Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
326 A
SSESSMENT AND
O
CCUPATIONAL
I
NFORMATION
WIL provides a useful equivalent to the information provided in the WIP. The
primary disadvantage of other values measures is their limited ability to link re-
sults directly to occupations in the world of work. The results obtained with
other measures may offer some opportunity to discuss career-related issues on a
more general level. Therefore, as a values clarification exercise, life value mea-
sures may have some utility when working with clients who are in the early
stages of career planning. The O*NET-based measures can also be used for gen-
eral explorations and values clarification, but retain the advantage of having di-
rect linkages to occupational information. Such an advantage should not be
overlooked because, irrespective of a client’s current state of career development,
information linking values to other sources of occupational information will un-
doubtedly be useful at some point in the career counseling process.
REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175.
Allport, G. W. (1931). A study of values. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1931). A study of values. Cambridge, MA.: Houghton-
Mif
flin Co.
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. (1970). Study of values. (Rev. 3rd ed.). Chicago:
Riverside.
Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X., & Rounds, J. (2003). A circumplex framework for integrating per-
sonality, interests, and abilities. Poster presented at the annual convention of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of rela-
tions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220.
Boxx, W. R., Odem, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value congru-
ency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion. Public Personnel
Management, 20, 195–205.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work ad-
justment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 44, 32–54.
Brown, D. (1996). Brown’s value-based, holistic model of career and life-role choices and
satisfaction. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choices and development
(3rd ed., pp. 337–372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, D. (2002). The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice, satisfac-
tion, and success: A theoretical statement. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80,
48–56.
Brown, D., & Crace, R. K. (1996). Values in life role choices and outcomes: A conceptual
model. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 211–224.
Buehler, C. (1933). Der menschilch lebenslauf als psychologisches problem [The human life
course as a psychological subject]. Leipzig, Germany: Hirzel.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organiza-
tional psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-
chology (pp. 63–130). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M. D. Dunnette &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 833–871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Dawis, R. V. (2001). Toward a psychology of values. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 458–465.
Dawis, R. V., Dohm, T. E., Lofquist, L. H., Chartrand, J. M., & Due, A. M. (1987). Min-
nesota Occupational Classification System III: A psychological taxonomy of work.
c13.qxd 8/5/04 9:04 AM Page 326
Assessment of Needs and Values 327
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Vocational Psy-
chology Research.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press.
Eby, L. T., Johnson, C. D., & Russell, J. E. A. (1998). A psychometric review of career as-
sessment tools for use with diverse individuals. Journal of Career Assessment, 6,
269–310.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). New York: Wiley.
Elizur, D., & Sagie, A. (1999). Facets of personal values: A structural analysis of life and
work values. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 17, 503–514.
Ferreira-Marques, J., & Miranda, M. J. (1995). Developing the work importance study. In
D. E. Super & B. Sverko (Eds.), Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the
work importance study (pp. 62–74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Rounds, J. B. (1989). Vocational behavior, 1988: A critical analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 105–163.
Flores, L. Y., Spanierman, L. B., & Obasi, E. M. (2003). Ethical and professional issues in
career assessment with diverse racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Career Assessment,
11, 76–95.
Gay, E. G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1971). Manual for
the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation
(No. XXVIII).
Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. (1951). Occupational choice: An ap-
proach to a general theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Hesketh, B., & Gardner, D. (1993). Person-environment fit models: A reconceptualization
and empirical test. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 315–332.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultural consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and or-
ganizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 261–271.
Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kopelman, R. E., Rovenpor, J. L., & Guan, M. (2003). The study of values: Construction of
the fourth edition. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 203–220.
Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualiza-
tions, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–48.
Livingstone, L. P., Nelson, D. L., & Barr, S. H. (1997). Person-environment fit and creativ-
ity: An examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Man-
agement, 23, 119–146.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1978). Values as second-order needs in the theory of work
adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 12–19.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person environment correspondence coun-
seling. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Macnab, D., & Fitzsimmons, G. W. (1987). A multitrait-multimethod study of work-
re
lated needs, values and preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 1–15.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1959). New knowledge in human values. New York: Harper & Row.
c13.qxd 8/5/04 9:04 AM Page 327
328 A
SSESSMENT AND
O
CCUPATIONAL
I
NFORMATION
McCloy, R., Campbell, J., Oswald, F. L., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (1999). Linking client assess-
ment profiles to O*NET occupational profiles. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET
Development.
McCloy, R., Waugh, G., Medsker, G., Wall, J., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (1999a). Determining
the occupational reinforcer patterns for O*NET occupational units (Vols. I & II). Raleigh,
NC: National Center for O*NET Development.
McCloy, R., Waugh, G., Medsker, G., Wall, J., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (1999b). Development
of the Computerized Work Importance Profiler. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET
Development.
McCloy, R., Waugh, G., Medsker, G., Wall, J., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (1999c). Development
of the Paper-and-Pencil Work Importance Locator. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET
Development.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, con-
troversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.
Meyer, J. P., Irving, P. G., & Allen, N. J. (1998). Examination of the combined effects of
work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment. Journal of
Or
ganizational Behavior, 19, 29–52.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nevill, D. D., & Calvert, P. D. (1996). Career assessment and the salience inventory. Jour-
nal of Career Assessment, 4, 399–412.
Nevill, D. D., & Kruse, S. J. (1996). Career assessment and the values scale. Journal of
Ca
reer Assessment, 4, 383–397.
Nevill, D. D., & Super, D. E. (1986a). The Salience Inventory: Theory, application, and research.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nevill, D. D., & Super, D. E. (1986b). The Value Scale: Theory, application, and research. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nord, W. R., Brief, A. P., Atieh, J. M., & Doherty, E. M. (1990). Studying meaning of work:
The case of work values. In A. P. Brief & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Meanings of occupational
work (pp. 21–64). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational cul-
ture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 487–516.
Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Can we really have it all? The attainment of
work and family values. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 29–33.
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A.
(1999). An occupational information system for the twenty-first century: The development of
the O*NET. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual
differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45, 351–361.
Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical findings and theoretical per-
spective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 1–21.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 4, 255–277.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Ronen, S. (1994). An underlying structure of motivational need taxonomies: A cross-
cul
tural confirmation. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 241–270). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and
the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 49–71.
Rounds, J. B. (1990). The comparative and combined utility of work-value and interest
data in career counseling with adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 32–45.
Rounds, J. B., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1987). Measurement of person-environment
fit and prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31, 297–318.
Rounds, J. B., Henly, G. A., Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & Weiss, D. J. (1981). Manual for
the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire: A measure of needs and values. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
c13.qxd 8/5/04 9:04 AM Page 328
Assessment of Needs and Values 329
Rounds, J. B., & Tracey, T. J. (1990). From trait-and-factor to person-environment fit coun-
seling: Theory and process. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling
(pp. 1–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schaffer, R. H. (1953). Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction at work. Psychological
Monographs, 67(Whole No. 364).
Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review,
50, 141–152.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical ad-
vances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimen-
tal social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated
value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Val ue s: The Ontario
symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 97–118). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psycho-
me
tric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of indi-
vidual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
50, 269–281.
Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men: The psychology and ethics of personality (Paul J. W. Pigors,
Trans.). Halle, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Stewart, E. S., Greenstein, S. M., Holt, N. C., Henly, G. A., Engdahl, B. E., Dawis, R. V.,
et al. (1986). Occupational reinforcer patterns. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, De-
partment of Psychology, Vocational Psychology Research.
Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meanings of basic values for
women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 16–28.
Super, D. E. (1962). The structure of work values in relation to status, achievement, inter-
est, and adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 227–239.
Super, D. E. (1970). Work Values Inventory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 16, 282–298.
Super, D. E. (1983). Assessment in career guidance: Toward truly developmental counsel-
ing. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 555–562.
Super, D. E. (1995). Values: Their nature, assessment, and practical use. In D. E. Super &
B. Sverko (Eds.), Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the work importance
study (pp. 54–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Super, D. E., & Sverko, B. (Eds.). (1995). Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of
the work importance study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sverko, B. (1995). The structure and hierarchy of values viewed cross-nationally. In D. E.
Super & B. Sverko (Eds.), Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the work
importance study (pp. 225–240). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taris, R., & Feij, J. A. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship between
sup
plies-values fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50,
52–80.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2000a). Work importance locator: User’s guide. Washington, DC:
Employment and Training Administration.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2000b). Work importance profiler: User’s guide. Washington, DC:
Employment and Training Administration.
c13.qxd 8/5/04 9:04 AM Page 329
330
CHAPTER 14
Ability Assessment in
Career Counseling
Nancy E. Ryan Krane and William C. Tirre
O
NE OF THE
best things a career counselor can do is help clients identify cur-
rent and potential skill strengths and career options that capitalize on
them. This chapter focuses on the use of ability assessment in career coun-
seling by:
•Defining the construct of abilities and addressing the importance of abilities
to the processes of career choice and adjustment.
•Discussing issues of which a fully informed career practitioner should be
aware when assessing abilities.
•Describing various ability assessment strategies and tools.
The net result should be increased knowledge and understanding of appropriate
roles and uses of abilities in career work, as well as various approaches to ability
measurement.
We provide an overview of the use of both objectively measured abilities and
self-estimated abilities. Much has been made of the relative value of objectively
measured versus self-estimated abilities in career counseling (e.g., Betz, 1992;
Harrington & Schafer, 1996; Lowman & Williams, 1987; Prediger, 1999a, 1999b).
We highlight merits and limitations of each, as well as key measurement strate-
gies and tools in both of these areas, to furnish readers with information that may
prove helpful in future career work.
ABILITIES: DEFINITIONS
The term ability refers to the power to perform a specified act or task, either phys-
ical or mental (Snow, 1994). Such powers can be learned or innate, have some kind
The authors wish to thank Kevin A. Field and Peg E. Hendershot for their comments on an earlier
version of this chapter.
c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 330
Ability Assessment in Career Counseling 331
of neurological basis, and are fairly stable characteristics of the individual.
The
term aptitude, on the other hand, appears to hold at least two meanings in the
psychologi
cal literature. One general definition of aptitude refers to any attribute
or individual differences variable that might be used to predict how likely a person
is to succeed in certain environments, such as work environments (e.g., Lubinski &
Dawis, 1992; Snow, 1992). A second, more restrictive definition of aptitude is
closely aligned with the notion of cognitive ability: “Essentially, aptitude is poten-
tial ability or the capacity to learn...aptitude tests provide quantitative estimates
of a person’s potential for learning the knowledge and skills needed for school,
training, or career success” (Gregory, 1994, p. 110).
This latter conceptualization of aptitude may prompt the question: What is the
difference between aptitude and general intelligence (i.e., g or general cognitive
ability)? Aptitude differs from intelligence, with intelligence serving as the most
general of the abilities because it enters into performance of any task that has some
cognitive demand. Tasks and jobs vary in the degree to which they call on this gen-
eral ability, and information about an individual’s intelligence often provides one
useful indication of the approximate job level (in terms of training requirements
and job complexity) that might be a good fit for him or her. However, such infor-
mation alone is insufficient for career decisions because occupations within the
same job level often vary significantly in the specific aptitudes they emphasize.
Kline (2000) nicely illustrated this point, observing that high intelligence levels are
necessary to be both a good engineer and a good journalist; however, high spatial
ability is also required of the engineer and high verbal ability of the journalist.
Along these same lines, Dawis (1996a) stated that multiple-ability tests tend to be
especially useful in situations where tests of g are not—namely, when trying to dif-
ferentiate between occupations that reside within the same job level.
In this chapter, we focus on the first (predictive) definition of aptitude as well
as ability. Specifically, we focus on tests and other assessment tools (e.g., ability
self-estimates) that have the dual purposes of measuring a client’s current level of
performance on specific tasks (abilities) and predicting the types of occupations
and jobs in which he or she may succeed in the future (aptitudes).
A PPLICATIONS OF ABILITY ASSESSMENT
Ability tests can be routinely and effectively used in two very different applica-
tions. The first is in personnel selection and classification; the second is in career
assessment and counseling. Other applications, which often require more special-
ized tests, include educational screening, educational diagnosis, and neuropsy-
chological assessment.
Ability testing in personnel selection is useful in helping organizations identify
persons who are likely to succeed on the job. To use a Theory of Work Adjustment
(TWA; see Dawis, Chapter 1, this volume) term, the hiring company is concerned
with predicting the satisfactoriness (i.e., adequacy) of a candidate’s job performance.
In career counseling, on the other hand, ability assessments are used to help
individuals identify job possibilities in which success is increased rather than to
help organizations to identify potentially successful employees. This is done by
assessing abilities that can be immediately transferred into job-related skills and
by testing aptitudes to predict areas of potential that could be tapped in the future
to maximize occupational success.
c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 331
332 A
SSESSMENT AND
O
CCUPATIONAL
I
NFORMATION
Career counselors can familiarize themselves with the duties and abilities re-
quired of various occupations through counseling experience and through study
(e.g., Dawis, Dohm, Lofquist, Chartrand, & Due, 1987; Fleishman & Reilly, 1992;
Gore & Hitch, Chapter 16, this volume; Gottfredson, 1986; Lowman, 1991). Further-
more,
several useful texts and resources address ability measurement and its ap-
plications (e.g., Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Fleishman & Reilly, 1992; Kline, 2000;
Lowman, 1991). By pairing knowledge of a client’s aptitudes with knowledge of
the basic abilities required of a wide variety of occupations, the career counselor is
in a good position to propose career options that capitalize on the client’s current
and potential strengths and that, thus, may be worthy of exploration. For instance,
if a client’s aptitude profile reveals strengths in spatial (i.e., 3-D visualization),
mechanical, and numerical abilities, fields such as engineering or architecture
may merit exploration. Or, if strengths are indicated in clerical (i.e., perceptual
speed and accuracy), numerical, memory, and finger-dexterity abilities, fields
such as laboratory science or pharmaceutical science/practice might be worth ex-
ploring. There is no guarantee of success in these fields, as success is dependent on
many factors, including effort, motivation, training, and the availability of sup-
port. However, matching persons’ aptitudes with the ability requirements of jobs
does increase the likelihood of future job success, sufficient for aptitude assess-
ment to be considered a critical aspect of career counseling (see Achter & Lubinski,
Chapter 25, this volume; Barrett & Depinet, 1991; Dawis, Chapter 1, this
volume;
Dawis, 1996b; Prediger, 1989; Russell, Chapter 9, this volume; Spokane & Cruza-
Guet, Chapter 2, this volume).
In using ability assessments in career counseling, clients should not, however,
be told or led to believe that there is a precise probability of succeeding in a given
job or set of jobs. Rather, the message should be that the pattern of results sug-
gests specific work tasks and activities that will currently (ability interpretation)
or will likely (aptitude interpretation) come quickly and easily to them, as well as
specific work tasks and activities that may not come as easily and, as such, might
require more effort, motivation, compensation strategies, or support if they are
important to a desired work position. It is legitimate, though, for career coun-
selors to explain to clients that exploring and eventually choosing positions that
require current or potential strengths are likely to increase chances of satisfactori-
ness and job success. Ability assessments will need to be complemented by assess-
ment of other variables (such as work needs, values, interests, and personality) to
help direct the client to career possibilities that may additionally yield satisfaction
as well as success.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF ABILITY
ASSESSMENT IN CAREER COUNSELING
Ability assessment is a time-honored tool in career counseling, and it includes
both objective ability assessment as well as ability self-estimation. We turn now
to a brief historical overview of each.
O
BJECTIVE
A
SSESSMENT
A milestone in the history of objective ability assessment occurred at the outset
of World War I, when a team of leading psychologists in the intelligence testing
c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 332
Ability Assessment in Career Counseling 333
movement (e.g., Bingham, Goddard, Terman, and Whipple) turned their atten-
tion toward the practical problem of recruit selection and classification for the
United States military. Chaired by Robert Yerkes, the Committee on the Psycho-
logical Examination of Recruits developed the Army Alpha and Beta tests, group-
administered intelligence tests that were used to select and classify nearly two
million soldiers. The success of this program intensified research on specific voca-
tional aptitudes, which had already been studied by Münsterberg (1913) and
Hollingworth (1915) and even earlier by the United States Civil Service Commis-
sion. For further historical information, see DuBois (1970).
During this early period, Link (1919) produced aptitude tests for various occupa-
tions, including munitions shell inspectors, assemblers, clerks, stenographers, typ-
ists, and production machine operators. Additionally, Thurstone (1919a) produced
and validated a rhythm test for the selection of telegraphers and a multipart test as-
sessing various aspects of office/clerical jobs (Thurstone, 1919b). Moreover, tests of
spatial abilities were developed during the same period, after items requiring spa-
tial ability had served first as nonverbal performance measures of intelligence. For
example, Binet and Simon (1916/1980) used a paper-cutting task in one of many
tests that they developed to assess intellectual functioning in children. Various
other abilities or aptitudes were investigated around this time, including musical
aptitude (e.g., C. E. Seashore, 1919), psychomotor/perceptual-motor aptitude (e.g.,
Fleishman, 1954; R. H. Seashore, 1930), and artistic aptitude (e.g., Meier, 1939). An
exhaustive discussion of abilities investigated is available in Carroll (1993).
With the burgeoning number of abilities being investigated by applied psycholo-
gists interested in predicting success in school and in various occupations, there
became a need for a theoretical and taxonomic categorization of the ability domain.
American and British psychologists vied for the lead in this endeavor, representing
opposing frameworks; namely, the multiple abilities perspective, championed by
Kelley (1928) and Thurstone (1938), and the London school, led by Spearman (1904,
1927), which emphasized g above all other abilities.
In contrast to London scholars, North American psychologists found evidence
for multiple abilities. Truman Kelley (1928), for example, used an early form of
factor analysis to identify several aptitudes, including verbal, numerical, spatial,
and memory. Furthermore, Thurstone (1938) proposed seven primary mental abili-
ties (PMAs), each uncorrelated with all others (his sample primarily consisted of
University of Chicago undergraduates, which we today would recognize as re-
stricted in range on general ability). The PMAs included inductive reasoning,
spatial ability, numerical ability, verbal ability, memory, word fluency, and per-
ceptual speed.
According to Dawis (1996a), the groundwork for multiple-ability test batteries
and their use in career guidance is thought to have been laid by a classic study of
mechanical ability (i.e., Paterson, Elliott, Anderson, Toops, & Heidbreder, 1930)
that provided early empirical support for the notion of multiple abilities by estab-
lishing that other abilities besides g (i.e., mechanical abilities) can serve to explain
significant variance in job performance and occupational aptitude.
A
BILITY
S
ELF
-E
STIMATION
The literature surrounding ability self-estimation is fairly recent in comparison
to the literature on objective ability measurement. While ability self-ratings had
c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 333
334 A
SSESSMENT AND
O
CCUPATIONAL
I
NFORMATION
been employed in career practice and research for some time, it was Mabe and
West’s (1982) meta-analysis of the validity of ability self-evaluations that seemed
to call particular attention to this approach. Specifically, these authors compared
ability self-evaluations with objective ability measures and found that for a num-
ber of reasons (e.g., person variables, measurement conditions) ability self-
evaluations do not tend to correlate strongly with objective ability scores. Since
the time of that study, some have championed the use of self-estimated abilities in
career counseling (e.g., Harrington & Schafer, 1996; Prediger, 1999a, 1999b), and
many such instruments have been developed or refined (two of which are dis-
cussed more fully in a later section of this chapter).
Prediger (1999b) discussed the notion of “informed self-estimates” of ability,
which draw on first-hand experience (including past ability test results if avail-
able) as well as vicarious experience. Given the roots that ability self-estimation
shares with two of four of Bandura’s (1977, 1986) sources of efficacy information
(i.e., past performance and vicarious learning/modeling; see Lent, Chapter 5, this
volume) and the conceptual overlap between ability self-estimates and self-
efficacy perceptions, you might naturally question the distinction between these
two constructs. One important difference between the two is that the approach
often taken with ability self-estimation is to have individuals rate themselves as
compared to others rather than rate their perceived competence in an absolute
sense, as is typically done with self-efficacy measures (Tracey & Hopkins, 2001).
Additionally, self-efficacy belief measures tend to inquire about future perfor-
mance capabilities, whereas ability self-estimates generally ask people to make
contemporaneous judgments (see Brown, Lent, & Gore, 2000). Brown et al. (2000)
investigated the empirical distinction between these two constructs and found
that while occupational self-efficacy beliefs and self-estimated abilities do indeed
overlap, they are empirically distinguishable from one another.
DIMENSIONALITY OF WORK-RELEVANT ABILITIES
Highly influential contributions to our understanding of the content and organiza-
tion of cognitive abilities have been made in recent decades. For instance, the
structure of intellect model (e.g., Guilford, 1956, 1967; Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971)
provided a theoretical framework of the abilities literature that was exceptionally
descriptive in nature. In this model, Guilford proposed 120 distinct cognitive abili-
ties and organized them in a three-dimensional cube according to the type of con-
tent (figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral), the type of operation performed
(cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, and evaluation),
and the resulting product (unit, class, relation, system, transformation, and impli-
cation) involved in the deployment of each ability.
Another example is Carroll’s (1993) empirical efforts, which resulted in what is
considered by many to be the most comprehensive factor-analytic investigation of
abilities ever performed. Moreover, this model nicely illustrates the nature of mod-
ern hierarchical ability models (Murphy, 1996). Carroll reanalyzed as much of the
existing factor-analytic research as he could (467 datasets), collecting studies span-
ning several decades. His efforts resulted in a three-level, hierarchical structure of
cognitive abilities that ranges from a lowest level of very specific abilities to a high-
est level of g or general ability (see Figure 14.1). Specifically, the lowest level of
Car
roll’s hierarchy is entitled Stratum I, which represents 68 very specific abilities
c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 334
Ability Assessment in Career Counseling 335
such as reading speed and simple reaction time. The next highest and more general
level is Stratum II, composed of eight broad ability factors: Fluid Intelligence, Crys-
tallized Intelligence, General Memory and Learning, Broad Visual Perception,
Broad Auditory Perception, Broad Retrieval Ability, Broad Cognitive Speediness,
and Processing Speed. Finally, the highest and most general level is Stratum III,
represented by g (i.e., General Intelligence or general cognitive ability).
Inspection of the second level (stratum) in this model suggests that Thurstone’s
PMAs were not far from the truth, at least as best could be discerned in 1993. In-
duction falls under fluid intelligence, verbal comprehension falls under crystal-
lized intelligence, memory falls under general memory and learning, spatial
ability falls under broad visual perception, word fluency falls under broad retrieval
ability, and perceptual speed falls under broad visual perception and broad cogni-
tive speediness. Numerical facility also falls under broad cognitive speediness, but
the tests indicating this factor involve simple numerical operations. Thurstone
(1938; Thurstone & Thurstone, 1941) had in mind a level factor indicating power
rather than speed of processing.
Taken together, the abilities that have been reliably identified across studies
and that tend to appear on most multiaptitude test batteries today are generally
reflective of Thurstone’s PMAs: inductive reasoning, spatial ability, numerical
ability, verbal ability, memory, word fluency, and perceptual speed. Furthermore,
objective and self-estimated ability measures often measure psychomotor ability,
which is important to many occupations that involve working with things and ob-
jects (e.g., building, repairing, assembling, organizing, writing). Some multiapti-
tude test batteries measure technical knowledge areas (e.g., auto and shop
information)
in addition to the PMAs, and self-estimated ability instruments
Figure 14.1 Carroll’s (1993) Structure of Cognitive Abilities: Strata 2 and 3. [From Human
Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies, by J. B. Carroll, 1993, New York:
Cambridge University Press. Copyright 1993 by Cambridge University Press. Adapted with the
permission of Cambridge University Press.]
Stratum II
Stratum III
General
cognitive
ability ( g)
Fluid
Intelligence
Crystallized
Intelligence
General
Memory and
Learning
Broad Visual
Perception
Broad
Auditory
Perception
Broad
Retrieval
Ability
Broad
Cognitive
Speediness
Processing
Speed
68 narrow Stratum I abilities identified by Carroll (1993) through reanalysis of 467 data sets
c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 335