Journal of Career Assessment

Volume 8/Number 3/Summer 2000/Pages 205-

Basis
for Career Assessment

Self-Efficacy Theory as

Nancy E. Betz
The Ohio State University
This article reviews the basic postulates of self-efficacy theory
and describes its applications to the study of career choice and
development. Following a discussion of issues involved in the
measurement of perceived self-efficacy with respect to domains of
career behavior, measurement of and research on occupational selfefficacy, mathematics self-efficacy, self-efficacy with respect to basic
domains of activity, and career decision self-efficacy are reviewed. The
relationship of self-efficacy to vocational interests and the particular
relevance of the theory to the career development of women and
members of racial/ethnic minority groups are also discussed.

Keywords: Self-efficacy theory, career self-efficacy, social cognitive

theory, career decision self-efficacy, self-efficacy and interests
The concept of personal efficacy, as originated by Bandura (1977), can be
considered to have broad and significant implications for both career theory
and career counseling. In fact, Fitzgerald and Harmon (1998) described
self-efficacy as the most important new construct in counseling psychology
in the past 25 years. Like all areas of psychology, however, advances in
both the understanding and application of the theory depend on our ability
to operationalize, or measure, its central constructs. In the sections to
follow, I will begin by outlining the basic postulates of self-efficacy theory.
Then, I will summarize the career-related behavioral domains and
populations to which self-efficacy theory has been applied-this summary
must of necessity be selective due to length limitations for this article.
Finally, I will highlight areas for further research in career assessment,
noting especially the important contributions of the articles contained in this

special

issue.

Self-Efficacy Theory
The applicability of self-efficacy theory to vocational behavior was first
suggested by Hackett and Betz (1981; Betz & Hackett, 1981) and has now
been investigated empirically in numerous studies. Briefly, as originally

Correspondence concerning this article and requests for offprints should be addressed
Nancy E. Betz, Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1222.

to Dr.

Published and

copyright © 2000 by Psychological Assessment Resources,

Inc. All

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

rights reserved.

206

proposed by

Bandura (1977), self-efficacy expectations refer to a persons

beliefs concerning his or her ability to successfully perform a given task or
behavior. These efficacy beliefs are behaviorally specific rather than general.
The concept of self-efficacy must therefore have a behavioral referent to be
meaningful. We could refer to perceived self-efficacy with respect to
mathematics, initiating social interactions, investing in stocks, or fixing a
flat tire. Because they are discussed in reference to a specific behavioral
domain, the number of different kinds of self-efficacy expectations is limited
only by the possible number of behavioral domains which can be definedin other words, infinite for all practical purposes.
The concept of self-efficacy expectations is particularly useful both
theoretically and practically because of the nomological network (a network
of constructs and their postulated interrelationships, as defined by
Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) in which it is embedded. As depicted in Figure 1,
self-efficacy expectations are postulated by Bandura (1977, 1997) to have
at least three behavioral consequences, shown on the right side of the
figure. It is these behavioral consequences which make perceived self-efficacy
an important explanatory construct. The left side of the nomological network
shows four sources of background or experiential information postulated to
explain the initial development of expectations of efficacy. These sources of
efficacy information are important not only in its initial development but can
be used to guide the design of interventions capable of building or
strengthening perceived self-efficacy with respect to that domain.
Returning to the right side of Figure 1, the behavioral consequences of
perceived self-efficacy are as follows: (a) approach versus avoidance
behavior; (b) quality of performance of behaviors in the target domain;
and (c) persistence in the face of obstacles or disconfirming experiences.
Thus, low self-efficacy expectations regarding a behavior or behavioral
domain are postulated to lead to avoidance of those behaviors, poorer
performance, and a tendency to &dquo;give up&dquo; when faced with discouragement
or failure.
The concept of &dquo;approach&dquo; versus &dquo;avoidance&dquo; behavior is one of the
simplest, yet one of the most profound in its impact, in all of psychology. In
the context of career development in particular, &dquo;approach behavior&dquo;
describes what we will try, while avoidance behavior refers to things we will
not try. It thus encompasses both the content of career choice, that is, the
types of educational majors and careers we will attempt, and the process of
career choice, that is, the career exploratory and decision-making behaviors
essential to making good choices.
The effects of self-efficacy expectations on performance can refer to
effects such as performance on the tests necessary to complete college
coursework or the requirements of a job training program. Finally, the
effects of self-efficacy on persistence are essential for long term pursuit of
ones goals in the face of obstacles, occasional failures, and dissuading
&dquo;messages&dquo; from the environment, for example, gender- or race-based
discrimination or harassment.
Thus, with even these few examples, the potential importance of careerrelated self-efficacy expectations is evident. Equally as important as the
consequences of self-efficacy are its postulated causes, for these provide
as well the basis for increasing and strengthening such expectations.
The sources of information include the following: (a) performance

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

207

C)

Cd
u

Q)

b
Q)

rn
C)

fr

p..
4~

o
Q)

t:

&dquo;cC

Cd

cC:!I
C4~
0

d
0

Cd
rn

Q)

U
U

S1)
~=!
UJ.
C)

&dquo;-!
U

;:3

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

208

accomplishments, that is, experiences of successfully performing the

behaviors in questions; (b) vicarious learning or modeling; (c) social
persuasion, for example, encouragement and support from others; and
(d) lower levels of emotional arousal, that is, lack of anxiety, in connection
with the behavior.
Past performance accomplishments, which Bandura (1997) also calls
&dquo;enactive mastery experiences&dquo; (see pp. 79-86), serve as indicators of
capability and are the most influential sources of efficacy information. As
stated by Bandura, &dquo;success builds a robust belief in ones personal efficacy.
Failures undermine it, especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy
is firmly established&dquo; (p. 80). In addition, once a moderate level of selfefficacy develops, establishment of a strong, resilient sense of personal
efficacy requires succeeding on difficult, rather than easy, tasks. Succeeding
only on easy tasks is unlikely to teach the perseverance necessary in most
worthwhile real-world endeavors.
The second source of efficacy information is vicarious learning, or
modeling. Bandura (1997) suggests that the greater the perceived similarity
between the individual and the model, the more persuasive will be his or her
(the models) successes or failures. Further, observing failure in a similar
model can reduce perceived self-efficacy just as observing success can
increase efficacy. Modeling is more effective as there is more uncertainty
about ones own capabilities, as models are more competent, and as there
are multiple competent models rather than just a single model (Bandura).
Social persuasion from others can be effective in enhancing and sustaining
a sense of personal efficacy if the target behavior is within realistic
boundaries. That is, social persuasion that is well beyond what the individual
is actually capable of doing will not be effective as the negative results of
the individuals inadequate performances will constitute more powerful
feedback than will unrealistic social persuasion. Rather, persuasion and
encouragement should be focused on realistic challenges rather than
impossible tasks, failure on which will be detrimental to perceived efficacy.
The fourth source, emotional arousal, refers to somatic information
conveyed by physiological and emotional states. Physiological indicators can
refer to indices of autonomic arousal such as sweating and fast heart beat,
physical indicators such as fatigue or windedness. Anxiety is the most
commonly discussed type of emotional arousal. Self-efficacy can be enhanced
by reducing the extent to which the individual experiences these indicators
for example, by managing stress and anxiety responses and by increasing
physical fitness levels.
In considering the role of these sources of efficacy information it is
important to note that they are as subjectively appraised and integrated by
the perceiver:
Information that is relevant for judging personal capabilities...
is not inherently enlightening. It becomes instructive only
through cognitive processing of efficacy information and
through reflective thought. Therefore, a distinction must be
drawn between information conveyed by experienced events
and information as selected, weighted, and integrated into

self-efficacy judgment (Bandura, 1997,

p.

80).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

209

distinguishes efficacy from outcome expectations as follows:

&dquo;perceived self-efficacy is a judgement of ones ability to organize and
execute given types of performance, whereas an outcome expectation is a
judgment of the likely consequence such performances will produce&dquo; (1997,
p. 22). Efficacy beliefs influence behavior. Outcome expectations can be
positive or negative physical effects, social effects, and/or self-evaluations.
Performances may be more or less closely related to outcomes. Bandura
argues that in most cases efficacy expectations are the more powerful
predictors of behavior. For example, high efficacy expectations are unlikely
to lead to behavior if no positive outcomes of that behavior are anticipated.
On the other hand, high self-efficacy expectations may sustain behavior in
the face of obstacles and/or discouraging experiences (i.e., lowered outcome
expectations). Although most research in this area has focused on self-efficacy
expectations, some studies, especially those examining Lent, Brown, and
Hacketts (1994) social cognitive model, have examined the predictive utility
of both efficacy and outcome expectations (e.g., see Fouad & Smith, 1996).
Thus, the concept of perceived self-efficacy is embedded within a rich and
comprehensive nomological network which has extensive heuristic and
applied implications. In order to investigate and apply this theory, however,
its central constructs must be assessed. Before mentioning some of the
career-related domains to which the theory has been applied to data, I will
discuss some general issues in the assessment of perceived self-efficacy.
Bandura also

General Issues in Assessment

Although a comprehensive discussion and critique of assessment issues is

beyond the scope of this article, a few general guidelines are appropriate here.
First, the concept of perceived self-efficacy is used in reference to a specific
behavioral domain-unless and until the behavior domain of interest is
carefully defined and delineated, assessment cannot proceed. I often receive
requests for a &dquo;measure of self- efficacy&dquo;-simply put, there is no such thing.
Thus, the assessment of perceived self-efficacy derives from the career
researchers or career counselors interest in a specific behavioral domainthe researcher/counselor must believe that self-efficacy with respect to
mathematics, the domains of Hollands (1997) theory, or the process of
career decision making, as examples, is important to the overall process of
career development. When the researcher becomes interested in a domain
for which no appropriate measure of perceived self-efficacy exists, then
he/she must define the domain, especially with reference to its important
constituent behaviors, so that self-efficacy with reference to that domain can
be assessed. (It should also be noted here that the frequently used term
&dquo;career self-efficacy&dquo; is also a misnomer, as there is, again, no such thing.
Rather the term has been used to summarize the entire body of research
applying self-efficacy theory to various behavior domains relevant to the
career

development process).

Once the behavior domain of interest is defined and delineated, the

specified. In Banduras (1977) original theory, level
and strength of self-efficacy were distinguished. Level was assessed by a
&dquo;yes&dquo; or &dquo;no&dquo; response to the questions &dquo;Can you successfully perform this
behavior&dquo;-level referred to the most difficult task the individual perceived
herself/herself able to perform in a sequence of progressively more difficult
tasks. Strength referred to the individuals confidence in that perceived
response continuum is

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

210

capability. Because of the close relationship of level and strength ratings,

and because strength (Confidence) provides a continuous rather than
dichotomous item response, most measures of self-efficacy used currently
employ a 5- to 10-point confidence continuum (e.g., see Bandura, Pastorelli,
Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Taylor & Betz, 1983) though some instruments
also continue to use a level assessment.
In the next sections, domains of career self-efficacy which have received
the most extensive research attention will be briefly reviewed. The focus of
attention will be on constructs, measures, and representative research-the
length of this chapter does not permit a comprehensive review of any, much
less all, of these self-efficacy domains. The content domains to be covered
include occupational self-efficacy, including self-efficacy for scientific/technical
careers, mathematics self-efficacy, self-efficacy with respect to basic
dimensions of career behavior such as those represented by the Holland types
and by Osipows Task Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Career
decision-making self-efficacy will be reviewed as an illustrative process
domain. For each area I will provide illustrative measures and findings.

Career

Self-Efficacy Assessment: Content

Domains

A number of researchers have studied perceived self-efficacy with regard

to specific content domains of educational and career choices-because selfefficacy is postulated to influence &dquo;approach&dquo; versus &dquo;avoidance&dquo; behavior,
content domain-specific self-efficacy expectations may help us to understand
the nature of peoples choices and, if appropriate, provides us a means of
increasing the range of possible career options.

Occupational Self-Efficacy
The first study examining the applicability of self-efficacy theory to career
development was that of Betz and Hackett (1981). Their 20-item Occupational
Self-Efficacy Scale was developed to measure students perceptions of selfefficacy with respect to the educational requirements and job duties of 20
commonly known occupations. The instrument was originally developed to
test the postulate that the underrepresentation of women in many
nontraditional (i.e., male-dominated) career fields was due in part to womens
low expectations of career-related self-efficacy with respect to male-dominated
career fields. Accordingly, the concept of traditionality/nontraditionality
was used both to select occupational titles for inclusion in the instrument
and as a basis for scoring the instrument. Based on percentages of women
and men in the occupation, 10 traditionally female-dominated (denoted
&dquo;traditional&dquo;) and 10 traditionally male-dominated (&dquo;nontraditional&dquo;)
occupations were selected. &dquo;Social Worker&dquo; and &dquo;Engineer&dquo; are examples of
traditional and nontraditional occupations, respectively.
Consistent with prediction, significant gender differences were found in
occupational self-efficacy expectations when traditionality of the occupation
was taken into account. Mens occupational self-efficacy was essentially
equivalent for traditionally male-dominated and traditionally femaledominated occupations; womens self-efficacy expectations were significantly
lower than mens for male-dominated occupations, and significantly higher
than mens for female-dominated occupations. Further, these gender
differences in self-efficacy were predictive of gender differences in the
range of traditional and nontraditional occupations considered, suggesting
that low perceptions of efficacy with respect to gender nontraditional careers
reduces the likelihood of including them among ones range of options.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

211

The assessment of general occupational self-efficacy as pioneered by

Betz and Hackett (1981) has been used in many subsequent studies, with
most showing gender differences in occupational self-efficacy (Layton, 1984;
Matsui, Ikeda, & Ohnishi, 1989; Mitchell, 1990; Post-Kammer & Smith,
1985; Williams & Betz, 1994; Zilber, 1988). The largest and most robust
difference is the higher male self-efficacy with respect to male-dominated

occupations. Other studies (e.g., Layton, 1984; Rotberg, Brown, & Ware,
1987) have replicated the findings that self-efficacy is related to the range
of career options considered.
A related area of research employed a more focused set of occupational
titles, those in scientific and technical careers. Specifically, Lent, Brown, and
Larkin (1984) adapted Betz and Hacketts (1981) assessment procedure to
measure self-efficacy with regard to 15 scientific and technical occupations.
Lent et al. (1984; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986) found significant differences
in several measures of academic performance and persistence between
students with high versus low scientific/technical self-efficacy;
scientific/technical self-efficacy was significantly predictive of grades in
technical courses, persistence in a major, and range of career options. Thus,
the research of Lent and his colleagues supported Banduras hypothesis that
perceived self-efficacy was related to performance and persistence among
students who had already made tentative career choices.
Although research on occupational self-efficacy, including scientific/
technical occupations, has supported the theoretical validity of self-efficacy
expectations as a predictor of choices, performance, and persistence in
chosen majors, optimal application of Banduras theory to career behavior
suggested the development of domain-specific measures of self-efficacy,
discussed next.

Mathematics Self-Efficacy
The important of math background to a range of educational and career
options has led it to be called the &dquo;critical filter&dquo; to career development
(Sells, 1982), yet many students, especially women, avoid taking math
courses (Betz, 1997). Early research examining cognitive barriers to the
study of math emphasized the concept of math anxiety (see Tobias, 1978).
In 1983 Betz and Hackett published the first measure of mathematics
self-efficacy expectations and proposed that because self-efficacy theory
includes a specification of the components of interventions (i.e., the four
sources of efficacy information), it may be a more useful concept than that
of math anxiety.
The original research of Betz and Hackett (1983) used a 3-part measure
of math self-efficacy-everyday math tasks (e.g., balancing a checkbook),
math courses (e.g., calculus), and math problems. Large gender differences
in math self-efficacy were found, with males being significantly more
confident than were females. In addition, math self-efficacy expectations
were related to students preferences for, versus avoidance of, careers in the
sciences. Hackett (1985) used path analysis to test the hypothesis that
mathematics-related self-efficacy mediates the effects of gender and
mathematics preparation and achievement on the math-relatedness of
college major choice. Results were consistent with a self-efficacy approach
to career development, in that gender, gender-role socialization, high school
mathematics preparation, and mathematics achievement were all found
to influence math self-efficacy, which in turn was significantly predictive of
math-related major choice.
Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

212

Following these early studies, a considerable body of empirical research

has consistently supported the existence of large gender differences in
math self-efficacy (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991), the predictive relationship
of math self-efficacy to math performance and achievement (e.g., Siegel,
Galassi, & Ware, 1985), and the importance of math self-efficacy to the
science- or math-relatedness of career choices (Hackett & Betz, 1989; Lapan,
Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996; Post-Kammer & Smith, 1986).
Recent research has focused on the sources of math self-efficacy, and its
results may have important implications for the design of treatment
programs. For example, Lent, Lopez and their colleagues (Lent, Brown,
Gover, & Niijer, 1996; Lent et al., 1991; Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore, 1996;
Lopez & Lent, 1992) have assessed the four sources of math self-efficacy
postulated in Banduras theory (performance accomplishments, vicarious
learning, social persuasion, and emotional arousal). Their findings have
suggested, among other things, that past performance accomplishments
were the strongest predictors of self-perceived math efficacy. Factor analyses
of measures of the four sources of mathematics self-efficacy support
Banduras four-factor model of the sources of self-efficacy, but also suggest
a more parsimonious hierarchical model in which performance accomplishments, social persuasion, and emotional arousal are highly correlated
because they are all based on direct, personal experience, while vicarious
learning is an indirect source of efficacy information.
Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, and Martinelli (1998) reported the
superiority of performance accomplishments in an intervention focused on
increasing math/science self-efficacy in undecided college students. The
performance accomplishments intervention, involving a number-series task
structured so that participants successfully &dquo;passed,&dquo; led to increased mathscience course self-efficacy both post-treatment and at a follow-up conducted
4 weeks after the conclusion of treatment. The vicarious learning
intervention, a videotaped presentation of an African American man and a
European American woman describing their successful pursuit of mathscience careers, did not have significant effects on self-efficacy. However,
students who received both the performance accomplishments and vicarious
learning interventions reported significantly higher math-science interests
at the 4-week follow-up than did other students. Thus, research on
mathematics self-efficacy has now progressed to include studies of its
sources and treatment, as well as its behavioral consequences.

Self-Efficacy With Respect to

Hollands Themes
There are now several measures of self-efficacy of one or more of the six
Holland (1997) types; these six themes, Realistic, Investigative, Artistic,
Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (henceforth abbreviated RIASEC, as
is standard practice), have been among the major individual differences
variables used in career theory, assessment, and counseling.
Lapan, Boggs, and Morrill (1989) developed a measure of self-efficacy with
respect to the RIASEC areas in order examine the degree to which gender
differences in self-efficacy mediated gender differences in interests. Lapan
et al. introduced and described each theme as an occupational category, and
provided examples of occupations in that category (i.e., pharmacist, computer
programmer, mathematician, and physicist for the Investigative theme).
Lapan et al. found significant gender differences in favor of males on

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

213

Realistic and

Investigative self-efficacy, though not on self-efficacy with

Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional themes. Selfefficacy was found to play a major role in mediating gender differences in
Investigative and Realistic interests.
Rooney (1991) cluster-analyzed the items of the Task Specific Occupational
Self-Efficacy Scale (Rooney & Osipow, 1992) and was able to assign 225 of

respect

to

the 230 items to one of the six Holland theme areas. Number of items per
cluster ranged from 18 (Enterprising) to 56 (Realistic). Males were
significantly more confident with respect to Realistic and Investigative,
and females were significantly more confident in the Social area.
Lenox and Subich (1994) also developed measures of self-efficacy with
respect to Hollands themes. Six 5-item scales were developed using activities
representing each theme. Only the Realistic, Investigative, and Enterprising
scales were investigated further, however, because the Artistic, Social, and
Conventional scales were characterized by restriction in range. Like previous
research findings, women were less confident than men in relationship to
Realistic and Investigative.
The Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) is
a 60-item measure of self-efficacy, with 10 items assessing self-efficacy for
each of the six RIASEC areas. As described in Betz, Borgen, and Harmon
and Betz, Harmon, and Borgen (1996), the SCI was developed using samples
of about 1,100 employed adults and 700 college students. Each confidence
scale consists of 10 activities, tasks, or school subjects associated with the
relevant Holland theme.
Gender differences on the SCI varied according to the sample studied. In the
original normative studies, college men reported significantly more confidence
on the Realistic, Investigative, Enterprising, and Conventional themes,
whereas college women reported significantly greater Social confidence. Fewer
gender differences were evident among 1,147 employed adults-gender
differences (in favor of men) were found only for Realistic and Enterprising
confidence. In further within-occupation analyses, gender differences on the
RIASEC themes were found for only 9 of 126 possible comparisons (Betz,
Borgen, Kaplan, & Harmon, 1998). Fewer gender differences are evident in
research using samples where choices have already been made, for example
Lent et al.s (1984, 1986) engineering students and also Hackett, Betz, Casas,
and Rocha-Singhs (1992) students in engineering majors.
Recent research using measures of self-efficacy with respect to the Holland
themes has focused on the relationships between interest in and self-efficacy
expectations with respect to a given Holland theme (e.g., Betz, Borgen, &
Harmon, 1996; Lenox & Subich, 1994) and, in particular, the joint use of
these in career assessment and counseling. The theoretical relationships
between interests and efficacy will be discussed in a subsequent section.

Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy

Also measuring several basic dimensions of vocational self-efficacy is
the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale, or TSOSS (Osipow,
Temple, & Rooney, 1993; Rooney & Osipow, 1992). The original version of the
TSOSS consisted of 230 occupationally relevant skills items selected from
the 66 GOE (Guide for Occupational Exploration) Categories from the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1981). Specific
items included &dquo;Indicate your confidence in your ability to gain the trust and
confidence of people&dquo; and &dquo;Use hand tools.&dquo;
Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

214

A short form of the TSOSS was developed (Osipow, Temple, & Rooney,
on factor analysis of the original 230-item scale. Based on this
a
60-item
short form including four factors was derived. The
analysis,
factors were described as follows: (a) Verbal, interpersonal skills, Verbal;
(b) Quantitative, logical, and business skills, Quant; (c) Physical strength
and agility, Physical; and (d) Aesthetic skills, Aesthetic. In a recent review,
Osipow and Temple (1996) suggest that the short form, with its four
interpretable subscales, is potentially more useful than the long form,
which provided only an overall self-efficacy score.
Williams and Betz (1994) and Betz, Schifano, and Kaplan (1999) reported
statistically significant gender differences on the TSOSS factors, with college
men (n
108) scoring significantly higher on the Quantitative and Physical
factors in comparison with college women (n 159). No gender differences on
the Verbal or Aesthetic factors were found. Lee (1994) reported that women
in engineering and natural science majors scored significantly higher on
TSOSS Factor 2 (Quant) and significantly lower on both Factors 1 (Verbal) and
4 (Aesthetic), in comparison to other groups of college women, thus providing
some evidence for the criterion-related validity of the TSOSS short form.
Evidence of validity was reported by Betz, Schifano, and Kaplan (1999).
They examined the relationships of TSOSS scores to Skills Confidence
Inventory scores. They reported that relationships among similarly named
scores, that is, TSOSS Verbal/interpersonal with SCI Social, TSOSS
Quantitative with SCI Investigative, TSOSS Physical with SCI Realistic, and
TSOSS Aesthetic with SCI Artistic were high, ranging from .50 (Verbal
with Social) to .80 (Aesthetic with Artistic). Both TSOSS Verbal/interpersonal
and SCI Social were negatively related to career indecision, thus suggesting
that self-perceived social/interpersonal confidence plays a facilitative role
in career decision making. Correlations between Verbal/interpersonal
confidence and indecision were also reported by Temple (1991) in men and
by Temple and Osipow (1994) in women.

1993) based

Career

Self-Efficacy

Assessment: Process Domains

In addition to career self-efficacy measures designed to predict the type of

options considered versus avoided, or the nature of the choices made, selfefficacy theory has also been applied to the process of career decision making.
One of the most important characteristics of successful career development
and adjustment is an individuals willingness to take control of his/her
career &dquo;destiny.&dquo; And one of the most important bases of this sense of control,
or agency is ones life, including the educational and vocational arenas of that
life, is a sense of personal agency. As stated by Bandura (1997)

People make causal contributions to their own psychosocial

functioning through mechanisms of personal agency. Among
the mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasive
than beliefs of personal efficacy. Unless people believe they
can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little
incentive to act. Efficacy belief, therefore, is a major basis of
action. People guide their lives by their beliefs of personal
efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in ones
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainment. The ability to secure

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

215

desired outcomes and to prevent undesired ones, therefore,

provides a powerful incentive for the development and
exercise of personal control. The more people bring their
influence to bear on events in their lives, the more they can
shape them to their liking. By selecting and creating
environmental supports for what they want to become, they
contribute to the direction their lives take. (pp. 2-3)
The importance of a sense of personal agency to career development has
been discussed by Solberg, Good, and Nord (1994; Solberg, Good, Fischer,
Brown, & Nord, 1995). Further, the importance to career development process
of an active exploration of both self and environment has long been stressed
(Harren, 1979; Jordaan, 1963; Super & Hall, 1978). There is now strong
evidence to support the importance of self-efficacy in evoking exploration of
self and environment (Blustein, 1989; Taylor & Popma, 1990). More generally,
measures of the concepts of career decision-making self-efficacy (Betz &
Luzzo, 1996) and career search efficacy (Solberg, Good, Nord, Holm et al., 1994;
Solberg et al., 1995) have stimulated such useful research.

Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

The most widely used measure is the Career Decision-Making SelfEfficacy scale (CDMSE; Taylor & Betz, 1983) designed to measure an
individuals degree of belief that he or she can successfully complete tasks
necessary to making career decisions. Based on Crites (1978) model of
career maturity, the item content included behaviors pertinent to (a) accurate

self-appraisal; (b) gathering occupational information; (c) goal selection;

(d) making plans for the future; and (e) problem solving. There is a 50version, including 10 items for each competence domain (Taylor &
Betz, 1983) and, a shorter 25-item form (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996),

item

containing 5 items for each domain of decision-making behavior. As reviewed

by Betz and Luzzo (1996) both versions have been shown to be highly
reliable and to be strongly related to criterion measures including career
indecision, as measured by the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, 1987; Osipow,
Carney, & Barak, 1976), and the Vocational Identity subscale of My
Vocational Situation (Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980).
A number of studies have shown CDMSE scores to be related to behavioral
(vs. self-report) indicators of educational and career adjustment. For
example, research has shown that CDMSE (or CDMSE short form) scores
are related to whether or not students have declared college majors (Taylor &
Popma, 1990), to preferences for male-dominated or gender-neutral versus
traditionally female careers (Mathieu, Sowa, & Niles, 1993), to career
exploratory behavior (Blustein, 1989), and to academic and social adjustment
in underprepared college students (Peterson, 1993a, 1993b).
Not surprisingly, given findings regarding its correlates, research is now
being focused on the evaluation of counseling interventions designed to
increase career decision-making self-efficacy. This research, reviewed by Betz
and Luzzo (1996), has strongly supported the effectiveness of career
interventions in increasing career decision-making self-efficacy and reducing
career indecision (e.g., see Foltz, 1993; Fukuyama, Probert, Neimeyer,
Nevill, & Metzler, 1988; Luzzo & Taylor, 1994; McNeill, 1990).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

216

Career Search

Efficacy

Other researchers have developed and examined measures of self-efficacy

relative to aspects of the process of career decision-making and implementation. For example, Solberg, Good, Nord et al. (1994) reported the
development of a measure of career search efficacy, defined in general as &dquo;the
degree of confidence an individual has for performing a variety of career
search tasks&dquo; (Solberg et al., 1994, p. 113). In a subsequent study, Solberg
et al. (1995) reported that both the Career Search Efficacy Scale and the
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale were positively related to career
search activities and career decidedness. Ryan, Solberg, and Brown (1996)
reported relationships between the quality of parental relationships and
career search efficacy. Like career decision-making self-efficacy, interventions
focused on career search efficacy may be useful in career counseling.

Self-Efficacy and Vocational

Interests

Self-efficacy theory has considerable potential for understanding and

modifying vocational interests. As far back as 1971, Osipow and his colleagues
postulated a relationship between interests and task success (what in
Banduras theory are called performance accomplishments). Osipow and
Scheid (1971) administered a task involving choice among paired nonsense
syllables and experimentally manipulated success ratios from 85%:15%,
70%:30%, and 50%:50%. As predicted, preferences for the task increased
most under conditions of greatest success. Similarly, research by Osipow
(1972), Campbell and Hackett (1986), and Hackett and Campbell (1987)
supported the relationship of task success to task liking and/or interests.
Lapan and his colleagues (Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Lapan,
Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996) have been pursuing research based on the
presumption that increasing self-efficacy can increase interests. Lapan
and his colleagues (1989) found evidence that lower self-efficacy with respect
to Realistic and Investigative areas may explain womens lower Realistic and
Investigative interests. And Lapan and his colleagues (1996) used path
analysis to support the importance of both math self-efficacy and math
interests in predicting entry into math/science majors and in the mediation
of gender differences in these decisions.
Lent et al. (1994) developed a social-cognitive model incorporating both
self-efficacy and interests. Their model highlights three &dquo;person&dquo;
mechanism s-s elf-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals-that form the
core of a social cognitive approach to career behavior. Efficacy and outcome
expectations are postulated to influence the development both of interests
and of goals related to the career choice and decision process, with plans,
decisions, aspirations, and behavioral choices all involving goal mechanisms.
The research of Lent, Lopez, and Bieschke (1993) suggested that selfefficacy mediates the effects of prior performance on interests which, in turn,
mediate the effect of self-efficacy on choice intentions. Fouad and Smith
(1996), in another test of the social cognitive model, reported a strong
relationship between self-efficacy and interests which, in turn, related to
choice intentions. Lopez, Lent, Brown, and Gore (1997) reported the results
of a comprehensive test of the social cognitive model for predicting mathrelated interests and performance in a sample of 296 high school students.
Both self-efficacy and outcome expectations were related to subject matter
interest, and self-efficacy partially mediated the effects of measured ability
on course grades.
Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

217

generally, researchers are now suggesting that measures of selfefficacy be used in conjunction with measures of vocational interests in
career counseling on the assumption (now well supported by research of
Donnay & Borgen, 1999, as well as that of Lapan et al., 1989, 1996) that both
contribute to the understanding of career choices (Betz, 1999). Use of
conjoint measures is now made possible by the availability of the Skills
Confidence Inventory (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) used in conjunction
with the Strong Interest Inventory (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer,
1994) and by the Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale (Lucas, Wanberg, &
Zytowski, 1997) which may be used in conjunction with the Kuder
Occupational Interest Survey (Kuder & Zytowski, 1991). Other similar
measures include the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (Campbell, Hyne,
& Nilsen, 1992), which uses self-estimates of skills and, the Self-Directed
Search (Holland, 1994) and the UNIACT (Prediger & Swaney, 1995) which
use self-estimates of ability as part of or along with assessments of the
More

Holland interest themes.

Applications

to Women and

Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups

original article suggesting the potential utility of self-efficacy

theory to career development research and career counseling, Hackett and
Betz (1981) noted the particular relevance of the theory to the understanding
of the career development of women. Specifically we suggested that
traditional female socialization often led to deficits in the sources of efficacy
information important to the development of strong expectations of efficacy
with respect to such traditionally male-dominated areas as mathematics, the
sciences, and engineering/technology careers. We therefore suggested that
gender role socialization influences womens career development at least in
part because of its effect on the mediating variable of self-efficacy
expectations. This postulate led to a number of testable hypotheses, all of
which have been supported by subsequent research (e.g., Betz & Hackett,
1981; Layton, 1984; Post-Kammer & Smith, 1985; Rotberg, Brown, & Ware,
1987). More generally, research since 1981 has strongly supported our
contention that womens lower self-efficacy expectations with respect to a
number of career-related variables serve as an important cognitive barrier
to career choice and development (see a review by Betz & Hackett, 1997).
Using the same reasoning by which restricted or stereotypic socialization
experiences were implicated in lower career-related self-efficacy expectations
among women, these theories are now gaining increasing credence as an
explanation for cognitive barriers to career development among members of
racial-ethnic minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged
individuals. For example, self-efficacy (or social cognitive) theory has now
been applied to the career development of African Americans (Gainor & Lent,
1998; Hackett & Byars, 1996), Mexican Americans (Flores & OBrien, 2000),
and Asian Americans (Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999). Fouad and Smith
(1996) have applied social cognitive theory to increasing math and science
self-efficacy in inner-city middle school children. Chartrand and Rose (1996)
describe the usefulness of social cognitive theory for economically and
occupationally disadvantaged adults, in particular female offenders.
In the

Summary
Thus, it is evident that self-efficacy theory has considerable utility for
understanding and treatment of a wide range of career-related behaviors

the

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

218

and within a diversity of populations. However, the research to date has,

in my opinion, only begun to exploit the potential of this theory. The
articles invited by the Journal editor that follow provide a number of
interesting additions to knowledge of the application of self-efficacy theory
to

career

assessment.

The first two articles address basic aspects of self-efficacy theory itself.
examine the degree to which self-efficacy
beliefs and self-estimates of ability are overlapping versus distinct
constructs. They also examine the relative utility of each set of constructs
in predicting vocational interests and perceived career options. The article
by Gore and Leuwerke (2000) examines the relative efficiency of self-efficacy
beliefs, outcome expectations, and Holland theme congruence in predicting
the extent to which undergraduates consider 84 occupations.
The third and fourth articles address applications of self-efficacy theory
in new populations. The Brown, Reedy, Fountain, Johnson, and Dichiser
article (2000) reports on the career decision-making self-efficacy, selfesteem, locus of control, as well as the perceived barriers to career pursuits
of employed and unemployed battered women. Kreishok, Ulven, Hecox,
and Wettersten (2000) use self-efficacy theory as a basis for the evaluation
of interventions to assist veterans in career decision-making self-efficacy and
job search skills. In addition to examining the effectiveness of a resume-based
treatment for increasing career decision-making self-efficacy, Kreishok and
his colleagues develop a new measure of self-efficacy with respect to ones
ability to apply self-knowledge of abilities and personality to work situations.
The last two articles focus on advancing the assessment of constructs
related to self-efficacy theory. Smith and Betz (2000) report on the
development of a measure of self-efficacy with respect to the social
interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal
relationships. Because of considerable past research indicating the
importance of social competence to educational and career adjustment,
concepts and measures of social self-efficacy may prove useful in further
research on the career decision-making and adjustment processes of college
students and adults. Finally, Bieschke (2000) investigates the factor
structure of a measure of research outcome expectations in samples of
rehabilitation counseling and counseling psychology doctoral students. She
also studies the validity of the scale as a predictor of research interests
among faculty members in rehabilitation counseling programs.

Brown, Lent, and Gore (2000)

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy
pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269.
Betz, N. E. (1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing
majors in science and engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school:
Effects on achievement and performance (pp. 105-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Betz, N., Borgen, F., & Harmon, L. (1996). Skills Confidence
technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Inventory applications

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

and

219

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F., Kaplan, A., & Harmon, L. (1998). Gender as a moderator of the
validity and interpretive utility of the Skills Confidence Inventory. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 53, 1-19.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations
to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
399-410.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations
college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1997). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the career
development of women. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 383-402.
Betz, N., Harmon, L., & Borgen, F. (1996). The relationships 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., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career
Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47-57.
Betz, N., & Luzzo, D. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision-Making SelfEfficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 313-328.
Betz, N., Schifano, R., & Kaplan, A. (1999). Relationships among measures of perceived selfefficacy with respect to basic domains of vocational activity. Journal of Career Assessment,
, 213-226.
7
Bieschke, K. J. (2000). Factor structure of the Research Outcome Expectations Scale.
Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 303-313.
Blustein, D. L. (1989). The role of goal instability and career self-efficacy in the career
, 194-203.
exploration process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35
Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2000). Self-rated abilities and self-efficacy
beliefs: Are they empirically distinct? Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 223-235.
Brown, C., Reedy, D., Fountain, J., Johnson, A., & Dichiser, T. (2000). Battered womans
career decision-making self-efficacy: Further insights and contributing factors. Journal of
Career Assessment, 8, 251-265.
Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance on math
self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 149-162.
Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. C. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest and
to the selection of science-based

Skill

Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Chartrand, J. M., & Rose, M. L. (1996). Career interventions for at-risk populations:
Incorporating social cognitive influences. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 341-353.
Crites, J. O. (1978). Career Maturity Inventory: Theory and research handbook. Monterey,
CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.
Cronbach, L. J., &

Psychological Bulletin,

Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct

52. 281-302.

validity

in

psychological

tests.

Donnay, D. A., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of vocational self-efficacy:
An examination of interest, efficacy, and occupation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,
432-447.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Harmon, L. W. (1998, August). Sam Osipow and womens career
development: A post modern update. In F. T. L. Leong and A. Barak (Co-Chairs), Contemporary
models in vocational psychology: A symposium honoring Samuel H. Osipow. Symposium
conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Flores, L. Y., & OBrien, K. (2000). The career development of Mexican American women:
A structural analysis of social cognitive career theory. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Foltz, B. M. (1993). The effect of a career counseling workshop on the career self-efficacy of
non-traditional college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC.
Fouad, N., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Test of a social-cognitive model for middle school
students: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 338-346.
Fukuyama, M. A., Probert, B. S., Neimeyer, G. J., Nevill, D. D., & Metzler, A. E. (1988).
Effects of DISCOVER on career self-efficacy and decision making of undergraduates. Career
Development Quarterly, 37, 56-62.
Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

220

Gainor, K. A., & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations and racial identity
attitudes in predicting the math choice intentions of Black college students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 403-413.
Gore, P. A., Jr., & Leuwerke, W. C. (2000). Predicting occupational considerations:
A comparison of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and person-environment
congruence. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 237-250.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors
of college women and men: A path model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47-56.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1989). Mathematics performance, mathematics self-efficacy, and
prediction of math-related college majors. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,

the

20, 261-273.
Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and
social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527-538.
Hackett, G., & Byars, A. M. (1996). Social cognitive theory and the career development of
African American women. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322-340.
Hackett, G., & Campbell, N. (1987). Task self-efficacy and task interest as a function of
performance on a gender neutral task. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 203-215.
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F., & Hammer. A. (1994). Manual for the Strong
Interest Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of career decision making for college students. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14, 119-133.
. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Holland, J. S. (1994). Self-Directed Search Form R: 1994 edition
Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and

work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). Some diagnostic scales for research
in decision-making and personality: Identity, information, and barriers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1191-1200.
Jordaan, J. P. (1963). Exploratory behavior: The formation of self and occupational
concepts. In D. E. Super (Ed.), Career development: Self-concept theory (pp. 42-78). Princeton,
NJ: CEEB.

Krieshok, T. S., Ulven, J. C., Hecox, J. L., & Wettersten, K. (2000). Resume therapy and
vocational test feedback: Tailoring interventions to self-efficacy outcomes. Journal of Career
Assessment, 8, 267-281.
Kuder, F., & Zytowski, D. C. (1991). Kuder Occupational Interest Survey: General manual.
Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
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.
Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocational
interests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinal
, 277-291.
study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49
Layton, P. L. (1984). Self-efficacy, locus of control, career salience, and womens career choice.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Lee, J. Y. (1994). The relationship between womens self-efficacy expectations and career
decision status at the college level in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio
State University, Columbus.
Lenox, R., & Subich, L. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and inventoried
vocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Gover, M. R., & Niijer, S. K. (1996). Cognitive assessment of the
sources of math self-efficacy: A thought listing analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 4
, 33-46.
G.
a
S.
&
Toward
social
R.
(1994).
Brown,
D.,
Hackett,
unifying
Lent, W.,
cognitive theory
of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,
79-122.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

221

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to
academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic
success and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 265-269.
Lent, R., Lopez, F., & Bieschke, K. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation
career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424-430.
Lent, R., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and
success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
42, 223-236.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1996). Latent structure of the
sources of mathematics self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 292-308.
Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high school
students. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 3-12.
Lopez, F. G., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Role of social-cognitive
expectations in high school students mathematics related interest and performance. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 44, 44-52.
Lucas, J. L., Wanberg, C. R., & Zytoswki, D. G. (1997). Development of a career task selfefficacy scale: The Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 437-459.
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.
Luzzo, D. A., & Taylor, M. (1994). Effects of verbal persuasion on the career self-efficacy
of college freshmen. California Association for Counseling and Development Journal, 14,
to science-based

31-34.

Matsui, T., Ikeda, H., & Oshnishi, R. (1989). Relations of sex-typed socializations to
self-efficacy expectation of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 1-16.
Mathieu, P. S., Sowa, C. J., & Niles, S. G. (1993). Differences in career self-efficacy among
women. Journal of Career Development, 19, 187-196.
McNeill, P. (1990). Impact of a problem-solving vocational intervention on career decisionmaking self-efficacy and career indecision (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 852A.
Mitchell, S. L. (1990). The relationship between racial identity attitudes, career selfcareer

and involvement in campus organizations among black students. Unpublished

dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Osipow, S. H. (1972). Success and preference: A replication and extension. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 56, 179-180.
Osipow, S. H. (1987). Career Decision Scale manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

efficacy,
doctoral

Resources.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., & Barak, A. (1976). A scale of educational-vocational

undecidedness: A typological approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 233-243.
Osipow, S. H., & Scheid, A. B. (1971). The effect of manipulated success ratios on task
preference. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 93-98.
Osipow, S. H., & Temple, R. D. (1996). Development and use of the Task-Specific
Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 445-456.
Osipow, S. H., Temple, R. D., & Rooney, R. A. (1993). The Short Form of the Task Specific
Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 13-20.
Peterson, S. L. (1993a). Career decision-making self-efficacy and institutional integration
Research in Higher Education, 34, 659-683.
of underprepared college students.
Peterson, S. L. (1993b). Career decision-making self-efficacy and social and academic
integration of underprepared college students: Variations based on background characteristics.
Journal of Vocational Education Research, 18, 77-115.
Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1985). Sex differences in career self-efficacy, consideration,
and interests of eighth and ninth graders. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 551-555.
Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1986). Sex differences in math and science career self, 89-101.
efficacy among disadvantaged students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015

222

Prediger, D.
assessment for

J., & Swaney, K. B. (1995). Using UNIACT in a comprehensive approach to

planning. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 429-452.
R.
A.
The relationship of task-specific occupational self-efficacy and career
(1991).
Rooney,
interests in college women and men. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale:
The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40
, 14-32.
Rotberg, H. L., Brown, D., & Ware, W. B. (1987). Career self-efficacy expectations and
perceived range of career options in community college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 34, 164-170.
Ryan, N. E., Solberg, V. S., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Family dysfunction, parental attachment
and career search self-efficacy among community college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 43, 84-89.
Sells, L. (1982). Leverage for equal opportunity through mastery of mathematics. In S. M.
Humphreys (Ed.), Women and minorities in science (pp. 7-26). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Siegel, R. G., Galassi, J. P., & Ware, W. B. (1985). A comparison of two models for
career

predicting mathematics performance: Social learning versus math-aptitude-anxiety. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 32
, 531-538.
Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of Perceived Social
Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 283-301.
Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., & Nord, D. (1994). Career search efficacy: Ripe for applications
and intervention programming. Journal of Career Development, 21, 63-72.
Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Fischer, A. R., Brown, S. E., & Nord, D. (1995). Relative
effects of career search self-efficacy and human agency upon career development. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 42, 448-455.
Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Nord, D., Holm, C., Hohner, R., Zima, N., Heffernan, M., &
Malen, A. (1994). Assessing career search expectations: Development and validation of the
Career Search Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 2
, 111-123.
Super, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1978). Career development: Exploration and planning. Annual
Review of Psychology, 29, 333-372.
Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans career choices: A path
model to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
142-157.

Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding
and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63-81.
Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). Construct validity of the Career Decision-Making SelfEfficacy scale and the relationship of CDMSE to vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 37, 17-31.
Temple, R. D. (1991). The relationship between task-specific self-efficacy and career
indecision. Unpublished masters thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Temple, R. D., & Osipow, S. H. (1994). The relationship between task-specific self-efficacy,
egalitarianism, and career indecision for females. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 82-90.
Tobias, S. (1978). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1981). Selected characteristics of occupations defined in the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Williams, T., & Betz, N. (1994). The relationships among occupational and task-specific
measures of career self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 341-351.
Zilber, S. M. (1988). The effects of sex, task performance, and attributional styles on task
and career self-efficacy expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015