The Self-Directed Search and Career Self-Efficacy PDF

http://jca.sagepub.
com
Journal of Career Assessment
DOI: 10.1177/106907279900700204
1999; 7; 145 Journal of Career Assessment
Patrack F. Feehan and Joseph A. Johnston
The Self-Directed Search and Career Self-Efficacy
http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/145
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal of Career Assessment Additional services and information for
http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/2/145 Citations
at University of Missouri-Columbia on March 13, 2009 http://jca.sagepub.com Downloaded from
The Self-Directed Search and
Career
Self-Efficacy
Patrack F. Feehan
Joseph
A. Johnston
University of
Missouri—Columbia
This
paper presents
the results of a
study
aimed at
furthering
understanding
of the
meaning
of
responses
to Hollands Self-Directed
Search
(SDS).
Drawing
on current social
cognitive theory,
this
study
provides
some evidence that SDS
Summary
scores
might
be
predictive
of
respondents
future
self-efficacy expectations.
A
significant relationship
was found between
responses
to the SDS and
an instrument
specifically designed
to measure career
self-efficacy,
the short form of the
Task-Specific Occupational Self-efficacy
Scale
(TSOSS).
Evidence for the
validity
of the SDS in
predicting
career
self-efficacy
is
provided by
the correlational
patterns
and
gender
differences shown in the
responses
to both the SDS and TSOSS.
Implications
and
suggestions
for further research are discussed.
Journal of Career Assessment
Volume
7/Number
2/Spring 1999/Pages
145-159
Bandura (1977) introduced the
concept
of
self-efficacy expectations (i.e.,
ones belief in their
ability
to
successfully perform
a
given
behavior) as a
fundamental
component
of his social
learning theory.
Renamed as social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986),
this
theory posits
that
self-efficacy
expectations
determine whether or not a behavior will be
initiated,
how much
effort will be
expended,
and how
long
the behavior will be sustained in the
face of obstacles and aversive
experiences.
The
theory
differentiates between
efficacy expectations
(beliefs
concerning
the
performance
of a behavior)
and outcome
expectations
(beliefs
concerning
the
consequences
of a behavior).
Both
types
of
expectations (efficacy
and outcome)
vary
on the dimensions of
level, strength,
and
generality.
Career
Self-Efficacy Theory
This
theory
has led to the
development
of the
applied
construct of career
self-efficacy,
which has
emerged
from a number of
empirical
studies based
on social
cognitive theory
(Betz
&
Hackett, 1981; Betz, Harmon,
&
Borgen,
1996;
Lenox &
Subich, 1994; Osipow, Temple,
&
Rooney, 1993; Rooney
&
Osipow,
1992).
The construct of career
self-efficacy,
as it has been defined
We are
grateful
to John Holland for his continued
input
and
critique
of results on
earlier drafts.
Correspondence concerning
this article and
requests
for
offprints
should be addressed
to Patrick
Feehan,
16 Hill
Hall, University
of
Missouri-Columbia, Columbia,
MO 65211.
Published and
copyright ©
1999
by Psychological
Assessment
Resources,
Inc. All
rights
reserved.
146
in this
research, generally
takes the form of an individuals belief in their
ability
to
successfully engage
in
specific
work-related tasks or activities. In
this translation of
self-efficacy theory
to career
development,
the
theory
has
come to
emphasize
the
interlocking processes
of interest
development,
choice,
and
performance.
The
theory attempts
a
&dquo;cognitive
constructivist&dquo;
approach
to career
development,
where
forethought, anticipation
of
outcomes,
and active construction of
meaning
is
emphasized.
Individuals are seen in
this
theory
as
proactive shapers
of their
environments,
not
merely
as
responders (Lent, Brown,
&
Hackett, 1994).
Hollands
Theory
Holland
(1997)
describes Staats
(1981)
theory
of social behaviorism as
most consistent with his
theory
of how
types develop.
As described
by
Holland,
a childs
biology
and
experience
lead to
preferences
for some
activities over others.
Engagement
in these activities
subsequently
leads to
the
development
of
long-term interests, competencies,
and
dispositions
(Holland, 1997).
In Hollands
theory,
the choice of a vocation is an
expression
of individual
personality
based to some
degree upon self-concept.
Holland
cites other theorists
noting
of the same sentiment: &dquo;Interest
inventory
scores are measures of
self-concept&dquo; (Bordin, 1943);
&dquo;vocational choice...is
the
implementation
of a
persons self-concept&dquo; (Super,
1972).
Holland
maintains that &dquo;these orientations
consistently imply
that
peoples
vocational
interests flow from their life
history
and
personality&dquo; (p.
8). Individuals here
are seen as
developing
a &dquo;characteristic
repertoire
of attitudes and skills for
coping
with environmental
problems
and tasks&dquo;
(p.
2).
Similar to
self-efficacy
theory,
individuals are viewed as &dquo;active rather than
passive recipients
of
environmental influence&dquo;
(p.
2).
The Intersection of the Theories
The Holland themes as articulated within the SDS have
provided
a
framework for several studies that have examined the
relationship
between
inventoried vocational interests and career
self-efficacy (Betz, Harmon,
&
Borgen, 1996;
Lenox &
Subich, 1994; Lent, Larkin,
&
Brown, 1989;
Matsui &
Tsukamoto, 1991).
The
development
of research in current social
cognitive
theory
as it
applies
to career
decision-making appears
to be
providing
increasing
evidence that
many
forms of
self-knowledge (i.e.,
known interests
and
competencies,
favored
activities,
and self-estimates of
ability) may
comprise
a
persons self-efficacy
beliefs.
While the two theories outlined above
originate
in different schools of
thought, they appear
to share a
great
deal of common
purpose.
Most relevant
to this
study
is the
acknowledgement by
both theories of the
importance
of
self-efficacy
or
self-concept
as a mediator or basis for the
development
of
subsequent
vocational behavior. Based on this theoretical
linkage,
it
appears
reasonable to ask how effective Hollands SDS
might
be in
predicting
future
This
study
was
specifically
undertaken in an
attempt
to determine if
responses
to Hollands SDS
(Holland, 1990)
might
be
predictive
of self-
efficacy expectations
as embodied in
responses
to an instrument
specifically
designed
to measure career
self-efficacy expectations
as defined in a social
147
cognitive
context. The
specific
instrument chosen for
comparison
was the
short form of the
Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy
Scale
(TSOSS;
Osipow
et
al., 1993).
SDS
Summary scores,
which are each
comprised
of five SDS subscale
scores
(Activities, Competencies, Occupations,
and two Self-Estimates)
were
compared
with TSOSS Factor scores
(see
Measures section).
The
Summary
scores were chosen because of their clinical
availability,
applicability
(the Holland three-letter code is a
proxy
for the
Summary
scores),
and demonstrated
reliability.
Hypothesized Relationship Among
the Variables
Based on the face
validity
of the factor structure of the
TSOSS,
it was
hypothesized
that TSOSS scores for Factor 1
(verbal, interpersonal
skills)
would be
positively
correlated with SDS Social and
Enterprising Summary
scores;
that TSOSS scores for Factor 2
(quantitative, logical, business,
scientific
skills)
would be
positively
correlated with SDS Conventional and
Investigative Summary scores;
that TSOSS Factor 3
(physical strength
and
agility)
would be
positively
correlated with SDS Realistic
Summary
scores;
and that TSOSS Factor 4
(aesthetic skills)
would be
positively
correlated with SDS Artistic
Summary
scores.
Gender Differences
Career
self-efficacy
has from its
origin
been
conceptualized
as an
explanatory
variable useful for
predicting
the career behavior of women
(Betz
&
Hackett, 1981;
Hackett &
Betz, 1981).
Since that
time, many
investigators
have found
significant
differences in
response patterns
for men
and women in assessments
specifically designed
to measure this construct
(Betz
&
Hackett, 1981;
Betz et
al., 1996;
Matsui &
Tsukamoto, 1991; Osipow,
et
al., 1993; Rooney
&
Osipow,
1992).
In an
attempt
to build
upon
these
outcomes,
another intent of this
study
was to examine the
gender
differences between womens and mens SDS
Summary scores,
and to
compare
them for
similarity
with womens and
mens TSOSS Factor scores. For the
high
school and
young college age
students used for this
study,
scores were
hypothesized
to follow the
pattern
found
by
Betz et al.
(1996)
for
college
students
responding
to the Skills
Confidence
Inventory
(SCI):
the men in this
sample
were
expected
to
demonstrate more
perceived self-efficacy
than women for tasks classified in
Holland terms as
Realistic, Investigative, Enterprising,
and
Conventional;
the women in this
sample
were
expected
to demonstrate more
self-efficacy
than men for tasks classified as
Social;
and both the men and women in this
sample
were
expected
to demonstrate similar levels of
self-efficacy
for tasks
classified as Artistic.
Method
Participants
Participants
were 112 male and 125 female (N
=
237) high
school
students enrolled in a career
planning
home
study
course offered
by
a
major
midwestern
university. Age
of the
participants
was as follows:
Complete
148
sample
M
=
17.8
years,
SD
=
1.6
years;
Mean male
age
=
17.9
years,
SD =1.6
years;
Mean female
age
=
17.7
years,
SD
=
1.5
years.
In
general,
students take this course to learn more about themselves
and their career
options.
The
typical
student enrolled in this course has
fallen behind in their studies due to
poor
scholastic
performance
or absence
resulting
from
pregnancy
or
illness,
and is
attempting
to make
up
credits
for
graduation. However, many
students from rural
high
schools with
limited curricular
options
enroll in this course to round out their academic
experience.
As a
result,
it is reasonable to
suggest
that the students have
reasonably
diverse levels of interest and a
correspondingly
diverse
range
of
career
Procedure
As
part
of the introduction to the
course,
the students were asked to fill
out a Self-Directed Search
(SDS
Form
R; Holland, 1990).
Near the end of the
course
work,
students were asked to take the short form of the
Task-Specific
Occupational Self-efficacy
Scale
(TSOSS; Osipow
et
al., 1993).
Students in the class were tracked for the duration of their enrollment in
the
class,
and data were accumulated
by
student. Since this was a home
study course,
the time
lag
between
receipt
of the SDS and of the TSOSS
averaged
95.5
days,
with a standard deviation of 65.5
days.
Measures
The
Task-Specific Self-Efficacy
Scale
The TSOSS
(Osipow
et
al., 1993)
was
developed
as a
task-specific
measure
of career
self-efficacy
in accordance with Banduras social
cognitive theory
(1977, 1986).
Rooney
and
Osipow (1992) originally developed
a 230-item scale
aimed at
measuring
the
level, generality,
and
strength
of
respondents
self-
efficacy expectations by using
items
describing
work activities of
differing
difficulty
at the
task-specific
level. The items in the
original
TSOSS are
drawn
entirely
from
descriptions
of work activities listed in
part
A of the
Selected Characteristics of
Occupations
Defined in the
Dictionary
of
Occupational
Titles
(U.
S.
Department
of
Labor, 1981, 1991).
Respondents
indicate, through placement
of their
response
on a
5-point
Likert
scale,
their confidence in their
ability
to
perform
each of the listed activities.
Responses
are coded from &dquo;no confidence&dquo; to &dquo;absolute
certainty.&dquo;
Osipow
et al.
(1993)
further refined this scale
through
factor
analysis,
resulting
in a more efficient 60-item
test, comprised
of four subscales of 15
items each. Each subscale
represents
a
specific
factor as follows: Factor 1:
Verbal, interpersonal skills;
Factor 2:
Quantitative, logical, business,
scientific
skills;
Factor 3:
Physical strength
and
agility;
and Factor 4:
Aesthetic skills.
These factors
appear
to
correspond
to the Holland
types:
Factor 1 to
both Social and
Enterprising types;
Factor 2 to both
Investigative
and
Conventional
types;
and Factors 3 and 4 to Realistic and Artistic
types,
respectively. Judged
on the basis of its face
validity alone,
the factor
structure of the short form of the TSOSS
appears
to hold
promise
as a
basis for a
comparison
of its
responses
with those to the SDS.
149
The
validity
of the short form of the TSOSS has not
yet
been
completely
established
(Osipow
et
al., 1993),
but the
original long
form was validated
by Rooney
and
Osipow
(1992)
using
the
Occupational Self-Efficacy
Scale
(OSES;
Betz &
Hackett, 1981).
Evidence for the
validity
of the OSES has been
provided by
the
original
research and
by
Zilber
(1988).
Rooney
and
Osipow
(1992)
produced
mixed
results,
with weak (r
=
.17, p
<
.0162)
to moderate
(r
=
.66, p
<
.0001)
correlations between TSOSS and OSES
responses.
Osipow
et al.
(1993)
reported
Cronbach
alpha reliability
for the short form
of the TSOSS
ranging
from .91 to .93 for each of the four factors.
The
Self-Directed
Search
The SDS
(Holland, 1990)
has six scales of 38 items each. Holland
(1985,
p.
49)
reports
Cronbachs
alpha
reliabilities for the 1985 revision of the
SDS for
respondents aged
14 to 18
years by
subscale as
follows, depending
on
gender
and
personality type: Activities,
.59 to
.86; Competencies,
.67 to
.83; Occupations,
.74 to
.89; Summary,
.86 to .92. The
Summary
scale
reliabilities include the Activities
(11 items), Competencies
(11
items),
and
Occupations
(14 items)
subscales,
as well as two Self-Estimates
ratings.
The SDS Manual
(Holland, 1985),
the Manual
Supplement (Holland,
1987),
a recent
bibliography
(Holland and
Gottfredson, 1990),
and Hollands
book on his
theory (Holland, 1997)
provide
extensive evidence for the
validity
and
reliability
of the SDS and for the
theory
behind its
development.
Results
Results were
analyzed using
both bivariate correlation and
multiple
regression.
Correlation
analysis
Pearson
product-moment
correlations were calculated between the raw
scores for each of the four TSOSS factors and six SDS
Summary
scores.
Values were calculated
separately
for the male
portion
of the
sample,
the
female
portion
of the
sample,
and the total
sample.
Table 1 shows these
values.
Means,
standard
deviations,
Pearson
correlations,
and coefficient
alpha reliability
estimates for
males, females,
and the total
sample
also
appear
in Table 1.
To
manage
the risk of
making
a
Type
I error with the 45 correlations
among
the 6 SDS and 4 TSOSS variables at the .05
familywise level,
a
crude Bonferroni correction was
applied
to the
significance level,
and a
threshold
alpha
level of .001 was used to evaluate the statistical
significance
of these correlations.
For the
complete sample,
the bivariate correlations revealed three SDS
Summary
scores that were
significantly
related to TSOSS Factor 1
(verbal,
interpersonal
skills): Social (r
=
.32), Enterprising
(r
=
.38),
and Conventional
(r
=
.27).
Three SDS
Summary
scores were also
significantly
related to
TSOSS Factor 2
(quantitative, logical,
business
skills): Investigative
(r
=
.27),
Enterprising
(r
=
.37),
and Conventional
(r
=
.49).
Only
one SDS
Summary
score was
significantly
related to TSOSS Factor 3
(physical strength
and
agility
and Factor 4
(aesthetic skills) respectively:
Realistic (r
=
.55),
and
Artistic
(r
=
.48).
150
m
h
0
0
e0
~
-
GO
0
CC
~
a)
0
o
CO
>~
#
u
!H 05
H S
4~
1-4
OOOQ
P-4
Cd
.t-) B
~
CL P
?cc
Sac
OQ
~
~cc
a)~~
.P.4
~
0) !-<

& ea
v
#o
Cd
~ u
Pig
Q sS
~
~00
PC$
P-4 gl
4a
P-w ...
P-0
0
.p4
P-4
4)
94
po
00
a
o
Cd
2
h
0
U
151
OB ~
Cd
Cd V
cj
So
O
S9f
~~
Z%
!i
#
p$CX
niG
r&dquo; V i~ O
g t6 u
V
<u cc
~X
0
~ CO
M
E-4
Cd
rr
b U
O V
O
~~., ~,
< C%
P
@ ,I u
&dquo;i
Cd
~-
il,
g 4 $4
>1
E-4

~ .
0
0 cd
r,4 bO
Cd Cd
mw /
M~
~ V &dquo;, E&dquo;~ V
/b
. ~-
ufl
cli
cl .
,.q
11
P6,
cd
r4
i
rr O 5,a
1. 0
Pr4 Cd
ed
cz n
~
CQ
m <O
s
~!s
g
El
o
&dquo;_S~
v
gQ~%
,P<
CII
u
o
o oi .~
.S
v
cd a
152
Multiple regression
Using
simultaneous
multiple regression,
each of the four TSOSS Factor
scores were
regressed
in turn on the linear combination of six
(R,I,A,S,E,C)
SDS
Summary
scores
(see
Table
2).
These four
regressions
accounted for
19% of the variance in TSOSS Factor
1, F(6, 230)
=
9.16, p
<
.0001, adjusted
r2
=
.17;
2, F(6, 230)
=
17.04, p
<
.0001,
adjusted r2
=
.29;
3, F(6,
230)
=
19.46,
p
<
.0001, adjusted r2
=
.32;
and 24% of the variance in TSOSS Factor
4,
F(6, 230)
=
12.40, p
<
.0001, adjusted r2
=
.22.
Uniqueness
indices and beta
weights
(standardized
multiple regression
coefficients)
were then calculated to assess the relative
importance
of the six
SDS
Summary
scores in their
prediction
of TSOSS Factor scores. For each
Summary score,
the
uniqueness
index is the
unique percent
of variance in
TSOSS Factor scores accounted for
by
that SDS
Summary score, beyond
the variance accounted for
by
the other five SDS scores. The standardized
beta
weight
for each SDS
Summary
score
represents
the
average change
in
TSOSS Factor scores
(in
standard deviation
units)
associated with a 1-standard
deviation
change
in each
respective Summary score,
while
holding
the
other five
Summary
scores constant. It is a measure of the relative
strength
of the
relationship
between SDS
Summary
scores and
predicted self-efficacy
beliefs,
as embodied in the TSOSS Factor scores. Taken
together, uniqueness
indices and beta
weights provide complementary
evidence of the
relationship
between SDS
Summary
scores and
predicted self-efficacy.
Table 2 shows that for this
sample, self-efficacy
in verbal or
interpersonal
skills was
positively predicted by Enterprising
and Social SDS
Summary
scores. These
Summary
scores
uniquely
accounted for a
statistically
significant portion
(5%
and
2%, respectively)
of the variance in TSOSS
Factor 1 scores. The SDS
Enterprising Summary
scores have the
strongest
relationship
with
predicted self-efficacy,
with a beta
weight
of .30
(p
<
.01);
the Social
Summary
score is less
strongly related,
with a beta
weight
of .18 (p
<
.05).
Following
this
pattern, self-efficacy
in
quantitative, logical, business,
or
scientific skills was
positively predicted by
SDS
Conventional, Investigative,
and
Enterprising Summary scores,
and
negatively predicted by
SDS Artistic
Summary
scores. These
Summary
scores
uniquely
accounted for a
statistically significant portion (9%, 3%, 1%,
and
2%, respectively)
of the
variance in TSOSS Factor 2 scores. The SDS Conventional
Summary
scores
have the
strongest relationship
with
with a beta
weight
of .37
(p
<
.01);
the
Investigative, Enterprising,
and Artistic
Summary
scores are less
strongly related,
with beta
weights
of .20
(p
<
.01),
-.15
(p
<
.05),
and .16
(p
<
.05).
Self-efficacy
in skills
requiring physical strength
or
agility
was
positively
predicted by
SDS Realistic
Summary scores,
and
negatively predicted by
SDS
Artistic
Summary
scores. These
Summary
scores
uniquely
accounted for a
statistically significant portion
(20%
and
3%, respectively)
of the variance
in TSOSS Factor 3 scores. The SDS Realistic
Summary
scores have the
to
with a beta
weight
of .51
(p
<
.01);
the Artistic
Summary
scores are less
strongly related,
with a
beta
weight
of -.19
(p
<
.01).
153
Table 2
Summary
of
Regression Analysis
Results for
Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy
Scale (TSOSS) Factors With
Self-Directed Search
(SDS)
Summary
Scores
Note. N
=
237;
TSOSS Factor
1-Verbal, interpersonal skills;
TSOSS Factor
2-Quantitative, logical,
business
skills;
TSOSS Factor
3-Physical strength, agility;
TSOSS Factor 4-Aesthetic skills.
aBeta
weights
are standardized
multiple regression
coefficients obtained when each
TSOSS Factor was
regressed
on all six Holland
types. bUniqueness
indices indicate
the
unique percentage
of variance in TSOSS Factor scores accounted for
by
a
given
predictor
variable if it were entered last into the
regression
model. cor t tests that tested
the
significance
of the beta
weights df
=
230. dfor F tests that tested the
significance
of the
uniqueness
indices
df = 1,
230.
*p
< 0.05.
**p
< 0.01.
154
Finally, self-efficacy
in aesthetic skills was
positively predicted by
SDS
Artistic
Summary
scores. These
Summary
scores
uniquely
accounted for a
statistically significant portion
(19%)
of the variance in TSOSS Factor 4
scores. The SDS Artistic
Summary
scores have the
to
with a beta
weight
of .48
(p
< .01).
Gender Differences
Table 3 shows means and standard deviations for all four TSOSS Factor
scores and all six SDS
Summary scores, arranged by
sex of the
respondent.
Table 3 also shows the results of two
separate
multivariate
analyses
of
variance
(MANOVAs)
conducted with sex as the
independent
variable and
either TSOSS Factor scores or SDS
Summary
scores as
dependent
variables.
For the MANOVA conducted on TSOSS Factor
scores,
the overall
multivariate F ratio
using
Wilks Lambda was
significant F(4, 232) =
35.50, p
< .0001. For the MANOVA conducted on SDS
Summary scores,
a
similar statistical
significance
was found
F(6, 230)
=
55.27, p
< .0001. These
results indicate the
presence
in this
sample
of
significant
differences
between men and women in their
responses
to both instruments.
Further univariate F tests
(Table 3)
show that women scored
significantly
higher
than men in
self-efficacy
related to verbal or
interpersonal
skills
(TSOSS
Factor
1),
and
significantly
lower than men in
self-efficacy
related
to
physical strength
or
agility
(TSOSS
Factor
3).
SDS
Summary
scores
exhibited a similar
pattern;
women scored
significantly higher
than men in
the Social and Conventional domains
(and
less
significantly
so for the
Artistic
domain),
and
significantly
lower than men in the Realistic domain
(and
less
significantly
so for the
Investigative
domain).
Discussion
Evidence of a
Relationship Among
the Variables
The
pattern
of
significant
correlations shown in Table 1 between the
TSOSS Factor scores and the SDS
Summary scores, along
with the results of
the
regressions
shown in Table
2, provide
evidence of a
systematic relationship
among
the
responses
to the two instruments.
Verbal, interpersonal
self-
efficacy
(TSOSS
Factor
1)
was found to be
positively
related to SDS Social and
Enterprising Summary scores; quantitative, logical, business,
or scientific self-
efficacy
(TSOSS
Factor
2)
was found to be
positively
related to SDS
Investigative, Enterprising,
and Conventional
Summary scores; physical
strength
or
agility
(TSOSS
Factor
3)
was found to be
positively
related to SDS
Realistic
Summary scores;
and aesthetic
self-efficacy
(TSOSS
Factor
4)
was
found to be
positively
related to SDS Artistic
Summary
scores.
These
relationships among
the variables were
expressed
in the
regression
results much as
originally hypothesized, including
the direction of the
relationships. However, unexpected negative relationships
were also found
between both
quantitative, logical, business,
or scientific skills
(TSOSS
Factor
2)
and
physical strength
or
agility
(TSOSS
Factor
3)
and the SDS
Artistic
Summary
scores.
155
Table 3
Mean TSOSS Factor Scores and SDS
Summary
Scores
by
Sex
Note. TSOSS
=
Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale;
SDS
=
Self-Directed
Search;
Factor 1 =
Verbal, interpersonal skills;
Factor 2
=
Quantitative, logical, business,
scientific
skills;
Factor 3
=
Physical strength, agility;
Factor 4
=
Aesthetic skills.
an
=
125. ~
=
112.
*p
< .05.
**p
< .001.
***p
< .0001.
Evidence for
validity
was
provided by
correlational
patterns
consistent
with the face
validity
of the
descriptions
of the TSOSS Factors and SDS
Summary
scales
(Tables
1 and
2).
Further evidence for
validity
was
provided
by
the relational
patterns
found in the
regression
results and in
gender
differences found across both the SDS and the TSOSS scale scores.
Gender Differences
The
pattern
of
gender
differences in
self-efficacy,
as
depicted
in this
samples responses
to the
TSOSS,
did not match
exactly
the
original
hypotheses
(Table 3).
As
previously mentioned,
Betz et al.
(1996)
found
that
college-aged
men scored
higher
than women in
self-efficacy
for tasks
classified as
Realistic, Investigative, Enterprising,
and Conventional.
However,
in this
high school-aged sample,
men scored
higher
than women
only
in
self-efficacy
for tasks related to
physical strength
or
agility
(TSOSS
Factor
3),
while the women scored
higher
than men in
self-efficacy
for
tasks related to
verbal, interpersonal
skills (TSOSS
Factor
1).
Men and
women scored
similarly
in
self-efficacy
for tasks related to
quantitative,
156
logical, business,
or scientific skills
(TSOSS
Factor
2),
and related to
Aesthetic skills (TSOSS Factor
4).
The SDS
Summary
scores from this
sample
followed a similar
pattern
(Table 3).
The notable differences
(p
<
.0001)
between men and womens
responses
were found in the SDS
Realistic, Social,
and Conventional
domains. SDS Realistic
Summary
scores were
higher
for men than
women;
and the Social and Conventional
Summary
scores were
higher
for women
than men. While SDS
Investigative Summary
scores were somewhat
higher
for men than
women,
and the Artistic
Summary
scores somewhat
higher
for
women than men
(p
<
.05),
these
gender
differences were far from
being
as
large
as the effects found for the
Realistic, Social,
and Conventional domains.
While the outcome found in this
sample
does not
exactly replicate
the
findings
of Betz et al.
(1996),
it does show some
encouraging patterns
in
gender
differences across the Holland domains.
Except
for tasks
requiring
physical strength,
female
respondents
in this
sample appear
to either
equal
or exceed their male
counterparts
level of confidence in their
ability
to
accomplish
tasks or
engage
in activities
successfully.
Stated in the
language
of social
cognitive theory,
this outcome
suggests
that there are few
cognitive
barriers for the women in this
sample
to
availing
themselves of a wide
variety
of nontraditional career
opportunities.
Limitations of the
Study
Each
regression
accounts for a
minority
of the total variance in TSOSS
Factor
scores, ranging
from 17% to 32%.
Furthermore,
each individual SDS
domain
uniquely
accounts for an even smaller
portion
of the total variance
in each TSOSS Factor
score, ranging
from 1% to 20%. These results
suggest
that variables other than those identified in this
study,
and other than
those embodied within the SDS
Summary scores,
contribute most of the
variance
incorporated
in the TSOSS Factor scores.
A
potential major
source of additional
unanticipated
variance
may
be
imbedded within the
procedure
used for
administering
the SDS and TSOSS.
As mentioned above
(see &dquo;Procedure&dquo;)
the mean time
lag
between
administration of the SDS and administration of the TSOSS was
nearly
100
days.
In the
intervening time,
the
respondents engaged
in career
planning
course work
designed
to increase their
knowledge
of themselves and their
capabilities, especially
as
they might
relate to future career
planning.
As a
result,
the TSOSS Factor scores
(collected
near the end of the career-
planning
course)
include the effects on
self-efficacy
of both the
intervening
course work and the
100-day
time
lag,
which are not included in the SDS
Summary
scores
(collected
at the start of the
career-planning
course).
Unfortunately,
the
design
of this
investigation
does not
provide
us with
an
opportunity
to examine the effect that these activities
might
have had
on the
responses given
to the TSOSS. The overall
impact
of the career-
planning
course and the time
lag
remains
unquantified.
While we can
reasonably hypothesize
that the effect of the
career-planning
course was
positive (i.e.,
to increase the overall level of
self-efficacy
shown in the
responses given
to the
TSOSS),
it
appears equally
reasonable to
hypothesize
that the effect of the combination of the
intervening
course work and time
157
lag might
have been to
&dquo;uncouple,&dquo;
or reduce the
apparent
size of the
relationships
found between the
responses
to the SDS and the TSOSS. As
a
result,
the net effect of these limitations
upon
the
strength
of the
relationships
found in this
study
is unknown.
In
addition,
the
expressed strength
of the
relationships among
the
variables in this
study may
have been
negatively impacted by significant
restriction of
range
and
skewing
in the
responses
to the TSOSS. In this
sample,
the
average response
to the TSOSS was
greater
than 4.0 on a
5-point
Likert
scale,
with a standard deviation of less than 1.0. A further reduction
in the
expressed strength
of the
relationships
found
among
the variables
may
have resulted from the mismatch between the four-factor structure of the
TSOSS and the six-factor structure of the SDS.
A final
potential
limitation relates to the
age
of the
respondents
used for
this
study.
Because of their
age, respondents
in this
high school-aged group
may
have less well-differentiated
interests, activities, occupational interests,
and self-estimates than do mature adults. As a
result,
their SDS
Summary
scores
may
be less differentiated than those that
might
be
gathered
from a
mature adult
sample. Differentiation,
as
applied
here to SDS
scores,
is
defined as the absolute difference between the
respondents highest
and
lowest
Summary
scores
(Holland, 1997).
Sampling
a more mature
population
might yield
more differentiated
Summary scores,
and
thereby strengthen
the
relationships
found
among
the variables of interest in this
study.
Implications
for
Counseling
This
study
has aimed to extend the
understanding
of the SDS in terms
of current social
cognitive theory. Specifically,
this
study attempts
to describe
the
way
in which
self-efficacy
beliefs
may
be imbedded in the SDS
Summary
scores.
Although
the results in this
respect
are limited as described
above,
as well as
by
the relative lack of demonstrated
validity
for the
comparison
instrument
(TSOSS),
the moderate
relationships
found between TSOSS
Factor scores and the SDS
Summary
scores
provide
evidence that career self-
efficacy
beliefs
may
be
incorporated
in
responses
to the SDS.
While the variance accounted for
by
the
regressions
in this
sample
was
significant,
indicative of a
systematic relationship among
the TSOSS and
SDS
variables,
it is
important
to note that the
majority
of the variance in
expressed self-efficacy
beliefs was not
explained by
the SDS
Summary
scores. Further research
may
overcome the limitations of this
study
and show
the SDS to be a reliable
predictor
of
self-efficacy beliefs,
but until then the
wise counselor should
proceed cautiously
in
making predictions regarding
self-efficacy
beliefs
using
the SDS
Summary
scores.
Note also that the use of the SDS to
predict self-efficacy
beliefs would
place
an additional
responsibility upon
the counselor to understand the
implications
of such an
interpretation, especially
as it
applies
to
gender
differences. Clear
guidelines
for
predicting self-efficacy
beliefs
using
SDS
Summary
scores must be
provided
for the
counselor,
and the
meaning
of
those
guidelines
must be
properly
understood and
applied by
the counselor.
This
requirement
also calls for further research.
158
Suggestions
for Further Research
While this
study
has found a
relationship
between
responses
to the
TSOSS and the
SDS,
and
suggests
that some
predictive power
resides in the
SDS
Summary scores,
it
stops
short of
recommending
that the SDS
Summary
scores be used to
predict self-efficacy
beliefs. To
truly
establish the
validity
of the SDS as an effective measure of career
self-efficacy requires
additional
research aimed at
refining
our
understanding
of how
self-efficacy
expectations
are
expressed
in the SDS
Summary
scores.
Further research
matching responses
to the SDS with those to other
validated
self-efficacy
measures could
provide
valuable additional
information
regarding
how
self-efficacy
beliefs
might
be imbedded in SDS
Summary
scores. The Skills Confidence
Inventory (SCI;
Betz et
al., 1996)
is an excellent choice for this
purpose,
because of its identical RIASEC six-
factor
structure,
and because of the likelihood of continued research to
establish the instruments
validity. Investigation
with the SCI or a similar
measure of career
self-efficacy
could lead to an
improved understanding
of
the
relationship
between SDS
Summary
scores and
self-efficacy beliefs,
and an
improved understanding
of
self-efficacy
beliefs in
general.
Finally, selecting
a mature adult
sample
is
suggested
for future research
for two reasons:
first,
because the SCI has been
specifically developed
to be
used with such a
population,
and
second,
because
sampling
a more mature
population might
lead to more differentiated SDS
Summary scores,
and
stronger expressed relationships among
the variables.
References
Bandura,
A.
(1977). Self-efficacy:
Toward a
unifying theory
of behavioral
change. Psychology
Review, 84,
191-215.
Bandura,
A.
(1986). Social
foundations of thought
and action: A social
cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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., Harmon,
L.
W.,
&
Borgen,
F. H. (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.
Bordin,
E. S.
(1943).
A
theory
of interests as
dynamic phenomena.
Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 3,
49-66.
Hackett, G.,
&
Betz,
N. E.
(1981).
A
self-efficacy approach
to the career
development
of
women. Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior, 18,
326-339.
Holland,
J. L. (1985). The
Self-Directed
Search:
Professional
manual (1985 ed.). Odessa,
FL:
Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Holland,
J. L. (1987).
Manual
supplement for
the
Self-Directed
Search.
Odessa,
FL:
Psychological
Holland,
J. L. (1990).
The
Self-Directed
Search.
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
Holland,
J.
L.,
and Gottfredson,
G. D.
(1990).
An annotated
bibliography for
Hollands
theory
of
vocational
personalities
and work environments.
Unpublished manuscript.
159
Lenox,
R.
A.,
&
Subich,
L. M. (1994). The
relationship
between
self-efficacy
beliefs and
inventoried vocational interests. The 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, 45,
79-122.
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.
Matsui, T.,
&
Tsukamoto,
S. I. (1991). Relation between career
self-efficacy
measures
based on
occupational
titles and Holland codes and model environments: A
methodological
contribution. Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior, 38,
78-91.
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.
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.
Staats,
A. W. (1981).
Paradigmatic behaviorism,
unified
theory,
unified
theory
construction
methods,
and the
zeitgeist
of
separatism.
American
Psychologist, 36,
239-256.
Super,
D. E. (1972). Vocational
development theory: Persons, positions, processes.
In J. M.
Whiteley
& A. Resnikoff
(Eds.), Perspectives
on vocational
development (pp.
13-33).
Washington,
DC: American Personnel and Guidance Association.
U.S.
Department
of Labor (1981). Selected characteristics
of occupations defined
in the
dictionary of occupational
titles.
Washington,
DC: U.S. Government
Printing
Office.
U.S.
Department
of Labor (1991). Dictionary of occupational
titles
(5th ed.). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government
Printing
Office.
Zilber,
S. (1988). The
effects of sex,
task
performance,
and attributional
styles
on task and career
self-efficacy expectations. Unpublished
masters
thesis,
Ohio State
University,
Columbus.

The Self-Directed Search and Career Self-Efficacy PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Self-Directed Search and Career Self-Efficacy PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

http://jca.sagepub.

Вам также может понравиться