http://jca.sagepub.com/Journal of Career Assessment

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/10/2/169The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1069072702010002003

2002 10: 169Journal of Career AssessmentJudy M. Chartrand, Fred H. Borgen, Nancy E. Betz and David Donnay

Career GoalsUsing the Strong Interest Inventory® and the Skills Confidence Inventory to Explain

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Career AssessmentAdditional services and information for    

  http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/10/2/169.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- May 1, 2002Version of Record >>

by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Wening Cahya on October 11, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Using the Strong Interest Inventory®

and the Skills Confidence Inventory to Explain Career Goals

Judy M. ChartrandCPP, Inc.

Fred H. BorgenIowa State University

Nancy E. BetzOhio State University

David DonnayCPP, Inc.

This article describes how interests and self-efficacy constructs contribute to a bet-ter understanding of career behaviors and goals. Specifically, the Strong InterestInventory and the Skills Confidence Inventory instruments are reviewed andresearch is presented to illustrate their combined theoretical utility. Examples ofhow collectively to apply these tools in career assessment are presented. Finally,areas for future research are proposed.

Keywords: Strong Interest Inventory, Skills Confidence Inventory, self-efficacyconstructs, career goals

The mantra of career counseling, “Know thy self,” was once a relativelystraightforward proposition that included abilities, interests, and values. Over theyears, Parsonian simplicity has proven to be like a Rockwell painting; peoples’expressions are timeless, even though the times have changed. Abilities, interests,and values are still fundamental dimensions in career assessment, but multiplelife roles, technological revolutions within the world of work, and the infusion ofpersonal consciousness in theories of career development have indelibly changedthe conceptual landscape. Career counselors and theoreticians alike are cre-atively integrating concepts, old and new, as they work with clients and con-structs to map career behaviors and goals.

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, Vol. 10 No. 2, May 2002 169–189© 2002 Sage Publications

169

170 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

In this special issue, we have been asked to write about the relative role ofvocational interests and vocational self-efficacy in explaining career goals. In par-ticular, we have been asked to explore the interface between interests and self-efficacy from the perspective of two instruments, the Strong Interest Inventory(SII) (Strong, 1994) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) (Betz, Borgen, &Harmon, 1996a). The former is a 75-year-old tool that has evolved with the fieldof interest measurement. The later is a relatively new arrival, having emergedfrom the social cognitive zeitgeist that has shaped the past 20 years of careerdevelopment. Since the inception of the SCI in 1996, the SII and SCI have beenused together in both research and applied settings. In this article, we will brieflyreview each instrument and then move to the questions posed by this specialissue: What is the relation between RIASEC-based interests and correspondentself-efficacy constructs? Can these concepts be integrated in a meaningful way soas to offer new information to counselors and clients? We then offer suggestionsto researchers who may want to use the SII and SCI in their research agendas. Inconclusion, we speculate about promising frontiers for future research.

The Strong Interest Inventory: Forever New

Although many professionals in our field are familiar with the SII, it is usefulto describe each component of the Strong and the scope of its scales. The con-tent and manner in which the scales are constructed are very relevant to howcareer professionals conceptualize interests and then relate interest dimensionsto self-efficacy dimensions or to external criteria. For example, the GeneralOccupational Themes (GOT) measure Holland’s (1997) RIASEC model of per-sonality, whereas the Basic Interest Scales measure more narrowly defined andspecified domains (e.g., mathematics). Both sets of scales can be used in researchwith corresponding self-efficacy measures, but there are important differencesbetween broad (e.g., social) and specific (e.g., teaching) domains, especially intheir ability to predict differing external criteria.

The SII has evolved beyond the Occupational Scales, which is the originalcomponent that emanated from the 1927 Strong Vocational Interest Blank. TheOccupational Scales are empirically derived scales that have been expanded andupdated over the years to ensure currency. For years, the Occupational Scaleshave been used by counselors as predictor variables to help clients shape careergoals. Within the interest-self-efficacy research realm, the samples used to deriveoccupational scale have assumed a new role, serving as the criterion (e.g., cur-rently employed and satisfied librarians) for interest and self-efficacy predictorvariables (e.g., Donnay & Borgen, 1999).

Under the leadership of David Campbell, the Basic Interest Scales(Campbell, Borgen, Eastes, Johansson, & Peterson, 1968) were added to the SII,thus providing new content, namely, information about basic interests in areassuch as mathematics and teaching. In addition, GOTs, corresponding to Holland’s

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 171

hexagonal constructs, were introduced. This revision included scale develop-ment methodology beyond the original empirical approach used by E. K. Strong.Inclusion of this new material complemented the information provided by theOccupational Scales, thus allowing counselors and clients to better understandhow general styles (e.g., Investigative) and basic interests (e.g., mathematics)related to occupations (e.g., electrical engineering). Holland’s themes arearguably the most influential taxonomy in vocational psychology, and some havepersuasively argued that basic interests provide the optimal level of informationfor conceptualizing interests (Day & Rounds, 1997). So, by the 1970s, interestscould be viewed from the general (Holland-based themes), the specific (basicinterests), and in relation to occupational groups (Occupational Scales).

The Personal Styles Scales were expanded in the 1994 revision of the SII, andthey represent a clear link between interest items and the personality domain(Borgen, 1999). The Personal Style Scales have bipolar dimensions, which is dif-ferent than the other SII scales. For example, the Work Style scale measures apreference for working alone versus working with others. In the last section of thisarticle, we further explore the domains of personality, interests, and self-efficacy.At this juncture, it is important to note that progression from E. K. Strong’sOccupational Scales to the inclusion of the 1994 Personal Styles Scales repre-sents an evolution from empirically derived scales to diverse and theoreticallycomplex constructs that relate to career choice and development.

There is ample empirical evidence to support the relation between the SIIscales and goal-oriented career variables, such as educational major and occupa-tional choice (e.g., Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). Rather thandelving into this lengthy literature, we prefer to describe a few key areas in whichthe SII could be enhanced to better predict career goals. First, since the last revi-sion of the SII in 1994, there has been a rapid ascension of computer-relatedactivities across many occupations. This dramatic change in the way we do ourwork necessitates a review of current item sets and inclusion of more computer-related occupations. Second, interest in organizing information and dealing withculturally diverse groups has grown more important in our fast-paced and globalsociety. These types of interests need to be measured and their place along thehexagon located. Third, a link between occupational samples and occupationalclassification systems, such as the Structure of Occupational Classification,would connect interest scales to a more comprehensive occupational framework.

Skills Confidence Inventory

Career self-efficacy (e.g., Betz 1992) has been defined as patterns of percep-tions regarding ability to perform career-relevant activities or occupational tasks.In introducing self-efficacy to the career literature, Hackett and Betz (1981) pro-posed that perceptions of self-efficacy influence achievement behavior, academ-ic and career decisions, as well as career adjustment processes. The genesis of this

172 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

work can be found in Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy. In a general sense,Bandura proposed that the level and strength of self-efficacy largely determinebehavior and behavioral change. In his model of behavior, Bandura (1977, p.191) proposed that “expectations of personal efficacy” develop from four sourcesof information: performance accomplishments (or personal mastery experi-ences), vicarious experience (or learning from modeled behavior), verbal per-suasion (or social influence), and physiological states (or emotional arousal).Bandura (1997) and other writers in vocational psychology have suggested thatvocational self-efficacy creates vocational interest through progressive mastery ofoccupational activities. They also have argued that vocational self-efficacy maybe a critical factor in the likelihood of a person being successful and persistent inhis or her career choice.

Drawing from interest and self-efficacy literature, Betz, Borgen, and Harmon(1996b) suggested “that both interests and some feeling of confidence or self-efficacy are necessary before a client will pursue a career option” (p. 96). Withinthe context of this theoretical work, the SCI was developed for use in conjunc-tion with the SII. The SCI measures self-efficacy for tasks associated withHolland’s RIASEC model. More specifically, the 10 items per theme measureactivities or school subjects on a scale of 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete confi-dence). The anchors, no confidence and complete confidence, are consistent withoriginal scaling of self-efficacy measures. Initial internal consistency estimates forthe six General Confidence Themes ranged from .84 for the Enterprising scaleto .88 for the Realistic scale based on a sample of 1,147 employed adults. The 3-week test-retest reliabilities for these six scales ranged from .83 for Realistic to .87for Social (Betz et al., 1996b). In terms of concurrent validity, scores on theGeneral Confidence Themes were used to separate occupational groups as pre-dicted by Holland’s hexagon (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996). Harmon et al.(1996) illustrated the ability of the General Confidence Themes to appropriate-ly discriminate occupational groups by displaying the rank-ordered means of 21occupational groups on each of the six scales. In each of the six figures, the high-est and lowest ranked occupational groups are predicted by Holland’s theory.There is also evidence that the SCI is a good predictor of career choice behavior(Betz, Borgen, Kaplan, & Harmon, 1998).

Although the SCI has been in existence for only 5 years, research has accu-mulated to support its use. The SCI is a good measure of broad-based self-efficacyconstructs that correspond to Holland’s hexagonal model. A potential future stepfor the SCI would be to add a level of measurement commensurate with basicinterests. This strategy would be in step with the original underpinning of self-efficacy theory and with recent opinions that a more narrowly defined domainmay be the optimal level of interest measurement (Day & Rounds, 1997).Collectively, these points suggest that self-efficacy constructs that are specific yetfit into a recognizable theoretical frame are the next steps in self-efficacy researchand application.

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 173

Integration of Interest and Self-Efficacy

The relationship between vocational self-efficacy and inventoried vocationalinterest has been studied on a handful of occasions (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen,1996; Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Lenox & Subich, 1994; Lent, Larkin, &Brown, 1989; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Tracey, 1997), and in general,results have revealed a positive linear relationship. In a meta-analytic review,Lent et al. (1994) reported that the average weighted correlation between voca-tional self-efficacy and vocational interest across 13 studies was .53. This findingmeant that approximately 27% of the variance in vocational interest appears tobe accounted for by self-efficacy. Lent et al. also reported that both vocationalself-efficacy and vocational interest are positively related to career choice withcorrelations of .40 and .60, respectively.

For this article, data from approximately 27,000 respondents were drawn fromthe CPP, Inc. database to investigate further the interest and self-efficacy rela-tionship. An analysis of respondent zip code indicated that all regions of theUnited States were well represented. The background questions on the answersheets asked about college student status. Those who did not indicate a studentstatus appear to be adults with work experience (working adults, homemakers,unemployed, or retired). SII and SCI scale means and standard deviations forrespondents, broken down by college student and nonstudent status and race, arepresented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.1 In general, it appears that nonstudentshad slightly higher mean scores than students. Within the student category (inwhich education is relatively constant), the interest pattern was similar acrossrace; the highest mean scores were in the Social and Enterprising domains.

The correlations between the SII and the SCI scales are reported in Table 3by gender, student and nonstudent status, and race. The magnitude of the SCI-SII relationship was consistently highest for the Investigative scales and lowest forthe Enterprising scales across sex, student status, and race. However, this patternwas not as distinct for African Americans, whose scores yielded comparable cor-relations between Realistic, Investigative, and Artistic SII-SCI scales (.59, .59,and .60, respectively). Clearly, there appears to be a moderate to strong relation-ship between interests and self-efficacy as measured by correspondent SII andSCI scales. These results are consistent with previous studies and are consistentacross demographic groups.

Tracey (1997) examined the structures of vocational interest and vocationalself-efficacy. He found similar structures and concluded that the parallel struc-ture supported the use of Holland-type self-efficacy scales but that because of“the very similar structures . . . , it is not clear that self-efficacy is offering anythingnot already incorporated in interest data, and it may not be a separate construct”(p. 41). Subsequent studies have tried to address Tracey’s speculation by examin-ing the combined utility of interest and self-efficacy measures, with perhaps the

Tabl

e 1

Stro

ng I

nter

est I

nven

tory

Sca

le M

eans

and

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

ns fo

r St

uden

ts a

nd N

onst

uden

ts b

y R

ace

Rea

listic

Inve

stig

ativ

eA

rtis

ticSo

cial

Ent

erpr

isin

gC

onve

ntio

nal

Rac

en

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

Stud

ents

Asia

n1,

069

45.3

78.

8746

.03

9.52

49.6

510

.05

52.2

010

.78

53.1

710

.34

50.9

19.

53B

lack

1,07

841

.48

8.15

41.3

59.

0846

.40

10.0

252

.76

10.9

051

.56

10.4

250

.42

10.3

9La

tino

1,62

944

.47

9.93

42.3

49.

4544

.69

10.0

048

.92

11.3

148

.66

10.3

448

.47

9.72

Whi

te7,

647

44.2

29.

4243

.38

9.45

47.9

110

.51

51.0

311

.03

49.8

110

.23

47.2

39.

60O

ther

400

45.4

610

.04

43.7

010

.35

48.1

110

.95

49.2

812

.14

48.7

910

.84

47.3

610

.10

Non

stude

nts

Asia

n25

747

.07

9.88

47.5

210

.28

50.2

810

.72

52.9

410

.97

52.9

111

.09

52.6

710

.57

Bla

ck53

444

.54

9.36

43.2

09.

8247

.75

10.1

953

.33

10.7

053

.83

11.1

652

.79

10.8

2La

tino

301

47.5

810

.00

45.4

710

.01

48.6

110

.55

50.0

410

.73

51.4

110

.47

51.4

110

.70

Whi

te5,

261

47.9

110

.25

45.9

69.

6749

.91

10.5

850

.04

10.4

251

.31

9.96

49.3

010

.09

Oth

er10

947

.10

9.74

45.3

310

.51

50.7

510

.60

51.0

99.

9152

.86

10.8

649

.51

10.5

6

174

Table 2Skills Confidence Inventory Scale Means

and Standard Deviations for Students and Nonstudents by Race

Investi- Enter- Conven-Realistic gative Artistic Social prising tional

Race n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

StudentsAsian 1,069 30.2 7.71 30.9 7.78 30.9 7.89 35.5 7.46 32.1 7.54 32.9 7.63Black 1,078 28.7 8.31 28.6 8.09 31.2 8.02 38.3 7.37 33.8 7.75 32.8 8.16Latino 1,629 30.8 8.78 28.6 8.66 30.3 8.84 36.1 8.85 31.3 8.34 31.1 8.30White 7,647 31.3 8.26 30.3 8.25 30.9 8.32 36.6 7.61 32.1 7.66 31.3 8.00Other 400 32.3 8.95 30.7 9.14 32.8 8.64 36.5 8.78 32.6 8.72 31.7 8.77

NonstudentsAsian 257 30.7 8.84 30.9 8.89 29.8 8.48 35.6 7.65 30.4 8.11 34.4 7.93Black 534 30.0 8.60 28.8 8.74 30.8 8.51 37.9 7.44 33.2 8.41 3.6 8.34Latino 301 31.9 8.74 29.7 8.52 30.5 8.06 36.7 7.39 31.5 7.96 32.5 8.02White 5,261 32.4 8.70 30.5 8.54 30.1 8.32 34.9 7.47 31.5 8.02 32.8 8.16Other 109 31.9 8.65 28.4 8.49 32.2 8.36 36.2 7.60 32.9 8.33 32.5 8.35

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 175

Table 3Correlations Between Parallel Strong Interest Inventory

General Occupational Themes andSkills Confidence Inventory General Confidence Themes

Investi- Enter- Conven-n Realistic gative Artistic Social prising tional

SexMales 10,465 .64 .66 .63 .53 .43 .47Females 15,823 .58 .65 .62 .46 .041 .50

Student statusStudents 13,069 .65 .67 .63 .53 .42 .50Nonstudents 7371 .67 .66 .63 .49 .43 .46

EthnicityAsian 1,376 .60 .66 .59 .46 .40 .42Black 1,808 .59 .59 .60 .50 .42 .51White 13,437 .67 .67 .63 .52 .42 .49Latino 2,216 .63 .67 .62 .56 .39 .49Other 534 .63 .66 .60 .56 .48 .50

176 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

most compelling response provided by Donnay and Borgen (1999). They exam-ined the incremental validity, beyond vocational interest, of the SCI GeneralConfidence Themes in correctly identifying tenured and satisfied members of21 occupational groups for 1,105 employed women and men. First, they repli-cated Tracey’s (1997; see also Tracey & Ward, 1998) finding that vocational self-efficacy and vocational interest data form similar structures. They then used hier-archical discriminant function analyses to demonstrate the explanatory power ofboth vocational self-efficacy and vocational interest, as well as the incrementalvalidity of vocational self-efficacy. The results of this study clearly support the useof the SII and the SCI as distinct measures, although similar in structure, and aspotentially useful constructs in career assessment and counseling.

APPLICATIONS

Given the ample evidence that both vocational interests and career self-efficacycontribute to vocational choice, conjoint use of measures of the two is now con-sidered a desirable approach to career counseling (Betz, 1999). What is neededto do this effectively are parallel measures of interests and self-efficacy, that is,measures of interests and self-efficacy relative to the same behavioral domain.These can be broad domains such as those represented by the six Holland themesor narrower domains such as those represented by Basic Interest dimensions. Ineither case, we would predict that to consider majors and occupations in thatdomain (e.g., the Enterprising GOT or Sales Basic Interest Scales), some degreeof both interest and confidence must be present. And if interests or self-efficacy,but not both, is present, then interventions designed to increase levels of theother one may enable that domain to become a career option.

In general, concurrent administration of the SII and SCI will yield a compar-ison of levels of interest and confidence for each Holland theme. The careerassessment then lends itself to some type of cross classification of levels of inter-est (e.g., high, medium, and low) with levels of confidence (high, medium, andlow), with concomitant counseling implications. A client worksheet provided inthe manual for the SCI is shown in Figure 1 for a client named Karen. This work-sheet yields four possible categories of Holland type. It should be noted that oper-ationalizing levels of high and low depends on the specific inventory and meas-ures used and is usually described in the test manual.

In Figure 1, the upper-left quadrant shows those Holland types for which bothinterests and confidence are high, indicating high priorities for occupationalexploration. Holland types for which there is some interest but low confidence(upper-right quadrant) may well be possible options if confidence can beincreased using Bandura’s four sources of efficacy information. Areas of low inter-est but higher confidence (lower-left quadrant) may provide options if interestscan be strengthened, but consideration of these areas may not be necessary if the

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 177

previous two cells provide options. Finally, areas of low interest and low interest(lower-right quadrant) are generally considered low priorities for exploration.

Assuming that increases in confidence are necessary before the “approachbehavior” needed to facilitate the exploration of interests can occur, the follow-ing suggestions can be made based on the four sources of efficacy information inBandura’s theory. For the performance accomplishments, the counselor mightrecommend classes, workshops, and community education programs that pro-vide beginning (elementary) instruction in the area—programs offered throughtechnical schools, county colleges, adult education in the community, as well as4-year colleges and universities. It is essential to ensure initial success experiencesto build confidence. One consequence of perceived self-efficacy is persistence inthe face of obstacles or disconfirming experiences, so one cannot expect theclient to endure failure experiences until some degree of confidence has beenbuilt through successful performance accomplishments.

Interventions focusing on the vicarious learning or modeling sources of effi-cacy information might include encouraging the client to spend a few hours atthe worksite of someone who works in an occupational area; talking with peoplein the occupation, especially people of the same gender and/or race/ethnicity;and, especially for younger clients, videos or occupational information showingsimilar others performing successfully in the occupation/area.

A third source of information, emotional arousal (anxiety), can be addressedthrough traditional anxiety management techniques such as relaxation and sys-tematic desensitization. For example, Deffenbacher (1992) provided an extensivereview of various intervention approaches for anxiety reduction, including sys-tematic desensitization based on the pairing of anxiety responses with relaxationderived from progressive relaxation training, self-managed relaxation copingskills, and exposure.

Finally, the verbal persuasion component of efficacy information implies thatthe support and encouragement of the counselor and/or others in the individual’slife can serve a vital confidence-building function. Most obviously, the counselor

High interest and high con-fidence = good option toexplore

High interest and low confi-dence suggests good optionif confidence increased

Low interest and high confi-dence = option to explore ifinterests can be increased

Low interest and low confi-dence = not likely a goodoption to explore

Figure 1. Conjoint interpretation of general occupational themes and general confidence themes.

178 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

can assist the client in structuring new experiences and can then serve as cheer-leader and supporter as new behaviors are tried.

In the case of the client shown in Figure 1, the joint consideration of interestsand confidence reveals that because both interests and confidence are high,Investigative may be a desirable area of exploration, suggesting careers in the sci-ences. But Karen’s Realistic interests, if accompanied by some confidence, couldopen up the area of Investigative-Realistic careers, which include many engi-neering and technical fields. These fields appealed to Karen, but her lack ofRealistic confidence prevented her from exploring them. Accordingly, interven-tions were needed. Karen decided to take some beginning courses in electronicsand computer programming through a community adult education program tobuild up her confidence in the Realistic area. At the same time, she exploreddegree-related options in engineering and computer science—possibly electricalengineering to combine the two. Left to her own devices, Karen’s low self-efficacyrelative to the Realistic theme probably would have led to continued avoidancerather than the “approach” behaviors she began to exhibit with the efficacy-basedinterventions and support of the counselor.

Self-Efficacy Interventions

Because the possibility that self-efficacy or confidence can be increasedthrough targeted interventions is a key component of the postulated usefulness ofscores in the high-interest/low-confidence quadrant, empirical demonstration ofthe effectiveness of such interventions is needed. Career interventions based onself-efficacy theory, focusing on positive applications of the four sources of effi-cacy information, are just beginning to be designed and tested. For example,Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, and Martinelli (1998) studied the effectiveness ofa math/science self-efficacy intervention on math self-efficacy, math and scienceinterests, and choice of majors and careers in a sample of undecided college stu-dents. Luzzo et al. reported that participants receiving an intervention focused onperformance accomplishments reported higher math/science course self-efficacyfollowing treatment; higher math/science course self-efficacy, self-efficacy formath/science-related occupational requirements, and greater interest inmath/science related careers were found at a 4-week follow-up. Speight,Rosenthal, Jones, and Gastenveld (1995) showed the effectiveness of an inter-vention designed to increase self-efficacy with respect to medical careers in asample of 45 ninth graders, including 35 girls and 13 African Americans.

Betz and Schifano (2000) created and evaluated an intervention designed toincrease Realistic self-efficacy in college women. Realistic activities includethose related to technical, outdoor, and hands-on activities, the kinds of skillsoften taught in high school shop, electronics, and trades courses or under thetutelage of an adult comfortable with home and automobile repair. The Realistic

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 179

domain is one central to the pursuit of careers in engineering and technologyand, not surprisingly, is the area where gender differences in both interests andperceived self-efficacy are most persistent (Betz et al., 1996a, 1996b). WhenRealistic interests and confidence accompany Holland’s Investigative (scientific)theme, a large array of engineering and technical specialties become viable forcareer exploration. For example, all of the engineering occupations listed in theoccupations finder for Holland’s (1994) Self-Directed Search (SDS) have eitherRI or IR as the first two letters of their Holland code. Similarly, the occupationsof engineer (RI) and systems analyst (IR) are among the SII Occupational Scales.

Participants in the Betz and Schifano (2000) study were preselected to haveabove-average scores on Realistic interests but low Realistic confidence—inother words, to fall in the upper-right (high interest/low confidence) quadrantpostulated to represent a career option if confidence could be increased. Theintervention focused on building, repairing, and construction activities. The 7-hour intervention included a session on architectural design, including the useof slides and blueprints, and was it followed by a hard-hat tour of two differentconstruction sites on campus: a business building and a sports arena.Construction techniques were explained, and the participants had ample oppor-tunity to ask questions and to see various phases of construction. The second ses-sion consisted of a lesson on the classification and use of various hardware items,followed by practice using the hardware and related tools to assemble metalshelving units.

In the third session, participants were shown the use of various hand tools (e.g.,wire cutters/strippers, screwdrivers, wrenches) and were taught to use the tools toperform a variety of tasks. These tasks included rewiring a lamp, assembling aprescribed plumbing configuration of drainage pipes, and building a combina-tion shelf unit with a pegged coat rack.

In addition to focusing on Realistic activities, the intervention included thefour elements of Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory. Equal numbers of womenand men demonstrated the desired tasks and behaviors (vicarious learning).Then, they ensured the successful completion of the participants’ task perform-ance (performance accomplishments). Instructors and participants encouragedand supported each other (social persuasion). Finally, hourly breaks were sched-uled during which the participants affirmed their accomplishments withapplause and verbal praise and then practiced relaxation techniques with oneminute of deep breathing and meditation (anxiety management). The posttestmeasures were administered 2 weeks after the interventions to the participants inboth the experimental and control groups. The control group received a neutralintervention in which the participants discussed their opinions of recent films.

Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that Realistic confidence, as measuredby the SCI, increased significantly in the treatment but not the control group.The change in the treatment group from 2.73 (little confidence) to 3.45 (mod-erate confidence), or .72, was almost three times both the pretest standard devi-

180 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

ation (.27) and was three times the size of the change in the control group (.24).The posttest mean of 3.45 was also significantly higher than the mean of 2.9 inthe normative sample of 445 college women, even though the treated individu-als had been selected to have low Realistic confidence. The results are shown inFigure 2. Recalling the use of the fourfold interpretive continuum, Figure 3

2.81 2.73

3.053.45

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Pre-test Post-test

Control

Treatment

Figure 2. Pretest and posttest realistic self-efficacy scores for the treatment and the control groups.

3 0

27

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pre-Control

Pre-Treatment

Post-Control

Post-Treatment

Very Little

Little

Moderate

High

Figure 3. Percentage of participants in the “good option to explore” (i.e., high interest and highconfidence).

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 181

shows the percentage of young women for whom, posttest, Realistic majors andoccupations might now be a career option—62% now have high Realistic confi-dence versus 0% pretreatment.

Even though the treatment was of short duration, the change in Realistic con-fidence has significant interpretive implications. The interpretive comments thataccompany scores on the SCI would be little confidence to a score of 2.7 butmoderate (3.4) or high (3.5) confidence to a score of 3.45. When used in con-junction with the GOT interest scores obtained from concurrent administrationof the SII, a moderate or high interest/moderate confidence combination wouldsuggest that Realistic (in this case) is a “high priority” for career exploration ver-sus the suggestion of “good option if confidence in skills can be increased,”which accompanies low confidence score patterns. Thus, the Betz and Schifano(2000) study showed that it is indeed possible to move an interpretation from“good option if confidence can be increased” to “high priority” via appropriateself-efficacy interventions.

Guidelines for joint use of the SII and SCI scores in career counseling arecontained in the Skills Confidence Inventory Applications and Technical Guide(Betz et al., 1996b) and a guide for clients titled Finding Your Passion in YourCareer: Integrating Skills Confidence Inventory and Strong Interest Inventory Results(Donnay & Borgen, 2000). An early article describing the use of self-efficacy the-ory in career interventions was written by Betz (1992).

FOUR FRONTIERS: CONTINUED INTEGRATION OF DOMAINS OF INDIVIDUALITY

Looking at the future of career assessment, Betz and Borgen (2000) sawincreasing blending of major domains of individual differences. They said, “ thetheoretical and practical integration of concepts of interests, self-efficacy, andpersonality provides one of the most significant and exciting directions forcareer assessment and vocational research” (p. 336). The domains of interests,self-efficacy, and personality are flourishing in theory and practice (Betz, 2000;Costa & McCrae, 1992; Lent et al., 1994; Savickas & Spokane, 1999). It isincreasingly apparent that these domains overlap to some degree but also repre-sent independent constructs. Person-environment fit models are alive and well,with new comprehensiveness (Chartrand, 1991; Dawis, 1992).

A number of integrative models of human action are incorporating thesedomains of individuality (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Bandura, 1997;Holland, 1997; Lent et al., 1994). Leading edges of research and application areasking the productive structural and differential validity questions we can addressby looking jointly at interests, self-efficacy, and personality (Borgen, 1999).Following are some examples of work at those frontiers; these newest examplescomplement those described by Borgen (1999) and Betz and Borgen (2000).

182 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

They are intended to stimulate new ways of thinking about these big domains ofindividual differences and to lead others to productive new directions in researchand practice.

Big Five Personality and Big Six Interests

Holland’s (1997) longtime assertion that interest inventories are measures ofpersonality has led to a number of studies linking Holland’s Big Six interestdimensions with the Big Five personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thisliterature has recently been summarized and quantified in a meta-analysis byLarson, Rottinghaus, and Borgen (in press). Their results showed that two per-sonality dimensions are clearly related to different, adjacent pairs of interests onHolland’s hexagon. Extraversion is most related to Enterprising interests but alsolinked to Social interests. Openness is most related to Artistic interests but also toInvestigative interests. Finally, there is also a modest but consistent relationshipbetween Agreeableness and Social interests.

These Larson et al. (in press) meta-analysis links between Big Six interests andBig Five personality occur for both the SII (Harmon et al., 1994) and Holland’sSDS (Holland, 1994). Larson et al.’s surprising finding was that the SDS pro-duces additional personality-interest links that are not found with the SII. Thetwo remaining personality dimensions in the Big Five that are not correlated withinterests on the Strong do show mild correlations on the SDS. Conscientiousnessis related to Conventional and Enterprising interests, and Neuroticism is related(negatively) to Enterprising interests. In addition, Openness is mildly correlatedwith Social interests on the SDS. These startling results remind us of the majordifferences in the types of SII and SDS items. Although the Strong items are pre-dominantly direct interest items, about half of the SDS items are self-ratings ofabilities. The results of the SDS probably should be viewed as a mixture of inter-ests, such as measured on the SII, and confidence, or self-efficacy, as measuredon the SCI.

Future research will probably show that the combination of SII interests andSCI confidence will approximate the results of the SDS. Adding SII interests andSCI self-efficacy should give correlations with Big Five personality that are simi-lar to the meta-analysis results Larson et al. (in press) found for the SDS.Confidence appears to be more strongly linked to personality than are interests(see below). Separate measures of interests and confidence, as in the SII and theSCI, will likely have research and practice advantages. In research studies, therelative and combined predictions from interests and self-efficacy can be identi-fied (Donnay & Borgen, 1999; Tracey & Hopkins, 2001). It is likely that their rel-ative contributions will depend on the career setting and relevant career vari-ables. In practice, discrepancies between strength of interests and self-efficacycan be identified for insight and interventions (Betz et al., 1996b; Campbell,

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 183

Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992). This is also frequently done within the booklet for theSDS, where subscores are obtained for ratings of interests and perceived abilities.

Personality Influences on Level of Interests and Self-Efficacy

A number of investigators have examined level of interest profile, especially inrelationship to personality (e.g., Fuller, Holland, & Johnston, 1999). Tilley,Osborn, Wubben, and Quinn (2001) also examined the correlates of level of self-efficacy. With a sample of college students, they studied the Big Five personalitydimensions and average level of the six GOTs on the SII and average level of theGeneral Confidence Themes on the SCI. Personality was modestly related toaverage level of interests (profile level) but fairly strongly related to average levelof self-efficacy. The multiple R for the five personality predictors was .27 for inter-est level and .47 for self-efficacy level. Openness was the predominant single pre-dictor for both interests and self-efficacy, with zero-order correlations of .25 forinterests and .44 for self-efficacy. Openness taps an intellectual style of thinking,reflecting sensitivity to ideas, imagination, curiosity, and aesthetics. It is clearlyrelated to general confidence or self-efficacy. It is also the best or most substan-tial predictor of level of interest, although the relationship is considerably weak-er than for self-efficacy.

Vital Distinctions Between Structure and Validity

Structural studies, say for interests, are quite different from studies of criterionvalidity (Borgen, 1999). The former examines relationships only within a domainof individual differences, whereas the latter examines the relationship of thosevariables to some external criterion variable. In recent years, there has been vig-orous study of the structure of interests (e.g., Tracey & Rounds, 1993) that havebeen very informative. It is good to remember, however, that those studies,despite their scope and rigor, are studies of structure but not validity in the usualcriterion sense.

Some studies have compared the structure of interests and the structure of self-efficacy. Two prominent examples are studies by Tracey (1997) and Donnay andBorgen (1999). Tracey concluded that the structure of interests and self-efficacywere similar, and therefore, he questioned the incremental utility of measures ofself-efficacy. His more recent work, however, suggests a different conclusion.Using Prediger’s (1982) model, Tracey and Hopkins (2001) demonstrated thatinterests and skill ratings can be combined to increase the prediction of occupa-tional choices. It is noteworthy that the approaches of Tracey’s two studies werequite different: The former examined only relationships within domains of inter-ests or self-efficacy; the latter is actually a concurrent validity, using those domains

184 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

to predict occupational choice variables. Thus, it is quite conceivable, perhapseven desirable, to have similar structures for interests and self-efficacy and yethave them make independent contributions in a validity context. Indeed, suchwas the case in the Donnay and Borgen study. Using RIASEC scales from the SIIand the SCI, they found that each domain yielded the hexagonal structure butthat interests and self-efficacy made additive contributions to the prediction ofoccupation and that the self-efficacy measures were somewhat more potentpredictors.

Incremental Validity for All Three Domains

A number of recent studies have looked at pairwise combinations of personal-ity, self-efficacy, and interests. Going a step further, a recent study by Rottinghaus,Lindley, Green, and Borgen (in press) looked at the incremental validity of allthree domains in predicting an important career variable: level of educationalaspirations for their sample of college students. Following Lent et al.’s (1994)social cognitive career theory, educational aspirations were predicted in hierar-chical regression from three successive sets of predictors: Big Five personality, sixHolland interests, and six Holland confidence scales. Each domain made a sig-nificant incremental contribution to explaining level of educational plans, withthe multiple R rising from .32 to .51 to .54. At the individual-variable level, stu-dents aspiring to the doctorate were most distinctively characterized by a scalefrom each domain: higher personality Openness, higher Investigative confi-dence, and higher Investigative interest. The Rottinghaus et al. study exemplifiedthe complementary nature of the domains of personality, self-efficacy, and inter-ests and suggested the likely theoretical and practical payoffs with variables inother career venues.

Expanding the SCI

Just as the SII has advantages because it includes the more specific BasicInterest Scales, so might the utility of the SCI be enhanced with the addition ofBasic Confidence Scales. Currently, there is a parallel interest and confidencescale for each of the six Holland RIASEC dimensions. Although the SCI is quitenew, the six General Confidence Themes are proving to be useful in practiceand complementary to the validity of the GOT interests (Betz, Harmon, &Borgen, 1996; Betz & Schifano, 2000; Donnay & Borgen, 1999). The CampbellInterest and Skill Survey (Campbell, Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992) was a pioneer inproviding both interest and confidence results, both at the general level and atthe basic interest level.

The Holland RIASEC dimensions—whether interests or confidence—areclearly useful and efficient as broad dimensions with implications for broad out-

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 185

comes and criteria. But specific dimensions have much to offer, as seen by thespecial advantages of the Basic Interest Scales (Day and Rounds, 1997; Donnay &Borgen, 1996). When the focus is more specific than the broad Holland theme,then a more specific scale is likely to perform better. Therefore, there is merit inbuilding an expanded SCI that measures specific dimensions as the level of theBasic Interest Scales (cf. Campbell et al., 1992). Think of the advantages—bothin practice and research—of having specific Basic Confidence Scales for suchspecific dimensions as science and mathematics and what they have to offerbeyond the Investigative General Confidence Theme. Some individuals willhave confidence in one domain and not the other—information that is obscuredin the Investigative scale. Such score discrepancies have major implications incounseling and interpretation, and science and mathematics will function quitedifferently in research tapping criteria that are differentially relevant for eachdomain. In short, the meaning of a specifically focused scale is different andmore precise than the broad Holland scale.

Gasser et al. (2001) presented the first developmental work on an expandedSCI. The authors of the SCI are developing an expanded version of the SCI thatwill measure Basic Confidence Scales that parallel some of the Basic InterestScales in the SII. At this writing, the final shape of an expanded SCI is in devel-opment, awaiting national normative data and coordination with the new SII,currently under revision. There are likely to be new content scales in the revisedStrong. Even though the Strong has 25 Basic Interest Scales, there is evidencethat additional scales might be fruitfully developed. For example, Lindley,Borgen, Donnay, and Majors (2000) factor analyzed the 317 items in 1994 SIInorm group of 18,951 and found that 40 factors could be extracted, and morethan 30 of them were highly replicable across cross-validation samples. Samplingcollege students at two large public universities, Gasser et al. presented results for16 Basic Confidence Scales: Mechanical, Science, Mathematics, Writing,Creative Production, Cultural Sensitivity, Training, Public Speaking, Sales, DataManagement, Office Services, Using Technology, Leadership, OrganizationalManagement, Project Management, and Teamwork. Their preliminary datashowed good to excellent internal consistency reliabilities for the new scales,most correlations in the expected range of .17 to .69 (average of .52) with the par-allel Interest scale on the Strong, appropriate structural relationships within theHolland structural model, and varying levels of gender differences, as has typi-cally been found with the SCI (Betz et al., 1996a). These projected new scaleshave major promise for theory and practice. They cover many of the basic andtraditional skill and interest dimensions of school and work, such as mathemat-ics, public speaking, writing, and mechanical. They also include some newdimensions of the modern world that may be feasible as parallel basic interestand self-efficacy scales. Examples of this are teamwork, using technology, andcultural sensitivity.

186 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

SUMMARY

Interest and self-efficacy are related constructs that provide distinct informa-tion for career counselors and their clients. At present, the SII and the SCI offera viable option for measuring parallel dimensions that correspond to Holland’sgeneral themes. SII and SCI data from a large sample lend descriptive informa-tion to an area that has historically been scant (see, e.g., Brown, 1995): interestand self-efficacy patterns across race. Furthermore, the correlations betweeninterest and self-efficacy, as measured by the SII and SCI, appear very stable,consistently ranging from the .40s to the .60s. Several interesting interventionstudies illustrate the value of using both interest and self-efficacy information andsuggest specific ways in which career exploration options can be expanded.Future frontiers direct us toward clearer definitions and demarcation of levelswithin constructs as well as further integration across constructs. The power ofintegrating interests, personality, and self-efficacy has certainly been capitalizedon in career counseling practice, but theoretical networks are still largely unex-plored. As these networks unfold, they offer promising leads for new insights andpractice in career assessment. The day of exhaustive test batteries may give wayto customized batteries designed from knowledge of specific theoretical links.

NOTES

1. A decision was made to present descriptive Strong Interest Inventory and Skills ConfidenceInventory (SCI) data by student and nonstudent status and race. The former distinguishes two dis-tinct career stages and, in the case of student status, allows for comparisons among a relativelyhomogenous educational group. Descriptive information presented by race was intended to pro-vide new information about the SCI. Descriptive information for men and women has been pre-sented previously (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996b; Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994).

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence foroverlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. PsychologyReview, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Betz, N. E. (1992). Counseling uses of career self-efficacy theory. Career Development Quarterly,

41, 22-26.Betz, N. E. (1999). Getting clients to act on their interests: Self-efficacy as a moderator of the

implementation of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.),Occupational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 327-344). PaloAlto, CA: Davies-Black.

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 187

Betz, N. E. (2000). Self-efficacy theory as a basis for career assessment. Journal of CareerAssessment, 8, 205-222.

Betz, N. E., & Borgen, F. H. (2000). The future of career assessment: Integrating vocational inter-ests with self-efficacy and personal styles. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 329-338.

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996a). Skills Confidence Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996b). Skills Confidence Inventory applications andtechnical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., Kaplan, A., & Harmon, L. W. (1998). Gender and Holland type as mod-erators of the validity and interpretive utility of the Skills Confidence Inventory. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 53, 281-299.

Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationship of self-efficacy for theHolland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.

Betz, N. E., & Schifano, R. (2000). Increasing realistic self-efficacy and interests in college women.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 35-52.

Borgen, F. H. (1995). Leading edges of vocational psychology: Diversity and vitality. In W. B.Walsh & S. O. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology. Second edition: Theory,research, and practice (pp. 427-441). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borgen, F. H. (1999). New horizons in interest theory and measurement: Toward expanding mean-ing. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measure-ment, and use in counseling (pp. 383-411). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Brown, M. T. (1995). The career development of African Americans: Theoretical and empiricalissues. In F.T.L. Leong (Ed.), Career development and vocational behavior of racial and ethnicminorities (pp. 7-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Campbell, D. C., Borgen, F. H., Eastes, S., Johannson, C. B., & Peterson, R. A. (1968). A set ofBasic Interest Scales for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men. Journal of AppliedPsychology Monographs, 52 (6, Part 2).

Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest and SkillSurvey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Chartrand, J. M. (1991). The evolution of trait-and-factor career counseling: A person X environ-ment fit approach. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 518-524.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI_R professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dawis, R. V. (1992). The individual differences tradition in counseling psychology. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 39, 7-19.

Day, S. X., & Rounds, J. (1997). “A little more than kin, and less than kind”: Basic interests in voca-tional research and career counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 45, 207-220.

Deffenbacher, J. (1992). Counseling for anxiety management. In S. B. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.),Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 719-756). New York: John Wiley.

Donnay, D., & Borgen, F. (2000). Finding your passion in your career: Integrating Skills ConfidenceInventory and Strong Interest Inventory Results. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Donnay, D.A.C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 StrongInterest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275-291.

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

Fuller, B. E., Holland, J. L., & Johnston, J. A. (1999). The relationship of profile elevation in theSelf-Directed Search to personality variables. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 111-123.

188 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

Gasser, C. E., Paulsen, A. M., Thomas, T. K., Hofer, K. E., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Betz, N. E. (2001,August). Expanding the Skills Confidence Inventory with Basic Confidence Scales. Poster presen-tation at the 109th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.

Harmon, L. W., Borgen, F. H., Berreth, J. M., King, J. C., Schauer, D., & Ward, C. C. (1996). TheSkills Confidence Inventory: A measure of self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 457-477.

Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory:Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-Directed Search Form R: 1994 edition. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work envi-ronments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of investigative andrealistic general occupational themes on the Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 36, 176-182.

Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (in press). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests andBig Five personality variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Lenox, R. A., & Subich, L. M. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and invento-ried interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory ofcareer and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 79-122.

Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C., & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to inventoried voca-tional interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 279-288.

Lindley, L. D., Borgen, F. H., Donnay, D.A.C., & Majors, M. S. (2000, August). The factor struc-ture of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory: Scientific and practical implications. Poster sessionpresented at the 108th annual convention of the American Psychological Association,Washington, D.C.

Luzzo, D., Hasper, P., Albert, K., Bibby, M., & Martinelli, E. (1998). Effects of self-efficacyenhancing interventions on the math-science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, andactions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233-243.

Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interestsand occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259-287.

Rottinghaus, P. J., Lindley, L. D., Green, M. A., & Borgen, F. H. (in press). Educational aspira-tions: The contribution of personality, self-efficacy, and interests. Journal of VocationalBehavior.

Savickas, M. L., & Spokane, A. R. (Eds.). (1999). Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement,and use in counseling. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Speight, J. D., Rosenthal, K. S., Jones, B. J., & Gastenveld, P. M. (1995). Medcamp’s effect on jun-ior high school students’ medical career self-efficacy. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 285-295.

Strong Interest Inventory, Form 317. (1994). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Tilley, B. P., Osborn, Z. H., Wubben, M. A., & Quinn, A. C. (2001). Personality implications of

level of interests and self-efficacy. Poster presentation at the 109th annual convention of theAmerican Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Tracey, T.J.G. (1997). The structure of interests and self-efficacy expectations: An expanded esti-mation of the spherical model of interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 32-43.

Tracey, T.J.G., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occupationalchoice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 178-189.

Chartrand et al. / EXPLAINING CAREER GOALS 189

Tracey, T.J.G., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland’s and Gati’s vocational-interest models: Astructural analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 229-246.

Tracey, T.J.G., & Ward, C. C. (1998). The structure of children’s interests and competence per-ceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 290-303.