Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

226 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

into sections that address the major concepts in career development theories and

practice. Due to space limitations, it is impossible for us to fully cover all of the re-

search in this area; thus, we focus primarily on major studies and trends in the lit-

erature over the past 10 years.

CONTEXTUAL ISSUES

Before we begin summarizing and reviewing the important career development

literature, it is essential to examine the contextual conditions that influence the

lives of people of color in the United States. Basic information about the racial-

ethnic composition of the population, within-group differences, historical op-

pression, and employment and educational disparities is essential to our

understanding of counseling and career development for people of color. Specifi-

cally, we highlight the rapidly changing racial-ethnic demographics in the United

States over the past several decades and address differences both between and

within racial-ethnic groups. We also discuss the history of oppression toward

people of color in the United States and how oppression relates to an ongoing

cycle of educational, occupational, and income disparities.

OPULATION

IVERSITY

People of color represent more than 31% of the population in the United States (ap-

proximately 90 million people) and include individuals of Hispanic/Latino (12.5%),

African American (12.3%), Asian American (3.6%), American Indian/Alaskan Na-

tive (0.9%), and multiracial (2.4%) backgrounds (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). This

constitutes a substantial shift in a relatively short time period, given that non-

His

panic Whites constituted more than 75% of the population just 10 years earlier

(U.S. Census Bureau, 1990) and approximately 86% in 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau,

2000b). In the Pacific (Washington, California, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii) and

West South Central (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas) regions of the

country, Whites hold only narrow margins of majority over people of color (53% and

58%, respectively), are on the verge of being outnumbered in Texas (52%), and are

already numerical minorities in Hawaii, New Mexico, and California (23%, 45%,

and 47%, respectively) as well as in many major metropolitan cities (e.g., Boston,

Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, New York,

Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis, Washington, DC).

The Census Bureau has projected that people of color will be a numerical majority

in the United States as a whole some time after 2050.

ITHIN

-G

ROUP

IFFERENCES

Important within-group differences must be considered to fully understand and

respond to racial-ethnic diversity in career development and counseling prac-

tice. Assumptions about cultural uniformity can be particularly problematic

when trying to understand the career development of people of color because

overemphasis on between-group differences can result in the perpetuation of

stereotypes and oversight about the tremendous complexity contained within

diverse human systems. Each of the major racial-ethnic groups in the United

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 226

Career Development in Context: Research with People of Color 227

States consists of virtually dozens of discrete subgroups with their own unique

sets of characteristics. Furthermore, there are substantial differences among indi-

viduals belonging to a particular racial-ethnic group on the basis of generational

status, acculturation, racial-cultural identity development, U.S. immigration pat-

terns, and socioeconomic status (SES), among other variables.

For example, Leung (1995) noted that the majority of research studies on the

career development of people of color have failed to control for differences in

SES. In fact, many studies fail to measure and report the SES of their partici-

pants or fail to consider generalizability limitations when samples are selected

from (1) more highly educated and affluent college students or (2) members of

impoverished communities of very low SES. In addition, many studies on career

issues with people of color have used between-group methods and have tended

to overemphasize comparisons between Whites and one or more racial-ethnic

minority groups, often confounding SES with these between-groups compar-

isons. Other studies have been criticized in the multicultural literature for

using Whites as the expressed or implied normative group to which people of

color are compared psychologically. It is critical to recognize important within-

group variations, as well as the problems of using Whites as a normative com-

parison group.

ISTORY OF

PPRESSION

Actual or perceived discrimination has been hypothesized to discourage people of

color from pursuing some occupations and may lead to the development of poor or

inaccurate vocational self-concepts (Leung, 1995). People of color have a 500-year

history of oppression in North America, which includes genocide, displacement,

slavery, rape, annexation, repatriation, internment, imprisonment, forced religious

conversion, educational inequity, employment discrimination, economic exploita-

tion, political disenfranchisement, police abuse, judicial injustice, cultural ethno-

centrism, linguistic intolerance, historical invisibility, intellectual disregard, social

marginalization, psychological pathologization, and identity misappropriation

(Cushman, 1995; Pinderhughes, 1989; Three Rivers, 1991; W. J. Wilson, 1996; Zinn,

1980). (Readers should become familiar with the preceding forms of oppression; see

the cited references for more information.) Efforts to alter the course of historical

oppression in the United States have been ongoing since before the Civil War but

have only relatively recently gained substantial momentum during the Civil Rights

era of the 1960s (Zinn, 1980). Unfortunately, the structural and functional conse-

quences resulting from centuries of racism and discrimination cannot be undone

rapidly or easily. As such, historical oppression continues to play a critical role de-

spite more than 40 years of civil rights legislation intended to protect people of

color from educational and employment discrimination.

Hotchkiss and Borow (1990) identified economic and sociological processes op-

erating at institutional and societal levels that impede access to the larger oppor-

tunity structure for people of color. They identified two complementary segments

of the economy, the core and the periphery, which produce a dual economic struc-

ture that limits access to key high-salary and prestigious positions. Individuals

who do not match a restricted range of characteristics (e.g., educational back-

ground, values, beliefs, gender, and race/ethnicity) encounter barriers to the most

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 227

228 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

desirable opportunities in the labor market. As a result, women and people of

color have historically been excluded from core sector jobs in the labor market

that provide high wages and prestige. For example, Bertrand and Mullainathan

(2003) conducted a particularly well-designed study of potential labor market

discrimination. They sent fictitious resumes in response to help-wanted ads in

Chicago and Boston newspapers and manipulated perceived race by randomly

assigning to the resumes either a very African American-sounding name (e.g.,

Tamika, Lakisha, Jamal, Tyrone) or a very White-sounding name (e.g., Geoffrey,

Todd, Meredith, Carrie). Resumes with White names required about 10 submis-

sions to get one callback, whereas resumes with African American names

needed about 15 submissions to get one callback, a 30% advantage for people

with White-sounding names. Moreover, when the researchers increased the

quality of the resumes, it elicited a corresponding 30% increase in callbacks for

White names, but it produced a far smaller increase in callbacks for African

American-sounding names. The amount of discrimination was uniform across

occupations and industries.

F. D. Wilson, Tienda, and Wu (1995) investigated factors that influence the dif-

ferences in unemployment between African American and White workers. They

found that higher levels of African American unemployment were associated

with job discrimination, residential segregation, and employment in occupa-

tions with high turnover rates. In addition, Wilson et al. noted that the widest

racial difference in unemployment occurred between college-educated African

American and White men, thus pointing to the barriers still faced by African

Americans despite advancements in education (“education” is often cited as the

cause and solution to economic and employment inequities). In another study,

Ibarra (1995) examined the informal networks of midlevel managers, especially

those with high potential for advancement. She found that high-potential man-

agers of color established both same-race and cross-race informal networks and

tended to have more cross-race contacts than White managers. However, man-

agers of color had little contact with individuals in higher status positions and

had little overlap between their social and instrumental networks when com-

pared to White midlevel managers. These findings illustrate the otherwise invis-

ible systemic influences described earlier by Hotchkiss and Borow (1990) that

discriminate between Whites and people of color in providing access to the op-

portunity structure.

DUCATIONAL

, E

MPLOYMENT

AND

NCOME

ISPARITIES

High school completion rates in the United States (among individuals 25 years

and older) have been steadily increasing for all racial-ethnic groups over the past

60 years (U.S. Census, 2003b). In 1940, the high school completion rate for

African Americans was less than one-third the rate for Whites—only 7.7% com-

pared to 26.1% for Whites (figures were not kept for Hispanics until 1974, and

figures for Asian Americans were reported only for the most recent census). By

the time the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, the high school graduation rate

for African Americans had increased to 25.7%, compared to 50.3% for Whites,

narrowing the gap to just over one-half. Census figures for 1974 indicated a

36.5% graduation rate for Hispanics compared to 40.8% for African Americans

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 228

Career Development in Context: Research with People of Color 229

and 63.3% for Whites; African Americans had closed the gap to nearly two-

thirds of the percentage of Whites in only 10 years. The most recent figures indi-

cate that Hispanics continue to lag behind both African Americans and Whites,

graduating at less than two-thirds of the rate for Whites, while African Ameri-

cans’ graduation rates are approximately 90% of the rate for Whites (57.0%,

79.2%, and 88.7%, respectively). The high school graduation rate for Asian Amer-

icans was 86% in 2000.

College graduation comparisons across racial-ethnic groups yield patterns sim-

ilar to high school completion rates. Specifically, among individuals 25 years and

older, African Americans graduated at a rate of slightly more than one-quarter the

rate for Whites in 1940 (1.3% and 4.9%, respectively)—a rate that rose to about 40%

of that of Whites by 1964 (3.9% and 9.6%, respectively). Hispanics and African

Americans graduated from college at the same rate in 1974 (5.5%), which re-

mained at about 40% of the rate for Whites (14.0%). Although the latest census fig-

ures indicate that African Americans have narrowed the college graduation gap to

nearly 60% of the rate for Whites (17.2% and 29.4%, respectively), Hispanics con-

tinue to lag behind at 11.1%, less than 40% of the rate for Whites. Asian Americans

have the highest level of college graduation rates across all groups with 44% hav-

ing a college degree or more education in 2000. These educational disparities are

particularly important when considered along with research on occupational and

economic attainment.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003), the most frequently held oc-

cupational category by Whites was “managerial and professional specialty” (32%

of Whites fall into this category compared to 23% of African Americans and 15% of

Hispanics). Hispanics and African Americans were overrepresented in “service oc-

cupations” (20% and 22%, respectively, compared to 12% of Whites) and “opera-

tors, fabricators and laborers” (21% and 18%, respectively, compared to 13% of

Whites). Hispanics made up only 6% of “self-employed” agricultural workers (e.g.,

farm owners) but more than 30% of agricultural “wage and salary” workers (a fig-

ure that does not reflect low-wage, undocumented Hispanic agricultural workers

who are essential to the competitiveness of U.S. agribusiness). Adults in profes-

sional occupations and those holding managerial positions were more likely to

have a bachelor’s degree (71% and 48%, respectively) than workers in craft, service,

farm, and production occupations (8%).

Disparities in employment opportunities and income are the logical result of

the continuing lack of educational parity for people of color. For example, full-

time workers who did not complete high school earned only $2,000 per month on

average in 1996, compared to approximately $7,000 per month on average for

workers with professional degrees. People with “some college” (e.g., on average

less than one year past high school) earned approximately $340 per month more

than high school graduates. Thus, even small amounts of post-secondary educa-

tion translate into higher earnings. In 2001, the mean income for African Ameri-

can families (across all income groups) was only 59.7% of the average income for

non-Hispanic White families; the corresponding figure for families of Hispanic

origin was 61.5% of the average income for White families (U.S. Census Bureau,

2003a). Although there is objective evidence of sustained progress, vast inequities

in education and employment remain readily apparent, and there are many con-

tributing factors to the achievement gap for people of color.

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 229

230 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

Swanson and Gore (2000) pointed out that strong relationships among socioeco-

nomic status, educational attainment, and occupational level have led to a “contin-

uous cycle of impoverished, poorly educated, and underemployed [people of

color]” (p. 249). For example, Whites are more likely than people of color to:

•Attend schools with smaller class sizes.

•Have access to computers in public schools and at home during schooling.

•Graduate from a four-year college or university.

• Earn higher incomes.

•Retain employment during a recession.

•Have health insurance and gain access to health care.

•Survive some life-threatening illnesses (e.g., cancer).

•Experience better housing conditions (e.g., less crowding, less crime, less

litter and deterioration, and fewer problems with public services).

•Spend a smaller proportion of income on housing.

•Have greater access to home mortgage loans and home ownership.

•Invest in the stock market and retirement accounts.

•Gain a substantial net worth (Neville, Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001).

Recognition of the recurrent nature of these types of advantages based on racial

group membership has produced efforts to engage in affirmative action as a

method of change.

Affirmative action policies were first initiated in the early 1960s to correct

many decades of racial discrimination in employment and education, with the

first use of the term attributed to President John F. Kennedy in an executive order

intended to reduce or eliminate racial discrimination in employment among gov-

ernment contractors. After only a decade of implementation of affirmative action

policies, the first two major cases against it were presented to the U.S. Supreme

Court (i.e., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 1974 and Regents of the University of California v.

Bakke, 1978), which were followed by a series of additional cases over the course of

20 years. The Bakke case against the University of California resulted in a split de-

cision that produced rulings both supporting and limiting affirmative action in

educational admissions. More recently, hearing two cases against the University

of Michigan simultaneously (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 and Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003),

the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another split decision. In the first decision, the

court upheld the policy of the University of Michigan Law School in giving con-

sideration to increasing diversity within the law school and among those in the

legal professions by using race as one factor in determining admissions. In the

second decision, the court ruled that the University of Michigan admissions pol-

icy that awarded points to people of color on the basis of race/ethnicity (along

with points awarded for things such as children of alumni, athletes, and men en-

rolling in nursing programs) was unconstitutional. In writing the majority opin-

ion for Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the Constitution:

does not prohibit the ...narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to

further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a

diverse student body....In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the

eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to

talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 230

Career Development in Context: Research with People of Color 231

Although the University of Michigan cases were the most important rulings on

affirmative action by the U.S. Supreme Court in a generation, there will likely be

future cases that continue to test the limits of policies designed to correct long-

standing inequities in education and employment for people of color.

UMMARY

Contextual issues that influence the career development of people of color in the

United States are complex and wide ranging. Many career development theories

and counseling approaches that focus predominantly or exclusively on personal

agency or individual variables as the central determinants of occupational out-

comes have been criticized for their lack of attention to the major sociocontextual

factors that limit opportunities for people of color. We have attempted to illustrate

how historical inequalities are perpetuated via social, political, and economic

forces beyond the control of people of color. With these contextual issues in mind,

we now turn to the research literature in multicultural vocational psychology.

MULTICULTURAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT

THEORY AND RESEARCH

Relative to the origins of vocational psychology in the early 1900s, multicultural

career development is a rather recent area of inquiry. Much of this has been the re-

sult of the increasing diversity in society and institutional settings such as the

workplace, schools, and colleges or universities. In addition, the number of profes-

sionals with expressed interest in multicultural issues has increased, and these

professionals are among those who have contributed to the developing knowledge

base on the career development of people of color.

Notable contributions in the career development of culturally diverse groups

have been plentiful in the past two decades. Professional organizations in which ca-

reer counselors are members (e.g., American Psychological Association [APA],

American Counseling Association, National Career Development Association)

have recognized the ethical and professional responsibility of their members to

demonstrate cross-cultural counseling skills when working with members of cul-

turally diverse groups. In addition, a growing number of studies are addressing

the career development of people of color. Although this area of inquiry continues

to be relatively small in comparison to the vast domain of career development re-

search conducted each year, reviews have indicated there has been a steady growth

in this literature over the past several years (Byars & McCubbin, 2001; Leung,

1995). Special sections within scholarly journals or entire journal issues (e.g., Jour-

nal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 44, 1997; Career Development Quarterly, vol. 39, 1991,

and vol. 42, 1993) and textbooks such as Career Counseling for African Americans

(Walsh, Bingham, Brown, & Ward, 2001) and Career Development and Vocational Be-

havior of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (Leong, 1995) have been devoted to career con-

cerns among diverse U.S. racial and ethnic groups. Career counseling practice

models have also been presented to help facilitate the career counseling process

with people of color (Bingham & Ward, 1994; Cheatham, 1990; Fouad & Bingham,

1995; Leong & Hartung, 1997). Clearly, multicultural vocational psychology is

building a strong theoretical and empirical foundation that has embraced multicul-

tural issues.

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 231

232 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

There has been substantial disagreement on the extent to which traditional ca-

reer development theories are valid with persons of color. Many years ago, War-

nath (1975) questioned the applicability of career theories to people of color

because of their failure to account for contextual and economic disparities that af-

fect the lives of people of color. More recently, Cook, Heppner, and O’Brien (2002)

suggested that traditional career counseling reflects male, western European ex-

periences and worldviews about:

1. The separateness of work and family roles.

2. Culturally prescribed values of individualism and autonomy.

3. The centrality of the work role over other life roles.

4. The progressive, linear, logical nature of the processes of career develop-

ment.

5. The openness of the opportunity structures in the labor force.

In fact, the very foundation of career development as it was established by Parsons

in 1909 and extended into mainstream career theories (e.g., Dawis & Lofquist, 1984;

Holland, 1959; Krumboltz, 1979; Super, 1953) has been challenged because of its

formulation by White scholars (e.g., Fouad & Bingham, 1995) and its basis on re-

search that has historically been limited to a privileged class of primarily college-

educated, White, male samples (e.g., D. Brown, 2000; Carter & Cook, 1992; Hackett

& Betz, 1981; Osipow & Littlejohn, 1995; Warnath, 1975).

Lent and Worthington (2000) summarized some of the key perspectives that

have been offered by various career scholars on the cultural sensitivity of tradi-

tional career theories:

•Factors such as racial discrimination, economic and labor forces, and differ-

ential opportunities are seen as limiting the applicability of career theories

to people of color.

•Generic assumptions that tend to ignore the sociopolitical realities experi-

enced by people of color have been the basis for traditional career theories.

•A comprehensive multicultural theory of career development is needed to

supplant traditional career theories.

•Factors such as social class, academic achievement, educational develop-

ment, and role salience rather than race or ethnicity determine the applica-

bility of career theories to people of color.

•The wholesale dismissal of career theories as irrelevant to people of color is

premature given the scarcity of quality research testing their applicability.

Although revisions of the major career development theories indicate that all of

the major schools of thought share a set of assumptions about how differing cul-

tural contexts differentially influence work-related variables (e.g., values, skills,

interests; Lent & Worthington, 2000), the need for general versus culture-specific

career theories continues to be an issue in search of resolution (Leong & Brown,

1995; Osipow & Littlejohn, 1995; Swanson & Gore, 2000).

The multicultural vocational research literature continues to be relatively sparse

(compared to other areas of research on career development), and it tends to lack a

programmatic quality that is necessary for conclusive judgments to be drawn from

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 232

Career Development in Context: Research with People of Color 233

the research. Multicultural career research tends to lack linear progression and co-

hesion and often proceeds in many directions simultaneously without a great deal

of organization. In addition, more research has been done with African Americans

than other people of color, although there have been recent advances in career re-

search with Hispanics/Latina/os and Asian Americans. There continues to be a

paucity of career research with American Indians, and there is little understanding

of the issues related to their career development (Juntunen et al., 2001). There also

continues to be an overreliance on the use of college student samples when investi-

gating career development issues for people of color. Although there are increasing

uses of high school and middle school student samples, the predominance of col-

lege student samples clouds the applicability of many findings to a broader range

of persons of color.

In the following sections, we address career assessment and career develop-

ment of people of color. We explore the published literature with respect to the

salient issues that need to be addressed in career counseling with people of color.

We begin with a discussion of the major issues in testing and assessment within

a career context, with particular attention to the concepts of test bias and fairness

and the research that addresses career testing applications with people of color.

AREER

SSESSMENT WITH

EOPLE OF

OLOR

According to many career theories, vocational assessment is viewed as a critical

component of the career counseling process (Fouad, 1993) and can be used for a

variety of purposes, such as clarifying occupational interests, identifying skills

and abilities, or examining values and beliefs. A number of scholars have identi-

fied critical psychometric issues in career assessment instruments with respect to

race and culture (Fouad, 1993; Gainor, 2001; Leong & Hartung, 1997; Leung, 1996;

Marsella & Leong, 1995), and others have proposed the interpretation of assess-

ments from a social constructionist perspective and the development of new ap-

proaches to assessment using alternative measurement theories (Blustein & Ellis,

2000; Subich, 1996).

Leung (1996) offered a thorough overview of the research related to career as-

sessment with people of color. He urged caution in the use of career assessment

with people of color because many career tests were developed from a European

American cultural perspective, and many career counselors are not adequately

trained to provide multiculturally competent counseling in order to accurately

interpret test results on the basis of the client’s cultural background. He stated,

“differences in scores between Whites and ethnic minorities could be due to bi-

ases in testing instruments, and could lead to inaccurate conclusions about the

test taker” (p. 477). However, it is impossible to know whether test bias is the

cause of group differences in average test scores without additional evaluation of

the validity of specific tests with specific groups. The existence of different

group means in various studies tells us little or nothing about the talents or char-

acteristics of individual test takers of any racial-ethnic category (Anastasi &

Urbina, 1997; Walsh & Betz, 2001).

Test bi as is a technical term that refers to deficiencies in a test or the manner in

which a test is used that results in different meanings for scores earned by members

of different identifiable subgroups (American Educational Research Associ

ation

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 233

234 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

[AERA], APA, & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999).

Test bias exists when test scores vary systematically in their accuracy according

to the type of person being tested—thus, a test is biased if it represents individ-

ual differences for some groups of people more accurately than it represents indi-

vidual differences for other groups (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Walsh and Betz

(2001) noted that cultural bias in tests could be manifested in three central ways:

1. Content bias (e.g., content more familiar to Whites than members of other

racial-ethnic groups).

2. Bias in internal structure (e.g., items on the test correlate with one another

differently when administered to one group versus when given to another

group).

3. Selection bias (e.g., when a test systematically varies in predictive validity

across groups).

There is general consensus that consideration of bias is critical to sound testing

practice and that fair treatment of all examinees requires consideration of not

only the test itself but also the contexts and purposes of testing and the manner

in which test scores are used (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999).

Fairness is a concept separate but related to bias in testing. It refers to the ab-

sence of bias and equitable treatment of all examinees in the testing process. Un-

fairness can have individual and collective consequences (AERA, APA, & NCME,

1999). Although it may appear simple and straightforward in the abstract, appli-

cation of the principle of fairness is much more difficult to accomplish in reality.

Psychological testing inherently involves the use of cultural symbols to define

and give meaning to the observations we make, such that ultimately the very ob-

jects and purposes of testing are culturally defined (Blustein & Ellis, 2000;

Marsella & Leong, 1995). Cultural perspective can have an enormous influence on

the ways in which the purposes, tasks, and outcomes of testing are given meaning

and understood. Anastasi and Urbina (1997) noted that the predictive character-

istics of test scores are less likely to vary among cultural groups when the test is

intrinsically relevant to criterion performance but that culture is still likely to af-

fect test behaviors and interpretations. Thus, the cultural backgrounds of test

takers are critical to consider in the selection, administration, and interpretation

of career tests (Leung, 1996):

A full consideration of fairness would explore the many functions of testing in rela-

tion to its many goals, including the broad goal of achieving equality of opportunity

in our society....It would consider the technical properties of tests, the ways test

results are reported, and the factors that are validly or erroneously thought to ac-

count for patterns of test performance for groups and individuals....Properly de-

signed and used, tests can and do further societal goals of fairness and equality of

opportunity . . . [T]he fairness of testing in any given context must be judged relative

to that of feasible test and nontest alternatives....A professional’s inferences and

reports from test findings may markedly impact the life of the person who is exam-

ined....Attention to interpersonal issues is always important, perhaps especially so

when examinees . . . differ from the examiner in ethnic, racial . . . or other character-

istics. (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999, pp. 73–74)

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 234

Career Development in Context: Research with People of Color 235

Only a limited number of studies have been conducted to address the cross-

cultural validity of vocational assessment, and most of the published studies

have addressed interest inventories (Leung, 1996). In his discussion of the cross-

cultural

application of career assessment instruments, Leung surveyed the re-

search literature for studies on the cultural validity of vocational assessment,

with particular attention to the Strong Interest Inventory (SII), the Self-Directed

Search (SDS), the Career Maturity Inventory (CMI), and My Vocational Situation

(MVS). He concluded that, although there is a body of research to support the

predictive and construct validity of the SII and some evidence for the validity of

the SDS, many other career assessment instruments (including the CMI and MVS)

have not been adequately researched with people of color. More recently, both the

SII and the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey have received research support for

their use with persons of color in a national sample of college-educated,

employed

adults (Lattimore & Borgen, 1999). However, Gainor (2001) continues to recom-

mend caution in using even accurately measured interests as the basis for career

decisions of people of color because she warns that it is impossible to divorce the

social and historical processes (e.g., educational inequities, discrimination, op-

pression) that affect people’s lives from the career interests they express. Thus,

consideration must be given to the social and historical reasons for the develop-

ment of occupational interests among people of color and the potential benefits of

considering occupations that may not fall within their expressed range of inter-

ests (Gainor, 2001).

Marsella and Leong (1995) also recommended that career assessment instru-

ments be subjected to research on the basis of linguistic, conceptual, scale, and

normative equivalencies, yet they acknowledged that test developers cannot be ex-

pected to establish these cross-cultural equivalencies for all of the possible cultural

groups with whom the instruments might be used. Given these circumstances, we

are left with the issue of what to do when cultural differences exist in career test-

ing situations. Table 10.1 provides a nonexhaustive list of strategies for effective

management of cultural differences in career assessment. Subich (1996) suggested

that traditional models and methods of career assessment require transformation

from an overreliance on objective measurement toward more empathic, collabora-

tive assessment strategies that lead to greater understanding of the individual

client. Hartung et al. (1998) provided a model to (1) consider cultural identity as a

central factor in career development and (2) identify culturally sensitive instru-

ments in the process of assessment and intervention. Blustein and Ellis (2000) have

argued that it is not sufficient to simply modify existing instruments to control cul-

tural influences but that test developers need to examine their inferences about

constructs of interest in a manner that is “intellectually compelling and affirming

of cultural differences” (p. 382).

A paradox is apparent in the development, use, and interpretation of career

assessment instruments with people of color—tests have the capacity to in-

crease equitable treatment and fairness, while they simultaneously contain in-

herent risks of misuse that might serve to perpetuate the status quo of inequity,

mistreatment, and discrimination in educational and occupational processes

and outcomes. In summary, although there have been many improvements in

the past two decades in the development and revision of career assessment in-

struments to address the needs of people of color, pernicious problems continue

c10.qxd 8/5/04 9:08 AM Page 235