✔

Answer 179

✔

Answer 180

✔

Answer 181

✔

Answer 182

✔

Answer 183

13%

✔

Answer 184

14%

✔

Answer 185

12%

✔

Answer 186

✔

Answer 187

✔

Answer 188

16%

✔

Answer 189

30%

✔

Answer 190

56%

✔

Answer 191

24%

✔

Answer 192

✔

Answer 193

✔

Answer 194

✔

Answer 195

✔

Answer 196

✔

5) Tujuan dina kahirupan (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

Answer 197

50%

✔

Answer 198

26%

✔

Answer 199

12%

✔

Answer 200

✔

Answer 201

✔

Answer 202

✔

Answer 203

✔

Answer 204

✔

Answer 205

10%

✔

Answer 206

12%

✔

Answer 207

✔

Answer 208

13%

✔

Answer 209

20%

✔

Answer 210

31%

✔

Answer 211

40%

✔

Answer 212

28%

✔

Answer 213

13%

✔

Answer 214

✔

Answer 215

✔

Answer 216

✔

Answer 217

✔

Answer 218

38%

✔

Answer 219

22%

✔

Answer 220

12%

✔

Answer 221

12%

✔

Answer 222

✔

Answer 223

✔

Answer 224

✔

Answer 225

✔

Answer 226

12%

✔

Answer 227

12%

✔

Answer 228

✔

Answer 229

✔

Answer 230

19%

✔

Answer 231

31%

✔

Answer 232

✔

Answer 233

✔

Answer 234

✔

Answer 235

10%

✔

Answer 236

✔

Answer 237

16%

✔

Answer 238

47%

✔

Answer 239

✔

Answer 240

14%

✔

Answer 241

16%

✔

Answer 242

12%

✔

Answer 243

11%

✔

Answer 244

16%

✔

Answer 245

24%

✔

6) Ditampi diri (sabaraha anjeun satuju atanapi henteu satuju?)

Answer 246

✔

Answer 247

15%

✔

Answer 248

16%

✔

Answer 249

✔

Answer 250

✔

Answer 251

17%

✔

Answer 252

25%

✔

Answer 253

28%

✔

Answer 254

31%

✔

Answer 255

15%

✔

Answer 256

✔

Answer 257

✔

Answer 258

✔

Answer 259

✔

Answer 260

11%

✔

Answer 261

17%

✔

Answer 262

14%

✔

Answer 263

12%

✔

Answer 264

✔

Answer 265

16%

✔

Answer 266

23%

✔

Answer 267

34%

✔

Answer 268

32%

✔

Answer 269

16%

✔

Answer 270

✔

Answer 271

✔

Answer 272

✔

Answer 273

✔

Answer 274

24%

✔

Answer 275

25%

✔

Answer 276

15%

✔

Answer 277

19%

✔

Answer 278

✔

Answer 279

✔

Answer 280

✔

Answer 281

✔

Answer 282

14%

✔

Answer 283

13%

✔

Answer 284

20%

✔

Answer 285

✔

Answer 286

15%

✔

Answer 287

20%

✔

Answer 288

42%

✔

Answer 289

31%

✔

Answer 290

14%

✔

Answer 291

✔

Answer 292

✔

Answer 293

✔

Answer 294

✔

Fungsional ieu bakal sayogi dina polling VUCA anjeun nyalira

OKÉ

Exploring correlations between the two systems, MBTI^® and Spiral Dynamics, could provide additional insights into motivational development and personality.

Some opportunities this could open up include:

Gaining a more multifaceted view of personality by seeing how motivational values at different Spiral levels interact with MBTI^® preferences. For example, Thinking types may express differently at Blue conformity-focused stages versus Orange achievement-focused stages.
Understanding nuanced developmental pathways for different personalities. For instance, mapping what transitional stages INTJs may pass through as they evolve in consciousness compared to ESFPs.
Diagnosing developmental conflicts and tensions within the same MBTI^® type driven by differing value systems. An ESTJ at the Red power-driven stage may experience internal tensions with one at the Orange efficiency-focused stage.
Appreciating how different MBTI^® functions or skill sets come to the fore at different Spiral levels. For example, Intuition was expressed more strongly in late Orange, and Feeling came online in early Green.
Tailoring coaching and development interventions by incorporating personality and motivational level insights. An INFP may need a different approach at Blue versus Green.

However, deriving such integrative insights requires avoiding simplistic stereotyping, acknowledging limitations in current Spiral Dynamics validation, and recognizing that personality and values are multi-faceted within individuals. If these complexities are accounted for, exploring potential connections between the frameworks could yield a more textured perspective on the interplay between personality type, values, and consciousness development over the lifespan. However, this endeavor requires extensive additional research and cautious interpretation.

BPS critiques MBTI^®'s dichotomous typing

Context: The BPS recognizes the MBTI^® as a personality assessment tool, but it critiques its dichotomous typing—i.e., the MBTI^®’s structure of categorizing people into one of 16 personality types based on four binary preferences (Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving). This critique stems from methodological and theoretical concerns.

Details:

Dichotomous Nature: The MBTI^® assigns individuals to one of two poles on each of its four dimensions (e.g., E or I, S or N), resulting in 16 discrete types (e.g., ISTJ, ENFP). This binary approach contrasts with continuous trait models like the Big Five, where traits (e.g., Neuroticism, Openness) are measured on a spectrum.
BPS Critique:
- Psychometric Concerns: The BPS, via its Psychological Testing Centre, notes that the dichotomous typing can oversimplify human personality, ignoring the gradations within individuals. For example, someone might score close to the midpoint between E and I but still be labeled as one or the other, potentially misrepresenting their true tendencies.
- Reliability Issues: Test-retest reliability for MBTI^® types can be inconsistent, with studies showing 40–50% of people receiving a different type upon retesting after weeks or months (Pittenger, 2005, Consulting Psychology Journal). This instability undermines the binary model’s stability, as the BPS highlights in its reviews.
- Validity Concerns: The BPS questions whether the types capture meaningful psychological constructs, especially compared to dimensional models. Correlations with the Big Five (e.g., E/I with Extraversion, T/F with Agreeableness) exist but are imperfect, suggesting the MBTI^®’s categories may not fully align with established personality science.
Practical Implications: The critique suggests the MBTI^®’s dichotomous typing risks pigeonholing individuals, reducing its utility for precise assessment or counseling. For instance, a person near the E/I threshold might not fit neatly into either category, leading to misinterpretation in workplace or clinical settings.
Sources: BPS’s Psychological Testing Centre reports (available via bps.org.uk) and Pittenger’s 2005 critique (Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory) detail this, noting the MBTI^®’s popularity doesn’t equate to scientific precision.

Summary: The BPS critiques MBTI^®’s dichotomous typing for oversimplifying personality, risking reliability and validity issues, and limiting its scientific depth compared to continuous models. This informs its cautious endorsement, emphasizing trained use to mitigate misinterpretation.

Ongoing Debates About MBTI^®'s Scientific Depth

Context: Despite BPS recognition and external validation studies since the 1940s, the MBTI^® faces ongoing debates about its scientific depth—its theoretical foundation, empirical support, and practical utility in psychology. These debates persist among researchers, practitioners, and critics.

Details:

Theoretical Foundation:
- Jungian Roots: MBTI^® stems from Carl Jung’s Psychological Types (1921), adapted by Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers. Jung’s theory isn’t empirically validated like modern personality models—it’s based on clinical observations, not large-scale data, raising questions about its scientific basis.
- Critique: Many psychologists argue Jung’s typology lacks a falsifiable, testable framework. The MBTI^®’s translation into binary types (e.g., E/I) is seen as a stretch from Jung’s nuanced “functions” (e.g., Thinking, Feeling), lacking robust theoretical grounding (Barbuto, 1997, Psychological Reports).
Empirical Support:
- Reliability: While test-retest reliability for MBTI^® preferences shows
  r = 0.8–0.9
  over short intervals, type stability (16 combinations) drops significantly over time (e.g., 50% type change in 5 weeks, Pittenger, 1993, Journal of Career Planning). This challenges its consistency as a scientific tool.
- Validity: Correlations with the Big Five (e.g., E/I with Extraversion,
  r \approx 0.7
  ; T/F with Agreeableness,
  r \approx 0.3–0.5
  ) exist, but they’re imperfect (McCrae & Costa, 1989, Journal of Personality). Critics argue MBTI^® types don’t predict behavior or outcomes (e.g., job performance) as well as dimensional traits, questioning construct validity.
- Factor Analysis: Studies (e.g., Furnham et al., 2003, European Journal of Personality) suggest MBTI^® dimensions don’t always load cleanly onto distinct factors, hinting at overlap or redundancy compared to the Big Five’s clear structure.
Practical Utility vs. Science:
- Popularity: MBTI^®’s widespread use (e.g., in HR, counseling) doesn’t equate to scientific depth. Its appeal lies in accessibility and type descriptions, not empirical strength—critics (e.g., Pittenger, 2005) call it “pseudoscience” for overreaching its evidence.
- Critique of Dichotomy: The binary typing, as noted earlier, is a major sticking point—psychologists prefer continuous measures (e.g., NEO-PI-R) for their precision, fueling debates about MBTI^®’s scientific value.
Ongoing Debates:
- Proponents: Supporters (e.g., CPP Inc., Journal of Psychological Type) argue MBTI^®’s Jungian basis, reliability, and practical utility justify its use, citing decades of data and BPS/APA acceptance (though APA’s endorsement is limited).
- Critics: Academics (e.g., Paul, 2004, Skeptical Inquirer) question its scientific depth, noting poor predictive power, lack of longitudinal evidence, and reliance on self-report without objective measures. They contrast it with evidence-based models like the Big Five, which have extensive longitudinal and cross-cultural validation.
- BPS Stance: The BPS acknowledges MBTI^®’s utility but warns of its limitations, requiring trained administration to mitigate risks—reflecting this ongoing tension.
Recent Developments: As of 2025, debates continue in psychology forums and journals (e.g., Personality and Individual Differences). Some defend MBTI^®’s predictive validity in specific contexts (e.g., team dynamics), while others push for dimensional alternatives, questioning its depth for serious research.

Summary: The ongoing debates about MBTI^®’s scientific depth center on its theoretical (Jungian) roots, inconsistent reliability/validity, and practical popularity outstripping empirical support. Critics argue it’s more heuristic than scientific, while proponents highlight its utility, creating a polarized discourse that BPS navigates cautiously.

Conclusion

In summary, while the MBTI^® personality typology and Spiral Dynamics developmental spectrum offer distinct lenses, exploring their potential connections could yield additional insights. Observing how motivational values interact with personality preferences at different stages may provide a more multifaceted view of individual differences. However, directly coupling the two frameworks oversimplifies their nuances.

Each system has a different purpose and validation base. Individuals express multifaceted personalities and multi-layered values that resist rigid mapping between categories. Stereotyping risks must also be avoided. If these complexities are recognized, judiciously analyzing relationships between the two systems could contribute to a more textured understanding of personality and consciousness development. However, further research and careful interpretation are required to derive meaningful integrative insights from correlations.

An open and nuanced exploration of how motivational development interplays with personality types, without forcing definitive linkages, may offer complementary perspectives that enrich our comprehension of the psychology of individual differences. This endeavor promises intellectual rewards but requires diligence in acknowledging both frameworks' limitations and avoiding oversimplification. With care, synergies between them may help capture a fuller portrait of diversity in personality and values.

2025.03.04

FearpersonqualitiesprojectorganizationalstructureRACIresponsibilitymatrixCritical ChainProject Managementfocus factorJiraempathyleadersbossGermanyChinaPolicyUkraineRussiawarvolatilityuncertaintycomplexityambiguityVUCArelocatejobproblemcountryreasongive upobjectivekeyresultmathematicalpsychologyMBTIHR metricsstandardDEIcorrelationriskscoringmodelGame TheoryPrisoner's Dilemma

Valerii Kosenko

Pamilik Produk SaaS SDTEST®

Valerii mumpuni salaku pedagogue-psikolog sosial di 1993 sarta saprak geus nerapkeun pangaweruh dina manajemen proyék.
Valerii nampi gelar Master sareng kualifikasi manajer proyék sareng program di 2013. Salila program Master-Na, anjeunna janten akrab sareng Project Roadmap (GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e. V.) sareng Spiral Dynamics.
Valerii nyaéta panulis ngajalajah kateupastian V.U.C.A. konsep ngagunakeun Spiral Dinamika jeung statistik matematik dina psikologi, sarta 38 polling internasional.

Pos ieu ngagaduhan 0 Komentar

Walon

Ngabolaykeun balesan

Ninggalkeun komentar anjeun

Dina bisnis hiji	sorangan tegalan	bisnis kulawarga	Ngamimitian bisnis pribadi	Manajemén Prosés bisnis	Manajemén proyék	jaringan sosial	kabiasaan win-win-win	sintésis
gaya manajemén	kontrol manual			biasa			inopatip
Dina kahirupan hiji	nu salamet	hubungan kulawarga	Aturan gaya	Kakawasaan bebeneran	lomba	hubungan interpersonal	stream fléksibel	Visi Global
warna	warna beigi	wungu	beureum	biru	oranyeu	hejo	koneng	pirus
Rata ku survéy, %	0	5	4	14	21	17	23	17
nagara sadaya AS Albania Aljazair Andorra Angola Anyar Caledonia Arab Saudi Argéntina Arménia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahama Bahrain Bangladés Barbados Basisir Gading Bolivia Bosnia jeung Hérzégovina Botswana Brazil Britania Raya Brunéi Bulgaria Burma Bébha Bélarus Bélgia Bénin Chili Cina Colombia Cuba Dominica Dénmark Fiji Filipina Finlandia Ghana Guadelup Guam Guatemala Guiana Perancis Guinéa Khatulistiwa Guyana Géorgia Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungaria India Indonesia Irak Iran Irlandia Islandia Israel Itali Jamaica Jepang Jersey Jérman Kalkun Kamboja Kamerun Kanada Kapuloan Faroe Kapuloan Kayman Kapuloan Virgin Britania Karajaan Butan Kazakhstan Kosovo Kosta Rika Kroasia Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Kénya Laos Latvia Lemah Héjo Libanon Libya Lituania Luar Alit Amérika Sarikat Pulo Luksemburg Macao Makédonia Maladéwa Malaysia Mali Malta Maroko Martinik Mauritius Mesir Moldova Monako Mongolia Monténégro Mozambik Méksiko Namibia Nepal Nigeria Nikaragua Norwégia Oman Pakistan Paléstina Panama Paraguay Perancis Peru Polandia Polyesia Perancis Portugal Puerto Rico Pulo Man Qatar Romania Rusia Rwanda Républik Afrika Kidul Républik Arab Siria Républik Czech Républik Dominika Républik Koréa Républik Él Salvador Réunion San Marino Selandia Baru Seychelles Singapura Sint Maarten Siprus Slovénia Slowakia Spanyol Sri Lanka Sudan Sudan Kidul Suriname Swaziland Swiss Swédia Sénégal Sérbia Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Trinidad jeung Tobago Tunisia Turkménistan Uganda Uni Émirat Arab Uruguay Uzbékistan Viétnam Vénézuéla Walanda Wikivoyage Yaman Yordania Yunani Zambia Zimbabwé Ékuador Éstonia Étiopia OKÉ ngabatalkeun	0	5	6	14	22	17	22	14
basa sadaya Afrikaans Arab Arménia Azerbaijan Basque Bosnia Bulgaria Bélarus Ceko Cina (Saderhana) Denmark Hungaria Ibrani Indonésia Inggris Italia Jepang Jerman Kazakh Koréa Kroasia Lativia Lituania Makedonia Norwegia Perancis Polandia Portugis Pérsia Romania Rusia Slowakia Spanyol Swédia Sérbia Telugu Thai Turki Ukrania Uzbek Vietnam Walanda Xhosa Yoruba Yunani Éstonia OKÉ ngabatalkeun	0	5	5	13	20	17	23	16