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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

346 A

SSESSMENT AND

CCUPATIONAL

NFORMATION

Disadvantages Disadvantages of objective ability tests include the fact that they do

not assess the full range of work-relevant abilities that are relevant to performance

in a variety of work settings (Harrington & Schafer, 1996; Prediger, 1999a, 1999b).

There are many reasons that an occupationally relevant ability might not be in-

cluded in an objective ability test. The main reason might be that such a test sim-

ply does not exist. For example, no major test publisher offers an aptitude test for

air

craft piloting, though the capability exists (e.g., Tirre, 1997; Tirre & Raouf, 1998).

Other reasons might include the fact that the test would be too time-con

suming, re-

quire individual administration and considerable expertise for administration or

scoring, or it might be too narrow or specialized for broad application. It is not

clear, however, that self-estimated abilities would be a valid substitute.

Another disadvantage of objective ability testing is that it may sometimes be

perceived as threatening to clients. Although efforts can be made to reduce clients’

test anxiety, the specter of testing may be enough to keep some from seeking the

help they may need or would find useful.

Assessment Tools Several multiaptitude batteries, which vary considerably in

purpose, content, and quality, are available. We now turn to a discussion of five.

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB; U.S. Department

of Defense [DOD], 1995a) is distinguished by superior norms, a thorough inves-

tigation of test fairness, and unsurpassed criterion-related validity data. It is

best known for its use in military recruitment and use with students, and

ASVAB 18/19 (DOD, 1995b) is part of a comprehensive career exploration pro-

gram for high school sophomores, juniors, seniors, and postsecondary students

(see Kapes & Whitfield, 2001, for additional information). Separately timed sub-

tests of the ASVAB 18/19 include General Science, Arithmetic Reasoning, Word

Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Numerical Operations, Coding Speed,

Auto and Shop Information, Mathematical Knowledge, Mechanical Compre-

hension, and Electronics Information (Kapes & Whitfield, 2001). Factor analysis

of an earlier form of the ASVAB suggests that it measures general cognitive abil-

ity, a verbal-math ability, clerical speed, and technical knowledge (Ree & Car-

retta, 1994). The ASVAB is heavily g-saturated, which makes differential

prediction (which is the basis for occupational classification and recommenda-

tion) difficult. Roberts et al. (2000) suggest that the g in the ASVAB is actually

Gc (crystallized ability), reflecting acculturated learning. To be more useful as a

multiple abilities battery, these authors suggest additional tests for fluid ability

and learning and memory that could be incorporated into counseling with

the ASVAB.

The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Ability Profiler (U.S. Depart-

ment of Labor, 2003; see www.onetcenter.org) serves as the final component of

O*NET career exploration, counseling, and planning tools (see Gore & Hitch,

Chapter 16, this volume). The O*NET Ability Profiler is a latter-day version of the

General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB; U.S. Department of Labor, 1970). This in-

strument is administered to participants and includes both paper-pencil and op-

tional apparatus sections. The nine job-relevant abilities assessed by the Ability

Profiler are Verbal Ability, Arithmetic Reasoning, Computation, Spatial Ability,

Form Perception, Clerical Perception, Motor Coordination, Manual Dexterity, and

Finger Dexterity. On completion of the O*NET Ability Profiler, participants receive

a computer-generated score report that, when paired with O*NET data and related

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 346

Ability Assessment in Career Counseling 347

occupational information, allows individuals to compare their abilities to the abili-

ties required by different occupations.

Another venerable multiaptitude battery is the Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT,

5th ed.; Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 1990), designed for educational and voca-

tional guidance with individuals in middle school through adulthood. The DAT in-

cludes a Total Scholastic Aptitude test as well as eight subtests: Spelling, Language

Usage, Numerical Reasoning, Space Relations, Mechanical Reasoning, Abstract

Reasoning, Verbal Reasoning, and Perceptual Speed and Accuracy. Unlike the

ASVAB and GATB, for which occupational validity data are abundantly available,

evidence for the DAT’s validity is generally limited to (1) correlations with other

tests purporting to measure the same or similar constructs and (2) studies demon-

strating its utility as a predictor of academic achievement. The DAT is, however,

distinguished by superior norms, thorough attention to test fairness issues, and ex-

cellent reliability data.

The Career Ability Placement Survey (CAPS; Knapp, Knapp, & Knapp-Lee, 1992)

is primarily intended for the same market as the DAT. It includes eight subtests:

Mechanical Reasoning, Spatial Relations, Verbal Reasoning, Numerical Ability,

Language Usage, Word Knowledge, Perceptual Speed and Accuracy, and Manual

Speed and Dexterity. Confirmatory factor analysis of the CAPS based on 422 stu-

dents in the 10th grade indicates that four primary factors are measured: general

cognitive ability (word knowledge, verbal reasoning), verbal ability (language

usage), spatial (mechanical reasoning, spatial relations), and perceptual-motor

speed (clerical speed and accuracy, numerical ability, manual speed and dexterity;

Tirre, 2002). The CAPS is part of a system that also includes a vocational interest

survey (Career Occupational Preference System, COPS) and a work values survey

(Career Orientation Placement and Evaluation Survey, COPES).

The Ball Aptitude Battery (BAB; Ball Foundation, 1993, 2002) is another exam-

ple of a multiaptitude test battery designed for use with adolescent and adult

clients, and it stands out in terms of aptitude coverage and in quality of reports.

The BAB is used by private practitioners, high schools, and colleges, as well as

within the Ball Foundation’s own career consulting service called Career Vision.

The BAB can also be made available for research. The BAB can be traced back to

pioneering work by Johnson O’Connor (e.g., O’Connor, 1940, 1943, 1948), and it

exists in three formats (paper-pencil and apparatus combined [aka the Classic

BAB], a short-form paper-and-pencil [aka BAB, Form M], and a computerized ver-

sion [aka the BABc]). The subtests of the Classic BAB include Clerical, Inductive

Reasoning, Writing Speed, Paper Folding, Vocabulary, Idea Generation, Numeri-

cal Computation, Numerical Reasoning, Associative Memory, Auditory Memory

Span, Analytical Reasoning, Idea Fluency, Finger Dexterity (left and right hand),

Grip Strength (left and right hand), Shape Assembly, and Word Association. Valid-

y data for the BAB include correlations with similar subtests in different apti-

tude batteries and confirmatory factor analyses that include other batteries such

as the ASVAB and the GATB (Tirre & Field, 2002). An occupational supplement to

a technical manual (Ball Foundation, 1995) also lists criterion-related validity

data for more than a dozen occupations.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the BAB indicates that in addition to g, it mea-

sures verbal (vocabulary), reasoning (analytical reasoning), perceptual-motor

speed (writing speed, clerical speed), memory (auditory memory span), creativity/

broad retrieval (idea fluency), and numerical (numerical computation) abilities

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 347

348 A

SSESSMENT AND

CCUPATIONAL

NFORMATION

(Tirre & Field, 2002). This research also indicates that there are factors that are

unique to the Classic BAB (i.e., that are not measured by the GATB or ASVAB), in-

cluding Broad Retrieval Ability, Creativity, Memory, and Grip Strength (Tirre &

Field, 2002). The BAB Classic and Form M versions possess adequate reliability ev-

idence (both internal consistency and stability). Stability (test-retest) reliability

evidence has not yet been collected for the BABc, which is still under development.

Many multiple aptitude batteries are available to the career counselor. For de-

tailed test reviews and information, see Kapes and Whitfield (2001), Sweetland

and Keyser (1991), and the Mental Measurements Yearbook series.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ABILITY ASSESSMENT

Ability testing has become increasingly automated in the past decade with several

multiple abilities test batteries now available in computer-administered versions,

including the Ball Aptitude Battery (BAB), Multidimensional Aptitude Battery

(MAB; Jackson, 1998), CareerScope (Vocational Research Institute; www.VRI.org),

Bridges Career Aptitude Survey (CAS; www.bridges.com), Mindcue (www.intellicue

com), and Aviator (www.valparint.com). Computer-administered tests offer a va-

riety of advantages over traditional paper-and-pencil tests. On the practical side,

computer-administered tests are largely self-administering, reduce testing time

for many examinees, and free up counselor time. Tailored assessment is also eas-

ier to achieve because counselors can choose tests most appropriate for the client

from a menu of tests. The next step in this trend is Web-based testing, which

should make aptitude testing and objective self-knowledge available to millions of

otherwise unreached persons who need help in making career decisions.

The advantages promised by computer-administered testing extend beyond

convenience. The keywords are control and flexibility. The personal computer (PC)

allows precise control over the timing and events of test presentation and makes

measurement of solution time possible. Animation and simulation are also possi-

ble with PCs. Together, these features may enable us to measure aptitudes that

have never been testable with printed tests (see Kyllonen, 1993). And perhaps no

less important, these features make testing more interactive and game-like and,

therefore, more engaging experiences. Readers wishing to learn more about a

host of topics relating to computer-based career assessment may consult Samp-

son, Lumsden, and Carr (2001) and Oliver and Chartrand (2000).

Finally, the newly developed O*NET offers the promise of linking ability test re-

sults with a wide and representative range of occupational possibilities. The O*NET

(see Gore & Hitch, Chapter 16, this volume) provides a comprehensive system to de-

scribe occupations and organizes information about jobs in a way that links job task

characteristics with the abilities required for effective performance on the job (Pe-

terson et al., 2001). Furthermore, recent research based on the O*NET database has

sulted in an empirical method of generating occupational options that match

clients’ aptitudes. Specifically, Converse, Oswald, Gillespie, Field, and Bizot (2004)

developed profile-matching algorithms that match individuals’ BAB score profiles to

occupations’ predicted aptitude profiles on the O*NET. The matching process in-

volves comparison of the aptitude profile to O*NET occupational requirements. The

end result for practitioners and clients using the BAB is a report that provides a set of

empirically based occupational suggestions that can be supplemented and refined

on the basis of other nonaptitude career assessment information.

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 348

Ability Assessment in Career Counseling 349

SUMMARY

Rapid technological, economic, and labor market changes have resulted in an in-

creased responsibility on the part of workers to identify and construct their own

career paths through an often-confusing array of possibilities (Hesketh, 2000).

Knowledge of an individual’s own ability patterns, along with the ability require-

ments of a broad range of occupations, provides individuals with a vocabulary

with which to describe themselves and work environments that may offer a good

fit for them. Embedded within an overall framework of career exploration and

decision-making skills, this information can be employed by individuals not just

in the short-term, but throughout their working lives as well.

REFERENCES

American College Testing. (2001). Career Planning Survey technical manual. Iowa City, IA:

Aut hor.

American College Testing. (2001). Research support for discover assessment components. Iowa

City, IA: Author.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

tional Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: Author.

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Ball Foundation. (1993). Ball Aptitude Battery technical manual. Glen Ellyn, IL: Author.

Ball Foundation. (1995). Ball Aptitude Battery technical manual (Rev. ed.). Glen Ellyn, IL:

thor.

Ball Foundation. (2002). Ball Career System technical manual. Glen Ellyn, IL: Author.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycho-

logical Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barrett, G. V., & Depinet, R. L. (1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather

than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 46(10), 1012–1024.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1990). Differential Aptitude Tests (5th

ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Betsworth, D. G. (1999). Accuracy of self-estimated abilities and the relationship between

self-estimated abilities and realism for women. Journal of Career Assessment, 7(1), 35–43.

Betz, N. E. (1992). Career assessment: A review of critical issues. In S. D. Brown & R. W.

Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 453–484). New York: Wiley.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1980). The development of intelligence in children (E. S. Kite, Trans.).

Nashville, TN: Williams Printing. (Original work translated 1905, published 1916)

Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1996). A social cognitive framework for career choice coun-

seling. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 354–366.

Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2000). Self-rated abilities and self-efficacy be-

liefs: Are they empirically distinct? Journal of Career Assessment, 8(3), 223–235.

Brown, S. D., & Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old

assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W.

Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). New York: Wiley.

Campbell, V. L., & Raiff, G. W. (2001). Harrington-O’Shea Career Decision Making Sys-

tem, Revised (CDM) (Test Review). In J. T. Kapes & E. A. Whitfield (Eds.), A coun-

selor’s guide to career assessment instruments (4th ed., pp. 230–234). Columbus, OH:

National Career Development Association.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Converse, P. D., Oswald, F. L., Gillespie, M. A., Field, K. A., & Bizot, E. B. (2004).

Matching

individuals to occupations using abilities and the O*NET: Issues and an ap

plication

in career guidance. Personnel Psychology, 57, 451–487.

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 349

350 A

SSESSMENT AND

CCUPATIONAL

NFORMATION

Dawis, R. V. (1996a). Vocational psychology, vocational adjustment, and the workforce:

Some familiar and unanticipated consequences. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2),

229–248.

Dawis, R. V. (1996b). The theory of work adjustment and person-environment-correspondence

counseling. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development

(3rd ed., pp. 75–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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. Min-

neapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Vocational Psychology

Research.

Dawis, R. V., Goldman, S. H., & Sung, Y. H. (1992). Stability and change in abilities for a

sample of young adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 457–465.

Dixon, R. A., Kramer, D. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1985). Intelligence: A life-span developmental

perspective. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and

applications (pp. 301–350). New York: Wiley.

Dubois, P. H. (1970). A history of psychological testing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize

their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

Fleishman, E. A. (1954). Dimensional analysis of psychomotor abilities. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology, 48(6), 437–454.

Fleishman, E. A., & Reilly, M. E. (1992). Handbook of human abilities: Definitions, measure-

ments, and job task requirements. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Garfield, N. J., & Krieshok, T. S. (2001). Assessment and counseling competencies and re-

sponsibilities: A checklist for counselors. In J. T. Kapes & E. A. Whitfield (Eds.), A coun-

selor’s guide to career assessment instruments (4th ed., pp. 65–72). Columbus, OH: National

Career Development Association.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Occupational Aptitude Patterns Map: Development and impli-

cations for a theory of job aptitude requirements [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational

havior, 29, 254–291.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Jour-

nal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 115–135.

Gregory, R. J. (1994). Aptitude tests. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelli-

gence (Vol. 1, pp. 110–117). New York: Macmillan.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Handschin, B. (1996). The role of self-estimated and tested abilities in vocational choice in

adults at four time periods postcounseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-

sity of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Harrington, T. F., & O’Shea, A. J. (2000). Harrington-O’Shea Career Decision-Making System-

Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Harrington, T. F., & Schafer, W. D. (1996). A comparison of self-reported abilities and oc-

cupational ability patterns across occupations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counsel-

ing and Development, 28, 180–190.

Hesketh, B. (2000). Prevention and development in the workplace. In S. D. Brown & R. W.

Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 471–498). New York: Wiley.

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

environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Hollingworth, H. L. (1915). Specialized vocational tests and methods. School and Society,

1(26), 918–922.

Jackson, D. N. (1998). Multidimensional Aptitude Battery—II. Port Huron, MI: Sigma As-

sessment Systems.

Kapes, J. T., & Whitfield, E. A. (Eds.). (2001). A counselor’s guide to career assessment instru-

ments (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: National Career Development Association.

Kelley, T. L. (1928). Crossroads in the mind of man: A study of differentiable mental abilities.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 350

Ability Assessment in Career Counseling 351

Knapp, L., Knapp, R. R., & Knapp-Lee, L. (1992). Te chnical manual: CAPS (Career Ability

Placement Survey). San Diego, CA: Edits Publishers.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1990). Classic and current social comparison re-

search: Expanding the perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 195–208.

Kyllonen, P. C. (1993). Aptitude testing inspired by information processing: A test of the

four-sources model. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 375–405.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory

of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 45, 79–122.

Link, H. C. (1919). Employment psychology. New York: Macmillan.

Lowman, R. L. (1991). The clinical practice of career assessment: Interests, abilities, and person-

ality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lowman, R. L., & Williams, R. E. (1987). Validity of self-ratings of abilities and compe-

tencies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 1–13.

Lubinski, D., & Dawis, R. V. (1992). Aptitudes, skills, and proficiencies. In M. D. Dunnette

& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3,

pp.1–59). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mabe, P. A., III., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296.

Maurer, S. T. (1997). Work needs, work values, personality traits, and other factors related to the

accuracy of self-estimated abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Min-

nesota, Minneapolis.

Meier, N. C. (1939). Factors in artistic aptitude: Final summary of a ten-year study of a

special ability. Psychological Monographs, 51(5), 140–158.

Münsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much more

than g. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3–30).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., et al. (1996).

Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.

O’Connor, J. (1940). Unsolved business problems. Boston: Human Engineering Laboratory.

O’Connor, J. (1943). Structural visualization. Boston: Human Engineering Laboratory.

O’Connor, J. (1948). The unique individual. Boston: Human Engineering Laboratory.

Oliver, L. W., & Chartrand, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Career assessment and the Internet [Spe-

cial issue]. Journal of Career Assessment, 8(1).

Paterson, D. G., Elliott, R. M., Anderson, L. D., Toops, H. A., & Heidbreder, E. (1930).

Minnesota mechanical ability tests. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., Fleishman, E. A., Levin,

K. Y., et al. (2001). Understanding work using the Occupational Information Network

(O*NET): Implications for practice and research. Personnel Psychology, 54, 451–492.

Prediger, D. J. (1989). Ability differences across occupations: More than g. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 34, 1–27.

Prediger, D. J. (1999a). Basic structure of work-relevant abilities. Journal of Counseling Psy-

chology, 46(2), 173–184.

Prediger, D. J. (1999b). Integrating interests and abilities for career exploration: General

considerations. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning,

measurement, and counseling use (pp. 295–325). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (1994). Factor analysis of the ASVAB: Confirming a Vernon-

like structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 459–463.

Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Per-

sonnel Psychology, 44(2), 321–332.

Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much

more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 518–524.

Roberts, R. D., Goff, G. N., Anjoul, F., Kyllonen, P. C., Pallier, G., & Stankov, L. (2000). The

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB): Little more than acculturated

learning (Gc)!? Learning and Individual Differences, 12(1), 81–103.

Sampson, J. P., Jr., Lumsden, J. A., & Carr, D. L. (2001). Computer-assisted career as

sess-

ment. In J. T. Kapes & E. A. Whitfield (Eds.), A counselor’s guide to career assessment

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 351

352 A

SSESSMENT AND

CCUPATIONAL

NFORMATION

instruments (4th ed., pp. 47–63). Columbus, OH: National Career Development Asso-

ciation.

Schaie, K. W. (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist,

49(4), 304–313.

Schaie, K. W., & Hertzog, C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of adult intellectual de-

velopment: Contributions of the Seattle Longitudinal Study. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Ad-

vances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3, pp. 79–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seashore, C. E. (1919). The psychology of musical talent. Boston: Silver & Burdett.

Seashore, R. H. (1930). Individual differences in motor skills. Journal of General Psychol-

ogy, 3, 38–66.

Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psycholo-

gist, 27(1), 5–32.

Snow, R. E. (1994). Abilities and aptitudes. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 3–5). New York: Macmillan.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured.

American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Intelligence and lifelong learning: What’s new and how can we

use it? American Psychologist, 52(10), 1134–1139.

Sweetland, R. C., & Keyser, D. J. (Eds.). (1991). Tests: A comprehensive reference for assess-

ments in psychology, education, and business (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd.

Thurstone, L. L. (1919a). Mental tests for prospective telegraphers: A study of the diag-

nostic value of mental tests for predicting ability to learn telegraphy. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 3(2), 110–117.

Thurstone, L. L. (1919b). A standardized test for office clerks. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 3(3), 248–251.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities (Psychometric Monograph No. 1). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.

Tirre, W. C. (1997). Steps toward an improved pilot selection battery. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.),

Handbook on testing (pp. 220–255). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Tirre, W. C. (2002). Confirmatory factor analyses of published multiple aptitude test batteries.

Unpublished report, The Ball Foundation, Glen Ellyn, IL.

Tirre, W. C., & Field, K. A. (2002). Structural models of abilities measured by the Ball

titude Battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(5), 830–856.

Tirre, W. C., & Raouf, K. K. (1998). Structural models of cognitive and perceptual-motor

abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(5), 603–614.

Tracey, T. J., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occu-

pational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 178–189.

U.S. Department of Defense. (1995a). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Seaside,

CA: Author, Defense Manpower Data Center.

U.S. Department of Defense. (1995b). ASVAB 18/19 counselor manual: The ASVAB career explo-

ration program. North Chicago: United States Military Entrance Processing Command.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1970). Manual for the USES General Aptitude Test Battery

(Section 3: Development). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower

Administration.

c14.qxd 8/5/04 9:26 AM Page 352

353

CHAPTER 15

Beyond Interests, Needs/Values, and

Abilities: Assessing Other Important

Career Constructs over the Life Span

Jane L. Swanson and Catalina D’Achiardi

SSESSMENT IN CAREER

development and counseling has had a long history.

The Big Three constructs typically deemed central to career choice—

inter-

ests, needs/values, and abilities—were the first to be assessed objec-

tively via standardized instruments, spurred on by Parsons’ (1909) articulation

of “self-knowledge.” These three constructs continue to be the most frequently

assessed within career counseling (Watkins, Campbell, & Nieberding, 1994),

with measures that are psychometrically sound and sophisticated interpreta-

tive materials that frequently are individually tailored. Further, these three

constructs have been thoroughly discussed in the preceding three chapters of

this text. Yet, we would be remiss to conclude that interests, needs/values, and

abilities are the only important constructs to consider in counseling for career

choice, adjustment, and change, and career counseling professionals do address

constructs beyond the Big Three (Watkins et al., 1994). Moreover, all theories of

career development incorporate factors in addition to interests, needs/values,

and abilities.

CONSTRUCTS BEYOND THE BIG THREE

In this introductory section, we define the range of other important constructs to

consider in career counseling, as well as outline the life span background that

serves as the structure for this chapter (see Table 15.1). We present two categories

of constructs—process-oriented and outcome—as particularly relevant to indi-

viduals’ careers. These categories represent constructs beyond the Big Three in

that interests, needs/values, and abilities form the content of individuals’ career

decisions (Savickas, 2000). In contrast, the constructs that we focus on in this

chapter form the process and outcome of individuals’ career decisions.

c15.qxd 8/5/04 9:24 AM Page 353

354 A

SSESSMENT AND

CCUPATIONAL

NFORMATION

Process-oriented constructs deal with how clients make career decisions or the

circumstances surrounding those decisions. These constructs include career matu-

rity and career adaptability, career salience, decision-making styles and processes,

self-efficacy about decision making, career beliefs and myths, and personality.

lients’ standing on these constructs will influence their level of decidedness or

indecision, the specific way in which they make decisions, their preferences for

how to make decisions, and the interaction between counselor and client. Some

additional constructs address contextual factors that also influence the process by

which clients make career decisions, such as interpersonal and workplace sup-

ports, self-efficacy, and processes of circumscription and compromise. These lat-

ter constructs were brought to the forefront via two influential theories: Social

Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Lent, Chapter 5,

this volume) and Gottfredson’s Theory of Circumscription and Compromise

(Gottfredson, 1981, 1996, 2002, Chapter 4, this volume).

Table 15.1

Important Process-Oriented and Outcome Constructs over the Life Span

Process Outcome

Career exploration Career maturity

Career salience

Career beliefs and thoughts

Career decision making

–Decision-making style

–Career indecision

–Decision-making self-efficacy

Personality

Perceived barriers

Interpersonal supports

Self-efficacy beliefs

Outcome expectations

Circumscription and compromise

Intermediate:

–Self-efficacy beliefs

–Outcome expectations

–Career maturity

–Occupational information

Target:

–Career decision

Career choice and

implementation

Career decision making

– Decision-making style

– Career indecision

– Decision making self-efficacy

Career beliefs and thoughts

Personality

Perceived barriers

Interpersonal supports

Intermediate:

–Self-efficacy beliefs

–Outcome expectations

Target:

–Choice certainty

–Choice satisfaction

Adjustment or

change

Career adaptability

Career salience

Personality

Perceived barriers

Interpersonal supports

Workplace supports

Intermediate:

–Career adaptability

–Self-efficacy beliefs

Target:

–Career satisfaction

–Job performance

c15.qxd 8/5/04 9:24 AM Page 354

Beyond Interests, Needs/Values, and Abilities 355

Outcome constructs frequently have been the focus of research endeavors, as

they include the results of career interventions; some constructs in this category

overlap with those in the process-oriented category because they serve both

purposes. Further, these outcome constructs may be divided into two subcate-

gories based on temporal considerations: the target outcomes, which are perhaps

most salient to recipients of career counseling, and intermediate outcomes, which

facilitate the attainment of the target outcomes. Target outcome constructs

include certainty of choice, satisfaction with choice, career satisfaction, job per-

formance, and other organizational outcomes—tangible results of career coun-

seling and other interventions. Intermediate outcomes include self-efficacy,

outcome expectations, career maturity and adaptability, and acquisition of oc-

cupational information—changes in clients’ behavior or attitudes that will

serve them well in attaining target outcomes. Considerable research has demon-

strated the overall effectiveness of career interventions, including individual ca-

reer counseling, workshops, classes, and computer-assisted interventions, as

well as comparative efficiency and effectiveness of differential types of inter-

ventions (S. D. Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000; S. D. Brown et al., 2003; Oliver &

Spokane, 1988; Spokane & Oliver, 1983; Whiston, Brecheisen, & Stephens, 2003;

Whiston, Sexton, & Lasoff, 1998). In this chapter, we focus on the ways in which

career counseling professionals might assess outcomes of their own career in-

terventions with individuals or groups.

As we discuss later, Whiston (2001) proposed a division of outcomes, along a

dimension of time, into short-term and long-term outcomes. While Whiston’s

classification bears some similarity to the one we use in this chapter, we see one

important difference: Short term and long term imply a quantitative distinction by

some specific period of elapsed time, whereas intermediate and target suggest a

qualitative distinction in terms of what has been accomplished.

AREER

OUNSELING

SSUES OVER THE

IFE

PAN

As implied in the previous discussion, important constructs related to process

and outcome vary somewhat over the life span. Thus, to address these constructs

in a systematic fashion, we consider how these constructs may be manifested at

three stages of the life span: career exploration, initial career choice, and career

adjustment and/or change. Career exploration is most likely to occur in adolescence

and early adulthood, during which time individuals learn about themselves and

the world of work and make some initial decisions about education and career di-

rections (such as entering the labor force versus pursuing further education). Ca-

reer choice entails a narrowing of options identified during exploration, so that an

individual makes and implements a specific choice and begins the process of es-

tablishment and adjustment. Career adjustment and/or change implies some type of

career transition or difficulty, such as poor fit, dissatisfaction, poor performance,

or transition to a new job or career or unemployment. Career change may be vol-

untary or involuntary, anticipated or unanticipated, positive or negative.

We recogni ze that these are not necessarily discrete steps or stages in individ-

uals’ lives. Further, we are aware that placing the constructs into each specific cell

of Table 15.1 is done at the risk of overcompartmentalization. Our intention is to

provide a useful way to organize the tasks or challenges individuals are likely to

confront at different junctures in life and to highlight the types of assessments

c15.qxd 8/5/04 9:24 AM Page 355