Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.

com/ Career Assessment

Using the Strong Interest Inventory and the Skills Confidence Inventory to Explain Career Goals
Judy M. Chartrand, Fred H. Borgen, Nancy E. Betz and David Donnay Journal of Career Assessment 2002 10: 169 DOI: 10.1177/1069072702010002003 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jca.sagepub.com/content/10/2/169

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jca.sagepub.com/content/10/2/169.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013

Using the Strong Interest Inventory and the Skills Confidence Inventory to Explain Career Goals
Judy M. Chartrand CPP, Inc. Fred H. Borgen Iowa State University Nancy E. Betz Ohio State University David Donnay CPP, Inc.
This article describes how interests and self-efficacy constructs contribute to a better understanding of career behaviors and goals. Specifically, the Strong Interest Inventory and the Skills Confidence Inventory instruments are reviewed and research is presented to illustrate their combined theoretical utility. Examples of how collectively to apply these tools in career assessment are presented. Finally, areas for future research are proposed. Keywords: Strong Interest Inventory, Skills Confidence Inventory, self-efficacy constructs, career goals

The mantra of career counseling, Know thy self, was once a relatively straightforward proposition that included abilities, interests, and values. Over the years, Parsonian simplicity has proven to be like a Rockwell painting; peoples expressions are timeless, even though the times have changed. Abilities, interests, and values are still fundamental dimensions in career assessment, but multiple life roles, technological revolutions within the world of work, and the infusion of personal consciousness in theories of career development have indelibly changed the conceptual landscape. Career counselors and theoreticians alike are creatively integrating concepts, old and new, as they work with clients and constructs to map career behaviors and goals.

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, Vol. 10 No. 2, May 2002 2002 Sage Publications

169189

169

170

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

In this special issue, we have been asked to write about the relative role of vocational interests and vocational self-efficacy in explaining career goals. In particular, we have been asked to explore the interface between interests and selfefficacy from the perspective of two instruments, the Strong Interest Inventory (SII) (Strong, 1994) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996a). The former is a 75-year-old tool that has evolved with the field of interest measurement. The later is a relatively new arrival, having emerged from the social cognitive zeitgeist that has shaped the past 20 years of career development. Since the inception of the SCI in 1996, the SII and SCI have been used together in both research and applied settings. In this article, we will briefly review each instrument and then move to the questions posed by this special issue: What is the relation between RIASEC-based interests and correspondent self-efficacy constructs? Can these concepts be integrated in a meaningful way so as to offer new information to counselors and clients? We then offer suggestions to researchers who may want to use the SII and SCI in their research agendas. In conclusion, we speculate about promising frontiers for future research.

The Strong Interest Inventory: Forever New

Although many professionals in our field are familiar with the SII, it is useful to describe each component of the Strong and the scope of its scales. The content and manner in which the scales are constructed are very relevant to how career professionals conceptualize interests and then relate interest dimensions to self-efficacy dimensions or to external criteria. For example, the General Occupational Themes (GOT) measure Hollands (1997) RIASEC model of personality, whereas the Basic Interest Scales measure more narrowly defined and specified domains (e.g., mathematics). Both sets of scales can be used in research with corresponding self-efficacy measures, but there are important differences between broad (e.g., social) and specific (e.g., teaching) domains, especially in their ability to predict differing external criteria. The SII has evolved beyond the Occupational Scales, which is the original component that emanated from the 1927 Strong Vocational Interest Blank. The Occupational Scales are empirically derived scales that have been expanded and updated over the years to ensure currency. For years, the Occupational Scales have been used by counselors as predictor variables to help clients shape career goals. Within the interest-self-efficacy research realm, the samples used to derive occupational scale have assumed a new role, serving as the criterion (e.g., currently employed and satisfied librarians) for interest and self-efficacy predictor variables (e.g., Donnay & Borgen, 1999). Under the leadership of David Campbell, the Basic Interest Scales (Campbell, Borgen, Eastes, Johansson, & Peterson, 1968) were added to the SII, thus providing new content, namely, information about basic interests in areas such as mathematics and teaching. In addition, GOTs, corresponding to Hollands

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

171

hexagonal constructs, were introduced. This revision included scale development methodology beyond the original empirical approach used by E. K. Strong. Inclusion of this new material complemented the information provided by the Occupational Scales, thus allowing counselors and clients to better understand how general styles (e.g., Investigative) and basic interests (e.g., mathematics) related to occupations (e.g., electrical engineering). Hollands themes are arguably the most influential taxonomy in vocational psychology, and some have persuasively argued that basic interests provide the optimal level of information for conceptualizing interests (Day & Rounds, 1997). So, by the 1970s, interests could be viewed from the general (Holland-based themes), the specific (basic interests), and in relation to occupational groups (Occupational Scales). The Personal Styles Scales were expanded in the 1994 revision of the SII, and they represent a clear link between interest items and the personality domain (Borgen, 1999). The Personal Style Scales have bipolar dimensions, which is different than the other SII scales. For example, the Work Style scale measures a preference for working alone versus working with others. In the last section of this article, we further explore the domains of personality, interests, and self-efficacy. At this juncture, it is important to note that progression from E. K. Strongs Occupational Scales to the inclusion of the 1994 Personal Styles Scales represents an evolution from empirically derived scales to diverse and theoretically complex constructs that relate to career choice and development. There is ample empirical evidence to support the relation between the SII scales and goal-oriented career variables, such as educational major and occupational choice (e.g., Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). Rather than delving into this lengthy literature, we prefer to describe a few key areas in which the SII could be enhanced to better predict career goals. First, since the last revision of the SII in 1994, there has been a rapid ascension of computer-related activities across many occupations. This dramatic change in the way we do our work necessitates a review of current item sets and inclusion of more computerrelated occupations. Second, interest in organizing information and dealing with culturally diverse groups has grown more important in our fast-paced and global society. These types of interests need to be measured and their place along the hexagon located. Third, a link between occupational samples and occupational classification systems, such as the Structure of Occupational Classification, would connect interest scales to a more comprehensive occupational framework.

Skills Confidence Inventory

Career self-efficacy (e.g., Betz 1992) has been defined as patterns of perceptions regarding ability to perform career-relevant activities or occupational tasks. In introducing self-efficacy to the career literature, Hackett and Betz (1981) proposed that perceptions of self-efficacy influence achievement behavior, academic and career decisions, as well as career adjustment processes. The genesis of this

172

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

work can be found in Banduras theory of self-efficacy. In a general sense, Bandura proposed that the level and strength of self-efficacy largely determine behavior and behavioral change. In his model of behavior, Bandura (1977, p. 191) proposed that expectations of personal efficacy develop from four sources of information: performance accomplishments (or personal mastery experiences), vicarious experience (or learning from modeled behavior), verbal persuasion (or social influence), and physiological states (or emotional arousal). Bandura (1997) and other writers in vocational psychology have suggested that vocational self-efficacy creates vocational interest through progressive mastery of occupational activities. They also have argued that vocational self-efficacy may be a critical factor in the likelihood of a person being successful and persistent in his or her career choice. Drawing from interest and self-efficacy literature, Betz, Borgen, and Harmon (1996b) suggested that both interests and some feeling of confidence or selfefficacy are necessary before a client will pursue a career option (p. 96). Within the context of this theoretical work, the SCI was developed for use in conjunction with the SII. The SCI measures self-efficacy for tasks associated with Hollands RIASEC model. More specifically, the 10 items per theme measure activities or school subjects on a scale of 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete confidence). The anchors, no confidence and complete confidence, are consistent with original scaling of self-efficacy measures. Initial internal consistency estimates for the six General Confidence Themes ranged from .84 for the Enterprising scale to .88 for the Realistic scale based on a sample of 1,147 employed adults. The 3week test-retest reliabilities for these six scales ranged from .83 for Realistic to .87 for Social (Betz et al., 1996b). In terms of concurrent validity, scores on the General Confidence Themes were used to separate occupational groups as predicted by Hollands hexagon (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996). Harmon et al. (1996) illustrated the ability of the General Confidence Themes to appropriately discriminate occupational groups by displaying the rank-ordered means of 21 occupational groups on each of the six scales. In each of the six figures, the highest and lowest ranked occupational groups are predicted by Hollands theory. There is also evidence that the SCI is a good predictor of career choice behavior (Betz, Borgen, Kaplan, & Harmon, 1998). Although the SCI has been in existence for only 5 years, research has accumulated to support its use. The SCI is a good measure of broad-based self-efficacy constructs that correspond to Hollands hexagonal model. A potential future step for the SCI would be to add a level of measurement commensurate with basic interests. This strategy would be in step with the original underpinning of selfefficacy theory and with recent opinions that a more narrowly defined domain may be the optimal level of interest measurement (Day & Rounds, 1997). Collectively, these points suggest that self-efficacy constructs that are specific yet fit into a recognizable theoretical frame are the next steps in self-efficacy research and application.

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

173

Integration of Interest and Self-Efficacy

The relationship between vocational self-efficacy and inventoried vocational interest has been studied on a handful of occasions (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Lenox & Subich, 1994; Lent, Larkin, & Brown, 1989; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Tracey, 1997), and in general, results have revealed a positive linear relationship. In a meta-analytic review, Lent et al. (1994) reported that the average weighted correlation between vocational self-efficacy and vocational interest across 13 studies was .53. This finding meant that approximately 27% of the variance in vocational interest appears to be accounted for by self-efficacy. Lent et al. also reported that both vocational self-efficacy and vocational interest are positively related to career choice with correlations of .40 and .60, respectively. For this article, data from approximately 27,000 respondents were drawn from the CPP, Inc. database to investigate further the interest and self-efficacy relationship. An analysis of respondent zip code indicated that all regions of the United States were well represented. The background questions on the answer sheets asked about college student status. Those who did not indicate a student status appear to be adults with work experience (working adults, homemakers, unemployed, or retired). SII and SCI scale means and standard deviations for respondents, broken down by college student and nonstudent status and race, are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.1 In general, it appears that nonstudents had slightly higher mean scores than students. Within the student category (in which education is relatively constant), the interest pattern was similar across race; the highest mean scores were in the Social and Enterprising domains. The correlations between the SII and the SCI scales are reported in Table 3 by gender, student and nonstudent status, and race. The magnitude of the SCISII relationship was consistently highest for the Investigative scales and lowest for the Enterprising scales across sex, student status, and race. However, this pattern was not as distinct for African Americans, whose scores yielded comparable correlations between Realistic, Investigative, and Artistic SII-SCI scales (.59, .59, and .60, respectively). Clearly, there appears to be a moderate to strong relationship between interests and self-efficacy as measured by correspondent SII and SCI scales. These results are consistent with previous studies and are consistent across demographic groups. Tracey (1997) examined the structures of vocational interest and vocational self-efficacy. He found similar structures and concluded that the parallel structure supported the use of Holland-type self-efficacy scales but that because of the very similar structures . . . , it is not clear that self-efficacy is offering anything not already incorporated in interest data, and it may not be a separate construct (p. 41). Subsequent studies have tried to address Traceys speculation by examining the combined utility of interest and self-efficacy measures, with perhaps the

174

Table 1 Strong Interest Inventory Scale Means and Standard Deviations for Students and Nonstudents by Race
Realistic M 8.87 8.15 9.93 9.42 10.04 9.88 9.36 10.00 10.25 9.74 47.52 43.20 45.47 45.96 45.33 10.28 9.82 10.01 9.67 10.51 50.28 47.75 48.61 49.91 50.75 10.72 10.19 10.55 10.58 10.60 52.94 53.33 50.04 50.04 51.09 10.97 10.70 10.73 10.42 9.91 46.03 41.35 42.34 43.38 43.70 9.52 9.08 9.45 9.45 10.35 49.65 46.40 44.69 47.91 48.11 10.05 10.02 10.00 10.51 10.95 52.20 52.76 48.92 51.03 49.28 10.78 10.90 11.31 11.03 12.14 53.17 51.56 48.66 49.81 48.79 52.91 53.83 51.41 51.31 52.86 SD M SD M SD M SD M Investigative Artistic Social Enterprising SD 10.34 10.42 10.34 10.23 10.84 11.09 11.16 10.47 9.96 10.86 Conventional M 50.91 50.42 48.47 47.23 47.36 52.67 52.79 51.41 49.30 49.51 SD 9.53 10.39 9.72 9.60 10.10 10.57 10.82 10.70 10.09 10.56

Race

Students Asian Black Latino White Other Nonstudents Asian Black Latino White Other

1,069 1,078 1,629 7,647 400

45.37 41.48 44.47 44.22 45.46

257 534 301 5,261 109

47.07 44.54 47.58 47.91 47.10

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

175

Table 2 Skills Confidence Inventory Scale Means and Standard Deviations for Students and Nonstudents by Race
Realistic Race Students Asian Black Latino White Other Nonstudents Asian Black Latino White Other n 1,069 1,078 1,629 7,647 400 257 534 301 5,261 109 M 30.2 28.7 30.8 31.3 32.3 30.7 30.0 31.9 32.4 31.9 SD 7.71 8.31 8.78 8.26 8.95 8.84 8.60 8.74 8.70 8.65 Investigative M 30.9 28.6 28.6 30.3 30.7 30.9 28.8 29.7 30.5 28.4 SD 7.78 8.09 8.66 8.25 9.14 8.89 8.74 8.52 8.54 8.49 Artistic M 30.9 31.2 30.3 30.9 32.8 29.8 30.8 30.5 30.1 32.2 SD 7.89 8.02 8.84 8.32 8.64 8.48 8.51 8.06 8.32 8.36 Social M 35.5 38.3 36.1 36.6 36.5 35.6 37.9 36.7 34.9 36.2 SD 7.46 7.37 8.85 7.61 8.78 7.65 7.44 7.39 7.47 7.60 Enterprising M 32.1 33.8 31.3 32.1 32.6 30.4 33.2 31.5 31.5 32.9 SD 7.54 7.75 8.34 7.66 8.72 8.11 8.41 7.96 8.02 8.33 Conventional M 32.9 32.8 31.1 31.3 31.7 34.4 3.6 32.5 32.8 32.5 SD 7.63 8.16 8.30 8.00 8.77 7.93 8.34 8.02 8.16 8.35

Table 3 Correlations Between Parallel Strong Interest Inventory General Occupational Themes and Skills Confidence Inventory General Confidence Themes
Investigative .66 .65 .67 .66 .66 .59 .67 .67 .66 Enterprising .43 .041 .42 .43 .40 .42 .42 .39 .48 Conventional .47 .50 .50 .46 .42 .51 .49 .49 .50

n Sex Males Females Student status Students Nonstudents Ethnicity Asian Black White Latino Other 10,465 15,823 13,069 7371 1,376 1,808 13,437 2,216 534

Realistic .64 .58 .65 .67 .60 .59 .67 .63 .63

Artistic .63 .62 .63 .63 .59 .60 .63 .62 .60

Social .53 .46 .53 .49 .46 .50 .52 .56 .56

176

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

most compelling response provided by Donnay and Borgen (1999). They examined the incremental validity, beyond vocational interest, of the SCI General Confidence Themes in correctly identifying tenured and satisfied members of 21 occupational groups for 1,105 employed women and men. First, they replicated Traceys (1997; see also Tracey & Ward, 1998) finding that vocational selfefficacy and vocational interest data form similar structures. They then used hierarchical discriminant function analyses to demonstrate the explanatory power of both vocational self-efficacy and vocational interest, as well as the incremental validity of vocational self-efficacy. The results of this study clearly support the use of the SII and the SCI as distinct measures, although similar in structure, and as potentially useful constructs in career assessment and counseling.

APPLICATIONS
Given the ample evidence that both vocational interests and career self-efficacy contribute to vocational choice, conjoint use of measures of the two is now considered a desirable approach to career counseling (Betz, 1999). What is needed to do this effectively are parallel measures of interests and self-efficacy, that is, measures of interests and self-efficacy relative to the same behavioral domain. These can be broad domains such as those represented by the six Holland themes or narrower domains such as those represented by Basic Interest dimensions. In either case, we would predict that to consider majors and occupations in that domain (e.g., the Enterprising GOT or Sales Basic Interest Scales), some degree of both interest and confidence must be present. And if interests or self-efficacy, but not both, is present, then interventions designed to increase levels of the other one may enable that domain to become a career option. In general, concurrent administration of the SII and SCI will yield a comparison of levels of interest and confidence for each Holland theme. The career assessment then lends itself to some type of cross classification of levels of interest (e.g., high, medium, and low) with levels of confidence (high, medium, and low), with concomitant counseling implications. A client worksheet provided in the manual for the SCI is shown in Figure 1 for a client named Karen. This worksheet yields four possible categories of Holland type. It should be noted that operationalizing levels of high and low depends on the specific inventory and measures used and is usually described in the test manual. In Figure 1, the upper-left quadrant shows those Holland types for which both interests and confidence are high, indicating high priorities for occupational exploration. Holland types for which there is some interest but low confidence (upper-right quadrant) may well be possible options if confidence can be increased using Banduras four sources of efficacy information. Areas of low interest but higher confidence (lower-left quadrant) may provide options if interests can be strengthened, but consideration of these areas may not be necessary if the

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

177

High interest and high confidence = good option to explore Low interest and high confidence = option to explore if interests can be increased

High interest and low confidence suggests good option if confidence increased Low interest and low confidence = not likely a good option to explore

Figure 1. Conjoint interpretation of general occupational themes and general confidence themes.

previous two cells provide options. Finally, areas of low interest and low interest (lower-right quadrant) are generally considered low priorities for exploration. Assuming that increases in confidence are necessary before the approach behavior needed to facilitate the exploration of interests can occur, the following suggestions can be made based on the four sources of efficacy information in Banduras theory. For the performance accomplishments, the counselor might recommend classes, workshops, and community education programs that provide beginning (elementary) instruction in the areaprograms offered through technical schools, county colleges, adult education in the community, as well as 4-year colleges and universities. It is essential to ensure initial success experiences to build confidence. One consequence of perceived self-efficacy is persistence in the face of obstacles or disconfirming experiences, so one cannot expect the client to endure failure experiences until some degree of confidence has been built through successful performance accomplishments. Interventions focusing on the vicarious learning or modeling sources of efficacy information might include encouraging the client to spend a few hours at the worksite of someone who works in an occupational area; talking with people in the occupation, especially people of the same gender and/or race/ethnicity; and, especially for younger clients, videos or occupational information showing similar others performing successfully in the occupation/area. A third source of information, emotional arousal (anxiety), can be addressed through traditional anxiety management techniques such as relaxation and systematic desensitization. For example, Deffenbacher (1992) provided an extensive review of various intervention approaches for anxiety reduction, including systematic desensitization based on the pairing of anxiety responses with relaxation derived from progressive relaxation training, self-managed relaxation coping skills, and exposure. Finally, the verbal persuasion component of efficacy information implies that the support and encouragement of the counselor and/or others in the individuals life can serve a vital confidence-building function. Most obviously, the counselor

178

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

can assist the client in structuring new experiences and can then serve as cheerleader and supporter as new behaviors are tried. In the case of the client shown in Figure 1, the joint consideration of interests and confidence reveals that because both interests and confidence are high, Investigative may be a desirable area of exploration, suggesting careers in the sciences. But Karens Realistic interests, if accompanied by some confidence, could open up the area of Investigative-Realistic careers, which include many engineering and technical fields. These fields appealed to Karen, but her lack of Realistic confidence prevented her from exploring them. Accordingly, interventions were needed. Karen decided to take some beginning courses in electronics and computer programming through a community adult education program to build up her confidence in the Realistic area. At the same time, she explored degree-related options in engineering and computer sciencepossibly electrical engineering to combine the two. Left to her own devices, Karens low self-efficacy relative to the Realistic theme probably would have led to continued avoidance rather than the approach behaviors she began to exhibit with the efficacy-based interventions and support of the counselor.

Self-Efficacy Interventions
Because the possibility that self-efficacy or confidence can be increased through targeted interventions is a key component of the postulated usefulness of scores in the high-interest/low-confidence quadrant, empirical demonstration of the effectiveness of such interventions is needed. Career interventions based on self-efficacy theory, focusing on positive applications of the four sources of efficacy information, are just beginning to be designed and tested. For example, Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, and Martinelli (1998) studied the effectiveness of a math/science self-efficacy intervention on math self-efficacy, math and science interests, and choice of majors and careers in a sample of undecided college students. Luzzo et al. reported that participants receiving an intervention focused on performance accomplishments reported higher math/science course self-efficacy following treatment; higher math/science course self-efficacy, self-efficacy for math/science-related occupational requirements, and greater interest in math/science related careers were found at a 4-week follow-up. Speight, Rosenthal, Jones, and Gastenveld (1995) showed the effectiveness of an intervention designed to increase self-efficacy with respect to medical careers in a sample of 45 ninth graders, including 35 girls and 13 African Americans. Betz and Schifano (2000) created and evaluated an intervention designed to increase Realistic self-efficacy in college women. Realistic activities include those related to technical, outdoor, and hands-on activities, the kinds of skills often taught in high school shop, electronics, and trades courses or under the tutelage of an adult comfortable with home and automobile repair. The Realistic

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

179

domain is one central to the pursuit of careers in engineering and technology and, not surprisingly, is the area where gender differences in both interests and perceived self-efficacy are most persistent (Betz et al., 1996a, 1996b). When Realistic interests and confidence accompany Hollands Investigative (scientific) theme, a large array of engineering and technical specialties become viable for career exploration. For example, all of the engineering occupations listed in the occupations finder for Hollands (1994) Self-Directed Search (SDS) have either RI or IR as the first two letters of their Holland code. Similarly, the occupations of engineer (RI) and systems analyst (IR) are among the SII Occupational Scales. Participants in the Betz and Schifano (2000) study were preselected to have above-average scores on Realistic interests but low Realistic confidencein other words, to fall in the upper-right (high interest/low confidence) quadrant postulated to represent a career option if confidence could be increased. The intervention focused on building, repairing, and construction activities. The 7hour intervention included a session on architectural design, including the use of slides and blueprints, and was it followed by a hard-hat tour of two different construction sites on campus: a business building and a sports arena. Construction techniques were explained, and the participants had ample opportunity to ask questions and to see various phases of construction. The second session consisted of a lesson on the classification and use of various hardware items, followed by practice using the hardware and related tools to assemble metal shelving units. In the third session, participants were shown the use of various hand tools (e.g., wire cutters/strippers, screwdrivers, wrenches) and were taught to use the tools to perform a variety of tasks. These tasks included rewiring a lamp, assembling a prescribed plumbing configuration of drainage pipes, and building a combination shelf unit with a pegged coat rack. In addition to focusing on Realistic activities, the intervention included the four elements of Banduras (1977) self-efficacy theory. Equal numbers of women and men demonstrated the desired tasks and behaviors (vicarious learning). Then, they ensured the successful completion of the participants task performance (performance accomplishments). Instructors and participants encouraged and supported each other (social persuasion). Finally, hourly breaks were scheduled during which the participants affirmed their accomplishments with applause and verbal praise and then practiced relaxation techniques with one minute of deep breathing and meditation (anxiety management). The posttest measures were administered 2 weeks after the interventions to the participants in both the experimental and control groups. The control group received a neutral intervention in which the participants discussed their opinions of recent films. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that Realistic confidence, as measured by the SCI, increased significantly in the treatment but not the control group. The change in the treatment group from 2.73 (little confidence) to 3.45 (moderate confidence), or .72, was almost three times both the pretest standard devi-

180

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Pre-test 2.81 2.73

3.45 3.05

Control Treatment

Post-test

Figure 2. Pretest and posttest realistic self-efficacy scores for the treatment and the control groups.

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PreControl PrePostTreatment Control 3 0 27

62

Very Little Little Moderate High

PostTreatment

Figure 3. Percentage of participants in the good option to explore (i.e., high interest and high confidence).

ation (.27) and was three times the size of the change in the control group (.24). The posttest mean of 3.45 was also significantly higher than the mean of 2.9 in the normative sample of 445 college women, even though the treated individuals had been selected to have low Realistic confidence. The results are shown in Figure 2. Recalling the use of the fourfold interpretive continuum, Figure 3

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

181

shows the percentage of young women for whom, posttest, Realistic majors and occupations might now be a career option62% now have high Realistic confidence versus 0% pretreatment. Even though the treatment was of short duration, the change in Realistic confidence has significant interpretive implications. The interpretive comments that accompany scores on the SCI would be little confidence to a score of 2.7 but moderate (3.4) or high (3.5) confidence to a score of 3.45. When used in conjunction with the GOT interest scores obtained from concurrent administration of the SII, a moderate or high interest/moderate confidence combination would suggest that Realistic (in this case) is a high priority for career exploration versus the suggestion of good option if confidence in skills can be increased, which accompanies low confidence score patterns. Thus, the Betz and Schifano (2000) study showed that it is indeed possible to move an interpretation from good option if confidence can be increased to high priority via appropriate self-efficacy interventions. Guidelines for joint use of the SII and SCI scores in career counseling are contained in the Skills Confidence Inventory Applications and Technical Guide (Betz et al., 1996b) and a guide for clients titled Finding Your Passion in Your Career: Integrating Skills Confidence Inventory and Strong Interest Inventory Results (Donnay & Borgen, 2000). An early article describing the use of self-efficacy theory in career interventions was written by Betz (1992).

FOUR FRONTIERS: CONTINUED INTEGRATION OF DOMAINS OF INDIVIDUALITY

Looking at the future of career assessment, Betz and Borgen (2000) saw increasing blending of major domains of individual differences. They said, the theoretical and practical integration of concepts of interests, self-efficacy, and personality provides one of the most significant and exciting directions for career assessment and vocational research (p. 336). The domains of interests, self-efficacy, and personality are flourishing in theory and practice (Betz, 2000; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Lent et al., 1994; Savickas & Spokane, 1999). It is increasingly apparent that these domains overlap to some degree but also represent independent constructs. Person-environment fit models are alive and well, with new comprehensiveness (Chartrand, 1991; Dawis, 1992). A number of integrative models of human action are incorporating these domains of individuality (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Bandura, 1997; Holland, 1997; Lent et al., 1994). Leading edges of research and application are asking the productive structural and differential validity questions we can address by looking jointly at interests, self-efficacy, and personality (Borgen, 1999). Following are some examples of work at those frontiers; these newest examples complement those described by Borgen (1999) and Betz and Borgen (2000).

182

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

They are intended to stimulate new ways of thinking about these big domains of individual differences and to lead others to productive new directions in research and practice.

Big Five Personality and Big Six Interests

Hollands (1997) longtime assertion that interest inventories are measures of personality has led to a number of studies linking Hollands Big Six interest dimensions with the Big Five personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This literature has recently been summarized and quantified in a meta-analysis by Larson, Rottinghaus, and Borgen (in press). Their results showed that two personality dimensions are clearly related to different, adjacent pairs of interests on Hollands hexagon. Extraversion is most related to Enterprising interests but also linked to Social interests. Openness is most related to Artistic interests but also to Investigative interests. Finally, there is also a modest but consistent relationship between Agreeableness and Social interests. These Larson et al. (in press) meta-analysis links between Big Six interests and Big Five personality occur for both the SII (Harmon et al., 1994) and Hollands SDS (Holland, 1994). Larson et al.s surprising finding was that the SDS produces additional personality-interest links that are not found with the SII. The two remaining personality dimensions in the Big Five that are not correlated with interests on the Strong do show mild correlations on the SDS. Conscientiousness is related to Conventional and Enterprising interests, and Neuroticism is related (negatively) to Enterprising interests. In addition, Openness is mildly correlated with Social interests on the SDS. These startling results remind us of the major differences in the types of SII and SDS items. Although the Strong items are predominantly direct interest items, about half of the SDS items are self-ratings of abilities. The results of the SDS probably should be viewed as a mixture of interests, such as measured on the SII, and confidence, or self-efficacy, as measured on the SCI. Future research will probably show that the combination of SII interests and SCI confidence will approximate the results of the SDS. Adding SII interests and SCI self-efficacy should give correlations with Big Five personality that are similar to the meta-analysis results Larson et al. (in press) found for the SDS. Confidence appears to be more strongly linked to personality than are interests (see below). Separate measures of interests and confidence, as in the SII and the SCI, will likely have research and practice advantages. In research studies, the relative and combined predictions from interests and self-efficacy can be identified (Donnay & Borgen, 1999; Tracey & Hopkins, 2001). It is likely that their relative contributions will depend on the career setting and relevant career variables. In practice, discrepancies between strength of interests and self-efficacy can be identified for insight and interventions (Betz et al., 1996b; Campbell,

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

183

Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992). This is also frequently done within the booklet for the SDS, where subscores are obtained for ratings of interests and perceived abilities.

Personality Influences on Level of Interests and Self-Efficacy

A number of investigators have examined level of interest profile, especially in relationship to personality (e.g., Fuller, Holland, & Johnston, 1999). Tilley, Osborn, Wubben, and Quinn (2001) also examined the correlates of level of selfefficacy. With a sample of college students, they studied the Big Five personality dimensions and average level of the six GOTs on the SII and average level of the General Confidence Themes on the SCI. Personality was modestly related to average level of interests (profile level) but fairly strongly related to average level of self-efficacy. The multiple R for the five personality predictors was .27 for interest level and .47 for self-efficacy level. Openness was the predominant single predictor for both interests and self-efficacy, with zero-order correlations of .25 for interests and .44 for self-efficacy. Openness taps an intellectual style of thinking, reflecting sensitivity to ideas, imagination, curiosity, and aesthetics. It is clearly related to general confidence or self-efficacy. It is also the best or most substantial predictor of level of interest, although the relationship is considerably weaker than for self-efficacy.

Vital Distinctions Between Structure and Validity

Structural studies, say for interests, are quite different from studies of criterion validity (Borgen, 1999). The former examines relationships only within a domain of individual differences, whereas the latter examines the relationship of those variables to some external criterion variable. In recent years, there has been vigorous study of the structure of interests (e.g., Tracey & Rounds, 1993) that have been very informative. It is good to remember, however, that those studies, despite their scope and rigor, are studies of structure but not validity in the usual criterion sense. Some studies have compared the structure of interests and the structure of selfefficacy. Two prominent examples are studies by Tracey (1997) and Donnay and Borgen (1999). Tracey concluded that the structure of interests and self-efficacy were similar, and therefore, he questioned the incremental utility of measures of self-efficacy. His more recent work, however, suggests a different conclusion. Using Predigers (1982) model, Tracey and Hopkins (2001) demonstrated that interests and skill ratings can be combined to increase the prediction of occupational choices. It is noteworthy that the approaches of Traceys two studies were quite different: The former examined only relationships within domains of interests or self-efficacy; the latter is actually a concurrent validity, using those domains

184

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

to predict occupational choice variables. Thus, it is quite conceivable, perhaps even desirable, to have similar structures for interests and self-efficacy and yet have them make independent contributions in a validity context. Indeed, such was the case in the Donnay and Borgen study. Using RIASEC scales from the SII and the SCI, they found that each domain yielded the hexagonal structure but that interests and self-efficacy made additive contributions to the prediction of occupation and that the self-efficacy measures were somewhat more potent predictors.

Incremental Validity for All Three Domains

A number of recent studies have looked at pairwise combinations of personality, self-efficacy, and interests. Going a step further, a recent study by Rottinghaus, Lindley, Green, and Borgen (in press) looked at the incremental validity of all three domains in predicting an important career variable: level of educational aspirations for their sample of college students. Following Lent et al.s (1994) social cognitive career theory, educational aspirations were predicted in hierarchical regression from three successive sets of predictors: Big Five personality, six Holland interests, and six Holland confidence scales. Each domain made a significant incremental contribution to explaining level of educational plans, with the multiple R rising from .32 to .51 to .54. At the individual-variable level, students aspiring to the doctorate were most distinctively characterized by a scale from each domain: higher personality Openness, higher Investigative confidence, and higher Investigative interest. The Rottinghaus et al. study exemplified the complementary nature of the domains of personality, self-efficacy, and interests and suggested the likely theoretical and practical payoffs with variables in other career venues.

Expanding the SCI

Just as the SII has advantages because it includes the more specific Basic Interest Scales, so might the utility of the SCI be enhanced with the addition of Basic Confidence Scales. Currently, there is a parallel interest and confidence scale for each of the six Holland RIASEC dimensions. Although the SCI is quite new, the six General Confidence Themes are proving to be useful in practice and complementary to the validity of the GOT interests (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Betz & Schifano, 2000; Donnay & Borgen, 1999). The Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (Campbell, Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992) was a pioneer in providing both interest and confidence results, both at the general level and at the basic interest level. The Holland RIASEC dimensionswhether interests or confidenceare clearly useful and efficient as broad dimensions with implications for broad out-

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

185

comes and criteria. But specific dimensions have much to offer, as seen by the special advantages of the Basic Interest Scales (Day and Rounds, 1997; Donnay & Borgen, 1996). When the focus is more specific than the broad Holland theme, then a more specific scale is likely to perform better. Therefore, there is merit in building an expanded SCI that measures specific dimensions as the level of the Basic Interest Scales (cf. Campbell et al., 1992). Think of the advantagesboth in practice and researchof having specific Basic Confidence Scales for such specific dimensions as science and mathematics and what they have to offer beyond the Investigative General Confidence Theme. Some individuals will have confidence in one domain and not the otherinformation that is obscured in the Investigative scale. Such score discrepancies have major implications in counseling and interpretation, and science and mathematics will function quite differently in research tapping criteria that are differentially relevant for each domain. In short, the meaning of a specifically focused scale is different and more precise than the broad Holland scale. Gasser et al. (2001) presented the first developmental work on an expanded SCI. The authors of the SCI are developing an expanded version of the SCI that will measure Basic Confidence Scales that parallel some of the Basic Interest Scales in the SII. At this writing, the final shape of an expanded SCI is in development, awaiting national normative data and coordination with the new SII, currently under revision. There are likely to be new content scales in the revised Strong. Even though the Strong has 25 Basic Interest Scales, there is evidence that additional scales might be fruitfully developed. For example, Lindley, Borgen, Donnay, and Majors (2000) factor analyzed the 317 items in 1994 SII norm group of 18,951 and found that 40 factors could be extracted, and more than 30 of them were highly replicable across cross-validation samples. Sampling college students at two large public universities, Gasser et al. presented results for 16 Basic Confidence Scales: Mechanical, Science, Mathematics, Writing, Creative Production, Cultural Sensitivity, Training, Public Speaking, Sales, Data Management, Office Services, Using Technology, Leadership, Organizational Management, Project Management, and Teamwork. Their preliminary data showed good to excellent internal consistency reliabilities for the new scales, most correlations in the expected range of .17 to .69 (average of .52) with the parallel Interest scale on the Strong, appropriate structural relationships within the Holland structural model, and varying levels of gender differences, as has typically been found with the SCI (Betz et al., 1996a). These projected new scales have major promise for theory and practice. They cover many of the basic and traditional skill and interest dimensions of school and work, such as mathematics, public speaking, writing, and mechanical. They also include some new dimensions of the modern world that may be feasible as parallel basic interest and self-efficacy scales. Examples of this are teamwork, using technology, and cultural sensitivity.

186

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

SUMMARY
Interest and self-efficacy are related constructs that provide distinct information for career counselors and their clients. At present, the SII and the SCI offer a viable option for measuring parallel dimensions that correspond to Hollands general themes. SII and SCI data from a large sample lend descriptive information to an area that has historically been scant (see, e.g., Brown, 1995): interest and self-efficacy patterns across race. Furthermore, the correlations between interest and self-efficacy, as measured by the SII and SCI, appear very stable, consistently ranging from the .40s to the .60s. Several interesting intervention studies illustrate the value of using both interest and self-efficacy information and suggest specific ways in which career exploration options can be expanded. Future frontiers direct us toward clearer definitions and demarcation of levels within constructs as well as further integration across constructs. The power of integrating interests, personality, and self-efficacy has certainly been capitalized on in career counseling practice, but theoretical networks are still largely unexplored. As these networks unfold, they offer promising leads for new insights and practice in career assessment. The day of exhaustive test batteries may give way to customized batteries designed from knowledge of specific theoretical links.

NOTES
1. A decision was made to present descriptive Strong Interest Inventory and Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) data by student and nonstudent status and race. The former distinguishes two distinct career stages and, in the case of student status, allows for comparisons among a relatively homogenous educational group. Descriptive information presented by race was intended to provide new information about the SCI. Descriptive information for men and women has been presented previously (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996b; Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994).

REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Betz, N. E. (1992). Counseling uses of career self-efficacy theory. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 22-26. Betz, N. E. (1999). Getting clients to act on their interests: Self-efficacy as a moderator of the implementation of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Occupational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 327-344). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

187

Betz, N. E. (2000). Self-efficacy theory as a basis for career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 205-222. Betz, N. E., & Borgen, F. H. (2000). The future of career assessment: Integrating vocational interests with self-efficacy and personal styles. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 329-338. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996a). Skills Confidence Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996b). Skills Confidence Inventory applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., Kaplan, A., & Harmon, L. W. (1998). Gender and Holland type as moderators of the validity and interpretive utility of the Skills Confidence Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 281-299. Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationship of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98. Betz, N. E., & Schifano, R. (2000). Increasing realistic self-efficacy and interests in college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 35-52. Borgen, F. H. (1995). Leading edges of vocational psychology: Diversity and vitality. In W. B. Walsh & S. O. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology. Second edition: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 427-441). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Borgen, F. H. (1999). New horizons in interest theory and measurement: Toward expanding meaning. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 383-411). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Brown, M. T. (1995). The career development of African Americans: Theoretical and empirical issues. In F.T.L. Leong (Ed.), Career development and vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 7-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Campbell, D. C., Borgen, F. H., Eastes, S., Johannson, C. B., & Peterson, R. A. (1968). A set of Basic Interest Scales for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men. Journal of Applied Psychology Monographs, 52 (6, Part 2). Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Chartrand, J. M. (1991). The evolution of trait-and-factor career counseling: A person X environment fit approach. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 518-524. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI_R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dawis, R. V. (1992). The individual differences tradition in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 7-19. Day, S. X., & Rounds, J. (1997). A little more than kin, and less than kind: Basic interests in vocational research and career counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 45, 207-220. Deffenbacher, J. (1992). Counseling for anxiety management. In S. B. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 719-756). New York: John Wiley. Donnay, D., & Borgen, F. (2000). Finding your passion in your career: Integrating Skills Confidence Inventory and Strong Interest Inventory Results. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Donnay, D.A.C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275-291. Donnay, D.A.C., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of vocational self-efficacy: An examination of interest, self-efficacy, and occupation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 432-447. Fuller, B. E., Holland, J. L., & Johnston, J. A. (1999). The relationship of profile elevation in the Self-Directed Search to personality variables. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 111-123.

188

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

Gasser, C. E., Paulsen, A. M., Thomas, T. K., Hofer, K. E., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Betz, N. E. (2001, August). Expanding the Skills Confidence Inventory with Basic Confidence Scales. Poster presentation at the 109th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339. Harmon, L. W., Borgen, F. H., Berreth, J. M., King, J. C., Schauer, D., & Ward, C. C. (1996). The Skills Confidence Inventory: A measure of self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 457477. Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-Directed Search Form R: 1994 edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of investigative and realistic general occupational themes on the Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 176-182. Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (in press). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big Five personality variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Lenox, R. A., & Subich, L. M. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and inventoried interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 79122. Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C., & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to inventoried vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 279-288. Lindley, L. D., Borgen, F. H., Donnay, D.A.C., & Majors, M. S. (2000, August). The factor structure of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory: Scientific and practical implications. Poster session presented at the 108th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Luzzo, D., Hasper, P., Albert, K., Bibby, M., & Martinelli, E. (1998). Effects of self-efficacy enhancing interventions on the math-science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, and actions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233-243. Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Hollands hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259-287. Rottinghaus, P. J., Lindley, L. D., Green, M. A., & Borgen, F. H. (in press). Educational aspirations: The contribution of personality, self-efficacy, and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Savickas, M. L., & Spokane, A. R. (Eds.). (1999). Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Speight, J. D., Rosenthal, K. S., Jones, B. J., & Gastenveld, P. M. (1995). Medcamps effect on junior high school students medical career self-efficacy. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 285295. Strong Interest Inventory, Form 317. (1994). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Tilley, B. P., Osborn, Z. H., Wubben, M. A., & Quinn, A. C. (2001). Personality implications of level of interests and self-efficacy. Poster presentation at the 109th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Tracey, T.J.G. (1997). The structure of interests and self-efficacy expectations: An expanded estimation of the spherical model of interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 32-43. Tracey, T.J.G., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occupational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 178-189.

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS

189

Tracey, T.J.G., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Hollands and Gatis vocational-interest models: A structural analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 229-246. Tracey, T.J.G., & Ward, C. C. (1998). The structure of childrens interests and competence perceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 290-303.