Chisel, that's sort of my take on this. The MBTI seems more in use in human resources and organizational situations. The evidence-based standard for psychometric instruments is more relaxed in those usages. In the Clinical and the Forensic arenas the empirical soundness of the instrument is more often challenged, so different instruments tend to be more accepted.

A major issue here, really (IMHO) is that our views about personality are constantly in flux. My perception is that there was a "medicalization" movement some years ago which popularized the concept of personality "disorders" and re-vitalized the notion of personality "types". With the last edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic manual the committee which was moving away from "disorders" and "types" ran into a political wall and was sidelined in favor of the "medical model" retaining the idea of "disorders" and "types." This wasn't science. It was ....something else.

Currently there is a very strong movement (which I believe will be codified in the next diagnostic manual) to the notion of "facets" or "traits"...newly named "dimensions." The Big 5, the NEO 5, and the PSY 5 all look at personality (even pathology) as a conglomeration of sliders along each of those scales.

Finally...(whew)... I have to defend my opinions and evaluations in highly contentious arenas (legal, Threat Assessment, etc.) and I never talk about personality types or personality disorders. Only varying degrees of the menu (of 5) of factors/traits.