Psychological Bulletin Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1993. Vol. 113. No. 2, 229-246 0033-2909/93/S3.00

Evaluating Holland's and Gati's Vocational-Interest Models:

A Structural Meta-Analysis
Terence J. Tracey and James Rounds

In a recent review, Gati (1991) criticized Holland's model of vocational interests and concluded that
his own hierarchical model was superior. A major problem with Gati's comparison of his and
Holland's models was that it was based on an incomplete specification of Holland's model. The
relative validity of Holland's order and circumplex models and Gati's 3-group partition model as
they fit 104 published (1965-1989) correlation matrices is evaluated. Using 3 separate structural
meta-analytic techniques (Hubert & Arabic's, 1987, randomization test of hypothesized order rela-
tions, confirmatory factor analysis, and individual-differences cluster analysis), the fit of Holland's
and Gati's models to the data were compared. Holland's order and circumplex models were found
to be adequate representations of the structure of vocational personalities and work environments
and were found to be superior to Gati's model.

Almost a century ago, Parsons (1909) proposed the tripartite
model of choosing a vocation that has formed the basis of most
work in vocational psychology. The three aspects were (a) self-
analysis of one's abilities, aptitudes, interests, ambitions, and
resources, (b) occupational analysis of work requirements,
tasks, and opportunities, and (c) the use of "true reason" to
relate the self and occupational analyses. Vocational interests
were viewed as a key aspect of occupational selection, satisfac-
tion, and performance. Early attempts to understand and assess
individual differences in vocational interests occurred in con-
junction with initial work in the area of intelligence and ability
assessment (Dawis, 1992). One of the first studies focused on
interests was conducted by Thorndike (1912) and examined
their correlation with ability. The pioneering work of Kuder
(1939), Paterson and Darley (1936), Strong (1943), and Thur-
stone (1931) in the development of interest inventories pro-
vided career counselors, placement specialists, and individuals
with information to use in making vocational decisions.
The second aspect of Parsons's tripartite model, occupa-
tional analysis, has generally been addressed through the col-
lection and dissemination of vocational information. Extensive
work has been placed into the collection of occupational infor-
mation as represented by the government's Occupational Out-
look Handbook (U.S. Department of Labor, 1990) and the Dic-
tionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor,
1977). However, these two areas of focus, assessment of individ-
ual differences in vocational interests and the collection and
provision of occupational information, remained fairly inde-
pendent until the work of Holland (1959, 1966, 1973, 1985),
Terence J. Tracey and James Rounds, Department of Educational
Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
We appreciate the suggestions provided by Louise Fitzgerald,
Lawrence Hubert, and Jeff Tanaka as well as Phipps Arabic's assis-
tance in using INDCLUS.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ter-
ence J. Tracey, Department of Educational Psychology, 210 Education
Building, University of Illinois, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign,
Illinois 61820-6990.
229
who provided a model for easily understanding the relation of
both vocational interests and occupations.
Holland's (1959,1966,1973,1985) theory of vocational per-
sonalities and work environments is widely considered one of
the most influential career development theories and occupa-
tional taxonomies in vocational psychology (Borgen, 1986;
Brown & Brooks, 1990; Osipow, 1983; Watkins, Bradford, Lew,
& Himmell, 1986). Central to Holland's theory is the idea that
both people and work environments can be meaningfully clas-
sified into six types: realistic (R), investigative (I), artistic (A),
social (S), enterprising (E), and conventional (C; RIASEC). Hol-
land's RIASEC model has had considerable impact on voca-
tional-interest measurement and the classification of occupa-
tions. The most widely used vocational-interest inventories de-
veloped scales for the six Holland types, for example, Strong
Interest Inventory and American College Testing Program, or
procedures to translate interest scales into RIASEC scales, for
example, Kuder General Interest Survey (Kuder & Diamond,
1979; Zytowski, 1985) and U.S. Department of Labor (1979)
Guide for Occupational Exploration. Furthermore, the RIA-
SEC model guided Holland's translations of the 12,860 occupa-
tions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Gottfredson &
Holland, 1989). Thus Holland's model provides a means of in-
tegrating both individual vocational interests and occupations.
However, and perhaps more important, Holland's model also
specifies a structure among the six personality and work envi-
ronments, that of a circular order of relations as shown in Fig-
ure 1 (read clockwise, R-I-A-S-E-C), called the hexagonal model.
The types that are closer to each other are more similar than
those that are more distant. This hexagonal structure of the six
types has implications for (a) stability and predictability of inter-
ests (i.e., consistency), where people with interests more proxi-
mate on the hexagon should demonstrate greater stability in
interests and vocations than those with less proximate interests
and (b) satisfaction and performance in vocations, where peo-
ple in vocations who have a better fit (i.e., congruence) between
their interests and the occupational environment should have
better vocational outcomes (e.g., fewer job changes and greater
 230 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS
Holland
Figure 1. A representation of Holland's (1973,1985) circular model and Gati's (1979,1982) three-group
partition model for the RIASEC personality types. (R = realistic, I = investigative, A = artistic, S = social,
E = enterprising, C = conventional.)
vocational achievement and satisfaction) than people who have
a lower degree of interest-occupation fit. The hexagon struc-
ture of types and work environments proposed by Holland thus
provides an easily grasped means of understanding and inte-
grating interest and occupational information with respect to
the similarity of types and occupations and provides as well
predictions regarding optimal person-environment match.
In a recent review of the structure of vocational interests,
Gati (1991), however, concluded that his hierarchical model
was superior to Holland's (1973,1985) hexagonal model in ac-
counting for the relations among the RIASEC types. In support
of this conclusion, Gati discussed several conceptual problems
with Holland's model, reviewed the compatibility of additional
research with the hierarchical model, and presented a reanaly-
sis (from Gati, 1982) of 15 data sets that supported the fit of his
hierarchical model in relation to both Holland's model and
Roe's (1956; Roe & Klos, 1969; Roe & Lunneborg, 1990) model.
We contend that the representation of Holland's model, the
hypothesis-testing strategies, and the analyses in Gati's review
were suspect, raising questions about the conclusions reached.
The goals of the present article are (a) to critically review
Gati's presentation of Holland's model and Gati's hypothesis-
testing strategies and methods used to evaluate the fit of Hol-
land's and Gati's structural hypotheses and (b) to conduct a
structural meta-analysis, a structural analysis on published
data matrices, that directly evaluates the fit of these two mod-
els. The present article is organized as follows: We begin by
presenting Holland's and Gati's structural hypotheses to pro-
vide a framework for discussion of the task of comparing these
two models. From Holland's writing, we can identify two forms
of his RIASEC model: Holland's order model and the circum-
plex model, each requiring a different method of analysis.
Next, we discuss the quantitative integration (i.e., meta-analy-
sis) of existing studies on RIASEC structural relations. Then,
we conduct a structural meta-analysis to evaluate Holland's and
R I
Gati
Gati's models on a data set of 104 published RIASEC correla-
tion matrices, using three methods: first, Hubert and Arabic's
(1987) randomization test of hypothesized order relations,
which allows a direct test of Holland's and Gati's order predic-
tions; second, confirmatory factor analysis, which provides a
test of Holland's circumplex structure; and third, cluster analy-
sis, for a direct evaluation of Gati's discrete representation of
Holland's six personality types. We end with a discussion of the
implications of the structural meta-analytic results for research.
Model Specification
Holland's Order and Circumplex Models
Holland's (1973,1985) structural hypothesis, formally called
the calculus assumption (but also referred to as the hexagon),
states that six personality types—realistic (R), investigative (I),
artistic (A), social (S), enterprising (E), and conventional (C)—
are arranged in a circular order as shown in Figure 1 and that
the interpoint distances for the types are "inversely propor-
tional to the theoretical relationships between them" (Holland,
1985, p. 5). It follows that the magnitude of relationships among
types has a predictable order if the circular structure is appro-
priate: The correlations for the six adjacent types (RI, IA, AS,
SE, EC, and CR) should be greater than the correlations for the
six alternate types (RA, AE, ER, IS, SC, and CI), yielding 36
order predictions; the correlations for the alternate types
should be greater than the correlations for the three opposite
types (RS, IE, and AC), yielding 18 order predictions; and, by
implication, the correlations for the adjacent types should be
greater than the correlations for the opposite types, yielding 18
predictions. These 72 order predictions for the calculus as-
sumption are shown in Table 1.
The rows and columns of Table 1 represent the 15 correlations
among the six RIASEC types that make up the correlation
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GATI'S MODELS 231

Table 1
Predictions ofGati Three-Group Partition and Holland Order Models Regarding the Relative
Magnitude of Correlations in a Correlation Matrix
1 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. RI
Gati —
Holland —
2. RA
Gati <
Holland <
3. RS
Gati <
Holland <
4. RE
Gati <
Holland <
5. RC
Gati <
Holland
6. IA
Gati <
Holland
7. IS
Gati <
Holland <
8. IE
Gati <
Holland <
9. 1C
Gati <
Holland <
10. AS
Gati ?
Holland
11. AE
Gati <
Holland <
12. AC
Gati <
Holland <
13. SE
Gati <
Holland
14. SC
Gati <
Holland <
15. EC
Gati ?
Holland
Note. R = realistic, I = investigative, A = artistic, S = social, E = enterprising, C = conventional. Row
values are the first value, so > means row value is greater than column value. ? = no prediction made.

matrix (e.g., RI in Table 1 represents the correlation between the
realistic type and the investigative type). Any entry or cell in
Table 1 represents the hypothesized value of the row correlation
in relation to the column correlation. For example, the > cell for
RI Holland row and 2 column indicates that the row correla-
tion between R and I is hypothesized to be greater than the
column correlation between R and A in Holland's model. Table
1 is thus a 15 X 15 matrix that summarizes all possible correla-
tion order predictions that can be generated from a 6 X 6 corre-
lation matrix. Because the main diagonal of Table 1 is meaning-
less, as each correlation is equal to itself, there are 210 possible
order predictions that can be made. However, there are only 105
unique predictions that can be made, because the predictions
above and below the main diagonal are redundant; for example,
the RI correlation is hypothesized in Holland's model to be
greater than the R A correlation (above the main diagonal), and
the R A correlation is hypothesized to be less than the RI corre-
lation (below the main diagonal). The cells in Table 1 therefore
represent the structural hypotheses drawn from Holland's
theory (as well as Gati's theory, discussed below).
As shown in Table 1, Holland's calculus assumption generates
72 order predictions out of the 105 possible predictions, with 33
of Holland's conjectures being equality predictions. The equal-
ity predictions are drawn from Holland's (1973, 1985) depic-
232 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS
tions of the six types as forming an equilateral hexagon. The
hexagonal structure (or a circle with equidistant points around
the circumference) adds additional constraints on the calculus
assumption: The interpoint distances are equal for types within
adjacent categories, alternate categories, and opposite catego-
ries. The latter equality constraints meet the requirements for a
circumplex (Guttman, 1954): a circular order of variables for
which correlations between adjacent variables are equal, corre-
lations between alternate variables are equal, and the correla-
tions between adjacent variables are more highly correlated
than correlations between alternate variables. The fact that
Holland's model meets the requirements of a circumplex has
not gone entirely unnoticed (Fouad, Cudeck, & Hansen, 1984;
Hogan, 1983; McCormick & Kavanagh, 1981; Trapnell, 1989).
Holland's model, therefore, has taken two forms: the order (cal-
culus assumption) model and the circumplex (hexagon). The
distinctions between Holland's order and circumplex models
have been ignored by many authors. Although Gati (1991)
refers to Holland's model as a hexagon, the focus of his research
has been more directed at evaluating the less restrictive form,
the order model, than the more restrictive circumplex.
Gati's Order Model
Gati (1979) proposed a hierarchical model that was based on
the results of cluster analysis. As it relates to Holland's six per-
sonality types, however, Gati's model shown in Figure 1 repre-
sents the RIASEC types by a three-group single partition: (R,
1), (A, S), (E, C). Gati's (1982) model predicts (p. 172) that the
correlations within cluster (i.e., R with I, A with S, and E with C)
should be greater than the correlations between the other 12
pairs of types (R A, RS, RE, RC, IA, IS, IE, 1C, AE, AC, SE, and
SC). Table 1 is a depiction of the 36 predictions yielded from the
three-group partition for the 15 RIASEC correlations. Of the
105 possible order predictions, Gati's model accounts for 34% of
these predictions. By not accounting for the relations among
the other 69 pairs of types, it is implied that these relations are
inconsequential in accounting for structural variation.
Comparing Holland's and Gati's Structural Models
When Gati (1982, 1991) made comparisons between the
three-group partition structure and Holland's order model, he
specified three types of order predictions: (a) 18 predictions that
were common to both models, (b) 36 predictions that were
unique to Holland's model; and (c) 18 predictions that were
unique to Gati's model. These three types of predictions, how-
ever, were based on Gati's (1991, p. 311) adoption of Wakefield
and Doughtie's (1973) incomplete representation of Holland's
order predictions. Wakefield and Doughtie—when proposing a
binomial test for Holland's order predictions, a statistical test
recently shown to be based on an inappropriate inference pro-
cedure (Hubert & Arabie, 1987)—specified 54 Holland order
predictions, omitting the 18 transitive predictions from the set
of 72 order predictions. These 18 transitive order predictions
(i.e., the predictions that the correlations for the six adjacent
types were greater than correlations for the three opposite
types) were implicitly generated by Holland's specifications
that the correlations for the adjacent types were greater than
correlations for alternate types, which were in turn greater than
correlations for opposite types.
Inspection of Table 1 shows that (a) Holland and Gati made
27 identical order predictions instead of the 18 common order
predictions given by Gati, (b) 45 order predictions were unique
to Holland's order model instead of the 36 predictions claimed
by Gati, and (c) 9 order predictions were unique to the Gati's
model instead of the 18 predictions claimed by Gati. Therefore,
Gati (1982,1991) incorrectly credited his three-group partition
structure with 9 order predictions that should have been repre-
sented as predictions common to both models. Given previous
studies of Holland's order model, the 18 transitive predictions
were more likely to be confirmed than the remaining 54 order
predictions, because it is rare to find an inconsistent circular
ordering of the RIASEC types (e.g., Gati, 1991; Prediger, 1982;
Rounds, in press). If the preceding analysis of the two models is
accepted, it follows that the empirical results generated by
Gati's (1982,1991) model comparisons do not completely repre-
sent a satisfactory test of the model-data fit of Holland's and
Gati's models.
There are several other salient points regarding the relative
merits of Holland's and Gati's hypothesized order relations.
First, an obvious but important observation is that Holland's
model generates order predictions for all possible pairs of corre-
lations, with the exception of the 33 equality constraints for
adjacent, alternate, and opposite pairs. In comparison, the
three-group partition generates much fewer order conjectures,
leaving 69 possible predictions unspecified. Thus, Holland's
model is more fully specified, providing a stronger set of the
conditions that should exist among the six personality types.
Second, comparison of the 36 order predictions generated by
Gati's partition structure with the same 36 order predictions
generated by Holland's order hypothesis shows that none of
these predictions are diametrically opposite order conjectures.
Holland and Gati made 27 identical order predictions. For the
remaining nine comparisons made by Gati, Holland's order
model generates no predictions, and Holland's circumplex
model predicts that these pairs of correlations (adjacent pairs
on the circumplex) are equal. Therefore, the three-group parti-
tion model does not offer a completely alternative structure to
Holland's order model or circumplex model (Hubert & Arabie,
1987), and in fact, the partition structure could be viewed
merely as suggesting nine additional order relationships that
might be present within the general form of the Holland struc-
ture. In such a case, a slightly more specified structure than
Holland's order model can be proposed, the Hollgat.
Hollgat RIASEC Model
The union of order predictions from Holland's and Gati's
models (abbreviated Hollgat) begins with the 27 order predic-
tions common to Holland's and Gati's theory, then adds Hol-
land's 45 predictions where Gati's model generates no predic-
tions, and finally adds Gati's 9 predictions where Holland's
order model generates no predictions, yielding a total of 81
RIASEC order predictions. It is apparent from the above com-
parison of models that a comparison of Gati's 36 order predic-
tions with Holland's 72 order predictions can only provide a
global comparison of predictive efficiency for the two models.
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GAITS MODELS
The Hollgat model, when compared with Holland's order
model, however, provides a way to evaluate Gati's 9 unique
order predictions.
In summary, previous specifications of Holland's order pre-
dictions have been incomplete, leading to incorrect order com-
parisons between Holland's and Gati's models. Two forms of
Holland's model were identified, an order model and a circum-
plex structure; and a third model, the Hollgat—which com-
bines the order predictions from Holland and Gati—was pro-
posed. The order predictions from Gati's three-group partition
structure were specified. The order predictions from Holland's
and Gati's models, and the Hollgat allow a direct comparison of
which model better represents the RIASEC relations. Holland's
circumplex structure, a stronger version of the order model, is
the preferred model, because it specifies all possible RIASEC
relations.
Quantitative Methods for Integrating
Covariation Results
After Holland and his associates at the American College
Testing Program reported finding that the Vocational Prefer-
ence Inventory scales (Holland, Whitney, Cole, & Richards,
1969) and the Strong Vocational Interest Blank Basic Interest
scales and Occupational scales for both men and women were
organized in a similar circular fashion (Cole, 1973; Cole & Han-
son, 1971), researchers and testing specialists began to assess
the generalizability of Holland's RIASEC structure. Two re-
search directions emerged: (a) Commercial test developers be-
gan to apply Holland's definitions of the RIASEC types and
structure to vocational-interest items from existing measures
(Campbell & Holland, 1972; Hansen & Johansson, 1972;
Rounds, Davison, & Dawis, 1979) as well as to the development
of new vocational-interest inventories (Hanson, Prediger, &
Schussel, 1977; Harrington & O'Shea, 1982; Johansson, 1976,
1986), and (b) a concerted research effort was begun to assess
the generalizability of Holland's RIASEC structure across sam-
ple characteristics such as sex and educational status (e.g., Crab-
tree & Hales, 1974; Tuck & Keeling, 1980; Wigington, 1983)
and cultures (e.g., Hansen, 1987; Lokan & Taylor, 1986; Meir &
Ben-Yehuda, 1976).
By the mid-1980s, over 40 studies had been published exam-
ining one or more structure-of-interest models, but opinions
varied on how well the Holland, Roe, or Gati models fit the
data and on the generalizability of these models (e.g., see Gati,
1991; Hansen, 1984, 1987; Holland, 1985; Prediger, 1982;
Rounds, in press; Rounds & Zevon, 1983; Spokane, 1985;
Weinrach & Srebalus, 1990, for reviews). Typically, reviewers
relied on a few selected studies, subjectively gave more weight to
studies that supported their point of view, and used narrative
approaches to arrive at conclusions—criticisms that have been
made of traditional literature review practices (Wolf, 1986). It
seems that a quantitative approach to integrating the structural
findings is needed, a meta-analytic strategy that can more pre-
cisely and systematically evaluate findings across a variety of
measures, samples, and data-analytic techniques.
For structural integration procedures to be useful, they
should provide a global test of model fit across results from
covariation analyses or an index of fit for each study, a measure
233
of comparative model fit, that can be used to integrate the
findings. The statistical methods of Hubert and Arabic's (1987)
order tests, confirmatory factor analysis (Bentler, 1989;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986), and individual-differences cluster
analysis (Arabic, Carroll, & DeSarbo, 1987) meet these criteria.
When applied to covariation results such as correlation or co-
variance matrices from published studies, these methods, simi-
lar to Glass's (1976) definition of meta-analysis, are a "statisti-
cal analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individ-
ual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings" (p. 3).
Prediger (1982) made one of the first attempts to use quanti-
tative methods to summarize the RIASEC structural literature.
He applied Cooley and Lohnes's (1971) factor program, a prin-
cipal-component technique that extracts factors to fit a speci-
fied target matrix, to 24 published correlation matrices from
seven different RIASEC inventories. Prediger reported, after a
visual examination of each of the 24 two-dimensional factor
plots, that the RIASEC circular arrangement was found for 23
of the 24 data sets. Trapnell (1989) separately evaluated 11 matri-
ces from five RIASEC inventories for the fit of each to a cir-
cumplex using MULTICORR (Steiger, 1979). He reported that
the circumplex demonstrated adequate fit to the 11 RIASEC
matrices. Although the box scores (vote counting) from these
studies support Holland's model, neither Prediger's nor Trap-
nell's methods examined variation across matrices or provided
an aggregate measure of fit for the total set of matrices. Rounds
(in press) used three-way multidimensional scaling(MDS) anal-
ysis to integrate 60 RIASEC correlation matrices. The results
for an unconstrained MDS analysis demonstrated that a RIA-
SEC circular arrangement existed over the 60 matrices and that
the interpoint distances among the six types met all 72 of Hol-
land's order predictions. Rounds, then, constrained the MDS
analysis to Prediger's (1976,1982) circumplex representation of
the RIASEC relations. Results indicated that Prediger's cir-
cumplex model was a reasonable approximation of the rela-
tions among RIASEC types and that existing RIASEC invento-
ries varied in how well they were explained by a circumplex
model. In summary, Prediger's, Trapnell's, and Rounds's stud-
ies indicate that existing multivariate techniques can be used to
integrate the findings from previous RIASEC covariation stud-
ies to make sense of the conflicting interpretations of the ex-
panding structure-of-interest literature.
In the present study, we used three statistical methods to
integrate results from existing correlational studies of RIASEC
types to evaluate the model-data fit of Holland's spatial repre-
sentation and Gati's discrete representation. Three analytical
procedures were used, because three different kinds of repre-
sentations were hypothesized by Holland and Gati. In terms of
Holland's and Gati's order predictions, these models can be
directly compared using Hubert and Arabic's (1987) methods of
evaluating order hypotheses within proximity matrices. To eval-
uate Holland's circumplex, we used confirmatory factor analy-
sis (see Wiggins, Steiger, & Gaelick, 1981, for a similar ap-
proach), and to evaluate Gati's three-group partition, we used
an individual-differences cluster-analytic technique. The latter
two statistical procedures can analyze three-way data (i.e., more
than one matrix), therefore allowing a global test of overall
model-data fit. For the factor and cluster analyses, we pro-
234 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS

posed alternative representations of the RIASEC model to as-
sist in evaluating model-data fit.
Method
Sample
The sampling unit was a RIASEC correlation matrix. RIASEC
scales were identified using two criteria: (a) an author's claim that the
six scales were developed to assess Holland's RIASEC personality
types and (b) empirical evidence that supported the inference that the
RIASEC scales under consideration measured Holland's types. The
latter information was principally drawn from correlational studies of
the presumed RIASEC form with the Vocational Preference Inventory
and the Self-Directed Search, Holland's benchmark measures of the
RIASEC personality types.
We, therefore, began by identifying measures of Holland's types.
Although a number of measures are well known, for example, General
Occupational Theme scales of the Strong Interest Inventory, an at-
tempt was made to identify less commercially successful RIASEC
forms: Reviews of interest measures were read from the Eighth and
Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbooks (Euros, 1978; Mitchell, 1985).
Out-of-print RIASEC inventories were identified during the actual
literature search for matrices.
Search Procedures
RIASEC Correlation Matrices
We located 104 RIASEC matrices in 58 published and unpublished
sources (see Appendix for source references). The samples sizes for
these matrices ranged from 44 to 2,621; 96 of the matrices were based
on sample sizes greater than 100 subjects, and 54 of the matrices were
based on samples greater than 300 subjects. The total sample size for
the 104 matrices was 47,268. Selected characteristics of the 104 RIA-
SEC matrices are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that the 104 RIASEC matrices came from 11 invento-
ries. Measures constructed by Holland, Vocational Preference Inven-
tory and Self-Directed Search, accounted for 51 matrices, approxi-
mately 50% of the total. The remaining matrices largely came from the
editions of the Strong Interest Inventory (n = 22) and versions of the
American College Testing Program interest inventories (n = 18). The
majority of matrices were generated from people residing in the United
States. The surprising number of matrices from Australia was due to
the Australian Council for Educational Research and their efforts to
develop Australian versions of the Vocational Preference Inventory
and Self-Directed Search (Lokan & Taylor, 1986). On the other hand,
we located a number of RIASEC structural studies from Canada (e.g..
Rachman, Amernic, & Aranya, 1981) and Israel (e.g., Feldman & Meir,
1976), but correlation matrices were not reported. Finally, Table 2
shows the breakdown of sample by sex and age. The upper bounds for
the age groups were chosen to represent the transitions from high
school to postsecondary schooling to work. Essentially, the age groups
represented samples of Grade 8 to Grade 12 (14-18 years), postsecond-
ary schooling, usually college (19-22 years), and employed adults (age
23 and on).

Once a RIASEC inventory was identified, current and former edi- Table 2
tions of test (technical) manuals were searched for matrices. Because
the first alternative RIASEC inventories were not developed until the
Selected Characteristics of the 104 RIASEC Matrices
early 1970s, our search concentrated on the period of 1970 to 1989. In Characteristic n
the case of the Vocational Preference Inventory, however, the search
extended back to the seventh edition, published in 1965. Inventory
Bibliographies in test manuals, annual reviews in the Journal of Vocational Preference Inventory 34
Vocational Behavior (1976-1989), and Making Vocational Choices: A Self-Directed Search 17
Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments (Holland, Strong Vocational Interest Blank 5
1973,1985) were searched for relevant references. An article-by-article Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory '7
search was made for the 1970-1989 issues of Journal of Vocational ACT Vocational Interest Profile 6
ACT Interest Inventory 2
Behavior, Journal ofCounseling Psychology, Measurement and Evalua- ACT Interest Inventory, Unisex Edition 10
tion in Counseling and Development, Journal of Applied Psychology, Career Assessment Inventory, Vocational 2
Vocational Guidance Quarterly, Educational and Psychological Measure- Career Assessment Inventory, Enhanced 2
ment, and Journal of Occupational Psychology. In two cases, an effort Career Decision-Making Interest Survey 4
was made to search sources of limited circulation: American College Queensland Career Information Index 4
Testing Program Research Reports (Nos. 1-86) and dissertations cited A Vocational Interest Survey . 1
in published sources that contained data on samples located outside Country
the United States and samples (e.g., ethnic-racial and vocational coun- United States 77
Australia 15
seling) that are underrepresented in the published structural literature. Guyana 4
The reference lists of studies examining RIASEC structural properties Republic of China (Taiwan) 4
were also inspected for relevant articles. New Zealand 3
In the case in which authors reported RIASEC matrices separately Mexico 1
for females and males and for age groups, these matrices were used Sex
instead of a matrix that combined the samples across subject charac- Male 44
teristics. Coding matrices by sample characteristics allowed an evalua- Female 41
tion of the generality of Holland's and Gati's models. When a study had Mixed-sex sample 19
two matrices that were based on the same sample, that is, the same Age
14-18 years 41
subject sample completed two RIASEC measures, one of the two matri- 19-22 years 20
ces was selected for inclusion. The initial search and data entry were >22 years 18
conducted by graduate assistants. Errors common to quantitative re- Mixed-age sample 25
views (Wanous, Sullivan, & Malinak, 1989) were minimized by having
the second author reconduct the complete literature search and proof Note. RIASEC = realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising,
the data entry from original sources. conventional; ACT = American College Testing.
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GATI'S MODELS
Results and Discussion
Analysis of Order Predictions
Typically, examinations of RIASEC order predictions use the
binomial test proposed by Wakefield and Doughtie (1973; e.g.,
Bobele, Alston, Wakefield, & Doughtie, 1976; Bobele, Alston,
Wakefield, & Schnitzen, 1975; Gati, 1982; Rounds et al., 1979;
Tuck & Keeling, 1980). Hubert and Arabie (1987) pointed out
that the use of the binomial test to examine order hypotheses is
inappropriate because it includes the untenable assumption of
independence of order predictions. As a more appropriate al-
ternative to the binomial test, Hubert and Arabie proposed the
randomization test of hypothesized order relations. The ran-
domization test of hypothesized order relations yields the exact
probability of obtaining the predicted order among the correla-
tions in a specific data set under the null conjecture that the six
RIASEC types are reordered at random. In this test, all possi-
ble ways of rearranging the rows and columns of the correlation
matrix are done, and the fit of the hypothesized model to all
these reorderings serves as the distribution against which the fit
of the hypothesized model to the original data is compared.
This randomization test is described with examples of applica-
tions to RIASEC matrices in Rounds, Tracey, and Hubert
(1992).
The randomization test was conducted using RANDORD
(Tracey, 1991) to examine the extent to which the hypothesized
order relations held within the RIASEC correlation matrices
for the Holland order, the Gati three-group-partition, and the
Hollgat models.1 The distribution of the exact probability val-
ues for each of the models across the 104 RIASEC matrices are
presented in Figure 2. Ninety of the p values for Holland's order
model and 95 for the Hollgat model were less than .05. None of
the p values for the Gati model were less than .05. However, this
failure of Gati's model to significantly fit the data was largely
attributable to the relatively few predictions made. Even with
perfect fit to the data, the best probability level that could be
achieved using Gati's model was .07 because so few of the total
number of possible predictions were taken into account.
Clearly, with respect to the probability of obtaining hypothe-
sized orders in the data under a null conjecture of a random
reordering of the six types, Holland's order and the Hollgat
models demonstrated good fit to the data.
Hubert and Arabie (1987) proposed a correspondence index
to enable comparison of hypothesized order fit between mod-
els. The correspondence index was the number of agreements
of data with model predictions minus the number of disagree-
ments divided by the total number of predictions made, which
yielded information on the utility of the predictions. The corre-
spondence indices from each matrix were examined for the
three models, and the means and standard deviations of these
indices are presented in Table 3. The repeated measures analy-
sis of variance conducted on the correspondence indices across
the three models (Gati, Holland, and the Hollgat) yielded a
significant result, F(2,102) = 147.24, p < .0001, indicating that
there were differences in the correspondence indices for each
of the models. Post hoc pairwise t tests revealed that the fit of
Gati's model, r(103) = 3.15, p < .002, and Holland's order
model, /(103) = 7.71, p < .001, were greater than that of the
235
Hollgat model. Given that the Hollgat model was identical to
Holland's order model except for the addition of the nine
unique predictions made by Gati, the lower correspondence
index value of the Hollgat model in relation to Holland's order
model provided information on the validity of the nine unique
predictions. These nine predictions resulted in a lower corre-
spondence index for the Hollgat model and so appeared to not
fit the data as well.
To further understand the differences among the models, we
examined three submodels: a model consisting of the 9 unique
predictions made by Gati, a model consisting of the 27 predic-
tions shared by Gati and Holland, and a model consisting of the
45 predictions unique to Holland. We found the correspon-
dence index for Gati's unique 9 predictions to have a mean
value of .32 (SD = .37), which was significantly lower, ?(103) =
12.63, p < .001, than the correspondence index values for the
Holland-Gati 27 shared predictions (M= .75, SD = .18) or the
45 unique Holland predictions (M = .56, SD = .24), /(103) =
5.10, p < .001. The fit of Gati's model to the data therefore
appeared more attributable to the 27 predictions that it shared
with Holland's order model than to the 9 unique predictions.
The meta-analytic literature (cf. Bangert-Drowns, 1986;
Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Ro-
senthal, 1984) has demonstrated the importance of sample size
on effect-size estimates. If a differential relation of model fit to
sample size were true, the aggregation of these fit indices across
matrices without taking account of sample size could lead to
invalid conclusions. To examine this potential bias, the corre-
spondence indices from Gati's and Holland's order models were
correlated with sample size. Both correlations were low, posi-
tive, and significantly different from 0 (r = . 18 for Gati's model
and .26 for Holland's model), indicating that each model fit
better to matrices that were larger and more stable. In addition,
the differences in the Gati and Holland correlations with sam-
ple size were examined by means of a t test for differences
between two correlation coefficients from correlated samples
(Steiger, 1980), and they were not found to differ from each
other, ;(101) = 1.30, p> .05. As a further examination of this
potential bias, the means of the correspondence indices
weighted by relative sample size for each of the models were
calculated. The weighted correspondence index means were
.68 for Gati's model (compared with an unweighted mean of
.64), .69 for Holland's order model (compared with an un-
weighted mean of .63), and .65 for the Hollgat model (compared
with an unweighted mean of .60). As expected, the weighted
means of the correspondence indices were slightly higher than
the unweighted ones, but similar relative relations held.
We evaluated the generalizability of the three models across
the variables of nationality, inventory, sex, and age. The means
and standard deviations of the correspondence indices for
these variables also are reported in Table 3. Although it would
have been desirable to also examine ethnic-minority status dif-
ferences in the fit of the models, there were not enough matri-
1
RANDORD is a FORTRAN program to conduct Hubert and Ara-
bic's (1987) randomization test on RIASEC matrices. Copies of the
program can be obtained from Terence J. Tracey by enclosing a 3.5-in.
or a 5.25-in. DOS formatted disk with the request.
236 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS
80.,
60.
u Holland Model
c
Q)
40
20.
.05 .10
Probability Level
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of the exact probability values of the Gati, Holland,
and Hollgat models for the 104 matrices.
ces to warrant an examination here. The analyses of variance
conducted on the correspondence indices across nationality
(United States vs. other countries) revealed that the Gati model
fit the data equally well for each group, F(l, 101) = 0.32, p > .05,
although there was significantly better fit for the Holland order,
F(\, 101) = 40.80, p < .001, and the Hollgat, F(l, 101)= 32.25,
p < .001, models for the U.S. matrices compared with the non-
US, matrices. Because of nationality differences and the lack of
homogeneity in the non-US, matrices (they included many
countries, such as Guyana, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand;
some used English inventories, and others did not), we re-
stricted subsequent examinations of source characteristics to
the US.-only matrices.
For the US.-only matrices, the analyses of variance con-
ducted on the fit correspondence indices across RIASEC mea-
sure were not significant, indicating that there were no differ-
ences in the model-data fit for the three models across the
major RIASEC measures. The analyses of variance conducted
across sex and age also were not significant for the Holland
order or for the Hollgat models. The Gati model, however, dem-
onstrated significant differences in the correspondence indices
across both sex and age. Gati's model was found to fit female
matrices better than male matrices, F(l, 60) = 4.05, p < .05, and
18-22-year-olds better than those younger or older, F(2, 57) =
3.90, p < .05.
Overall, the Holland's order model yielded the best fit to the
data because (a) it was found to be a statistically adequate repre-
sentation of the data in almost every case, (b) it demonstrated
superior fit to the Hollgat model in the examination of the
correspondence indices, (c) the unique predictions made by
Holland's model fit the data better than the unique predictions
made by Gati's model, and (d) the fit of Holland's order model
Gati Model
Hollgat Model
T i
.15 .20 .25 .30
to the 104 matrices was not found to vary across the important
variables of inventory, sex, or age.
The examination of the fit of Holland's order model across
the variables of nationality, RIASEC measure, sex, and age did
reveal some interesting differences. Nationality was related to
the adequacy of fit for Holland's order model. U.S. matrices
were better represented by Holland's model than were non-US,
matrices, raising questions of (a) the adequacy of using U.S.
RIASEC measures with non-US, populations, (b) the adequacy
of non-English RIASEC measures, and (c) the adequacy of the
circumplex model in non-US, cultures. However, the poorer fit
of Holland's order model to non-US, matrices was limited by
the heterogeneous nature of the non-US, matrices. These matri-
ces were composed of very different cultures and tended, as a
set, to be of the poorest quality of the 104 matrices in terms of
sample size and sampling procedures used. Obviously, the most
immediate focus should be on generating adequate measures to
use with non-US, populations before rejecting the circumplex
as a theoretical representation of the structure of interests.
Within US. matrices, Holland's order model was found to
yield similar fits to the data across the variables of sex, RIASEC
measure, and age. This lack of a sex difference did not support
previous conclusions that males demonstrate a better fit to the
RIASEC structure (Edwards & Whitney, 1972; Feldman &
Meir, 1976; Gati, 1991; Rounds et al, 1979; Tuck & Keeling,
1980); rather, the multiple matrices examined in this study pro-
vided support for the claim that Holland's model represents the
interests of both sexes equally well. The similarity in the fit of
Holland's order model across inventory was somewhat surpris-
ing, given the number and variety of items used. The lack of
difference in fit across age supported the utility of Holland's
model with a wide variety of age groups. Suggestions that
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GATI'S MODELS 237

Table 3
Correspondence Indices for the Order Predictions Made by Gati's Three-Group Partition,
Holland's Order, and the Hollgat Models Over 104 RIASEC Matrices
Gati Holland Hollgat
Variable n M SD M SD M SD

Total 104 .64 .19 .63 .18 .60 .17

Nationality
U.S. 77 .65 .20 .69 .14 .64 .14
Non-U.S. 26 .63 .18 .46 .18 .46 .16
f(l, 101) 0.32 40.80** 32.25**

U.S. samples only

Inventory
VPI 22 .71 .22 .71 .13 .67 .14
SDS 11 .70 .16 .63 .13 .61 .12
ACTP 18 .60 .15 .71 .14 .65 .12
SH 18 .65 .22 .72 .15 .68 .14
F(3, 73) 1.26 1.12 0.68
Sex
Male 31 .60 .19 .70 .15 .64 .14
Female 31 .69 .16 .70 .11 .66 .12
f(l,60) 4.05* 0.01 2.34
Age
14-18 25 .63 .19 .68 .16 .64 .14
18-22 15 .77 .16 .75 .12 .72 .13
>22 20 .62 .17 .68 .13 .62 .12
F(2, 57) 3.90* 1.45 2.73
Note. RIASEC = realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, conventional; VPI = Vocational
Preference Inventory; SDS = Self-Directed Search; ACTP = American College Testing Program (includes
Vocational Interest Profile, ACT Interest Inventory, and ACT Interest Inventory, Unisex Edition); SII =
Strong interest inventories (Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory and Strong Vocational Interest Blank).
*p<.05. **p<. 001.

younger samples would yield a different structure (e.g., Gati,
1991) were not supported.
Analysis of Spatial Structure
The method of examining circumplex models was described
by Joreskog (1974) and involves viewing the RIASEC types as
six factors and establishing constraints on the values that can
exist among the factor correlations. Three parameters are used
to describe the relations that exist among the six types. This
three-parameter circumplex model is displayed in Table 4 and
consists of one parameter (a) to represent correlations between
adjacent variables (e.g., RI and IA), one parameter (b) to repre-
sent correlations among alternate variables (e.g., RA and IS),
and the third parameter (c) to represent correlations between
opposite variables (RS and IE). Each parameter is constrained
to be equal (i.e., all as are equal, as are all bs and all cs); as are
assumed to be greater than bs, which are greater than cs. This
three-parameter model describes a circular ordering of the
types with equal spacing around the circle.
We also examined adaptations of Gati's three-group-parti-
tion model and the Hollgat model; these adaptations are also
represented in Table 4. Gati's three-group-partition model was
adapted using a four-parameter model, with the correlation
within each of the three groups representing one parameter
each (RI labeled d, AS labeled e, and EC labeled /); all the
other correlations were constrained to be equal (labeled g) and
lower in value than any of the other parameters. Although Gati
made no assumption that these other, nongroup, correlations
were equal, he did propose (Gati, 1982, p. 172) that they were
uniformly lower than the correlations within the three groups.
Setting these other correlations to be equal and lower was in
keeping with their lack of salience in accounting for the data
distributions discussed earlier.
Because Gati (1991) proposed combinations of his three-
group-partition model with the circumplex model, two compos-
ite cluster-circumplex models were also examined. Spatial rep-
resentations of these two combined circumplex-three-group-
partition models, along with the circumplex model, are
presented in Figure 3. The first modified model is similar to
the Hollgat model above in that it accounts for the nine unique
order predictions generated by Gati in addition to those of the
circumplex. Here it was labeled the combined circumplex-three-
group-partition model and was operationalized identically to
the circumplex model except that one extra parameter was
added to account for the differences among the adjacent pairs
that belonged to Gati's three clusters and those that did not.
Specifically, the correlations among grouping pairs (RI, AS,
and EC) were constrained to be equal (labeled as h in Table 3)
and greater than those between the other adjacent pairs (I A, SE,
and CR, labeled 0- The other parameters concerning alternate
pairs (labeled j) and opposite pairs (labeled k) were unchanged.
238 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS

Table 4 biased test statistics, biased parameter estimates, and biased

Parameters Assumed Within an RIASEC Correlation Matrix standard errors of parameter estimates. It is more desirable to
for the Four Models Examined use covariance matrices because problems of scale invariance
do not then arise. However, rarely do authors include correla-
Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 tion matrices, much less covariance matrices (or a correlation
Circumplex and 3-group-partition models 8 matrix with means and standard deviations) in their research
reports. Regardless, the problem of violation of scale invariance
1. Realistic a b c b a is not relevant here because all of the specific models examined
2. Investigative d — a b c b
3. Artistic g g — a b c were scale invariant and thus yielded identical results with ei-
4. Social g g e — a b ther correlation or covariance matrices. Other models, how-
5. Enterprising g g g g — a ever, may not be scale invariant, which is why it is important to
6. Conventional g g g g / — include means and standard deviations along with correlation
Combined circumplex-3-group-partition and combined circumplex- matrices in published reports.
unequal-3-group-partition models'" The parameters of each of these four hypothesized models
(circumplex, three-group partition, combined circumplex-
1. Realistic — h J k j /
2. Investigative / i k three-group partition, and combined circumplex-unequal-
— J j
3. Artistic o n — h j k three-group partition) were constrained to be identical across
4. Social P 0 m — i j all correlation matrices. This identical parameter constraint
5. Enterprising 0 P o n — h yields conservative indices of fit as each data matrix is com-
6. Conventional n o P o / — pared against one single, empirically derived model matrix.
Note. Identical letters indicate that the parameters have equal values; To provide a referent model, a "free" model, allowing all 15
otherwise, the following relations are assumed among the parameters correlations to be empirically estimated across the 104 matri-
(a>b> c), (d>g),(e>g),(/>g),(h>i> j>k),and(/> m> n> o> p). ces, was also analyzed. The only constraint placed on this free,
* The circumplex model parameters are displayed above the diagonal; 15-parameter model (1 parameter for each entry in the correla-
the three-group partition model parameters are displayed below the tion matrix) was that the parameters were constant overall 104
diagonal. b The combined circumplex-three-group-partition model
parameters are displayed above the diagonal; the combined circum- matrices, as in all the other models. The free model provided a
plex-unequal-three-group model parameters are displayed below the benchmark against which the above four, more restrictive, mod-
diagonal. els could be compared.
The fit of each model to the data is summarized in Table 5.
Although the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistics were signifi-
This modification kept the circumplex structure but captured cant for each model, this was expected, given the very large
the hypothesized higher relation among the three group sample size, the large number of matrices, and the conservative
members. nature of fitting each matrix to the identical single set of param-
The other modification of the circumplex was proposed by eters. Even the free, 15-parameter model was found to be signifi-
Gati (1991, Figure 3, p. 318) and was labeled the combined cant, attesting to the variation in correlation values over the 104
circumplex-unequal-three-group-partition model. Gati recog- matrices. More information about the relative fit of the models
nized that the relation within the AS group was not as high as it is provided by the Bentler and Bonett (1980) normed fit index
was within the other two groups (RI and EC) and as such pro- (BBNFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973),
posed a modified circular arrangement of the RIASEC types the goodness-of-fit index (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986) and
but with the two groups, RI and EC, being more highly related the parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (PGFI; Mulaik et al.,
than AS, which was more highly related than the remaining 1989). The BBNFI and TLI yielded information on the fit of
adjacent types. The combined circumplex-unequal-three- each model, in relation to a null model of six independent fac-
group-partition model was identical to the above combined tors, across the whole 104 matrix data set, whereas the GFI and
circumplex-three-group-partition model except that it took ac- PGFI are provided for each sample matrix. The BBNFI, TLI,
count the lower correlation within the AS group than within and GFI are all analogous to variance accounted for, whereas
the RI and EC groups. So it had an extra parameter to represent PGFI also takes account of model parsimony (i.e., the number
the AS correlation to the combined circumplex-three-group- of parameters estimated). The BBNFI and TLI both indicate
partition model. All other relations were defined as identical to that there is relatively little difference in fit among the circum-
the circumplex resulting in five parameters (in order of size of plex and two modified circumplex models and that none of
correlation): / = RI and EC; m = AS; n = I A, SE, and CR; o = all these models were that different from the 15-parameter free
alternate pairs; and p - all opposite pairs. model. The main difference in the models existed between the
The analysis of the relative merits of these models was exam- three-group partition model and the other three models. The
ined by means of LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986) on the mean GFIs from the individual matrices yielded a similar con-
104 correlation matrices with the maximum likelihood method clusion. The circumplex, whether as originally described or as
of estimation. Cudeck (1989) argued that although useofcovari- modified by the inclusion of some of Gati's concepts, fits the
ance modeling—as was done here—on correlation matrices data best. However, the utility of adding an extra parameter for
was common, even typical, it was undesirable because of issues the combined circumplex-three-group-partition model (in-
relating to scale invariance. If the assumption of scale invar- formed by Gati's three-group-partition model) or of adding two
iance is untenable, the use of correlation matrices can result in extra parameters for the combined circumplex-unequal-three-
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GATI'S MODELS 239
R R

Circumplex Combined Circumplex/

Three-Group Partition

Combined Circumplex/Unequal
Three-Group Partition

Figure 3. A representation of the circumplex model and the two combined circumplex-three-group-par-
tition models. (R = realistic, I = investigative, A = artistic, S = social, E = enterprising, C = conventional).

group partition model (proposed by Gati, 1991) is question-
able, as indicated by the lower PGFI values. The fits of these
combined models were only very slightly better than that of the
regular circumplex, so it is not clear whether the proposed struc-
tural modifications were valuable additions. The circumplex
structure proposed by Holland appeared to be the most parsi-
monious and adequate fit to the data.
The fit of the circumplex model to the 104 matrices counters
Gati's (1991) claim that the assumption of equality of correla-
tions among adjacent types is invalid. As examined here, the
circumplex assumes equality of adjacent-type correlations but
also equality of alternate-type correlations and equality of op-
posite-type correlations. The support provided for this ex-
tremely restrictive model is impressive given the wide variety of
matrices, measures, and matrix characteristics included.
Analysis of Discrete Structure
Given that Gati's three-group-partition model was derived
using clustering methods (i.e., ADDTREE; Sattath & Tversky,
1977), that Gati viewed his model as a discrete hierarchical one,
and that Gati (1991) noted that the nonoverlapping basis of his
model might be a liability, we decided to assess the extent to
which similar results would be obtained using a clustering tech-
nique that enabled both overlapping or nonoverlapping clusters
(Shepard & Arabic, 1979). We used INDCLUS (Carroll & Ara-
bic, 1982) to examine the discrete structure of the RIASEC
types because of its ability to examine three-way data, as well as
to generate nonmutually exclusive clusters (Arabic et al., 1987).
Given the "fuzzier" nature of our variables, it made sense to use
cluster models that could incorporate overlap among the clus-
240 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS

Table 5
Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Indices on the Five Models
Across 104 RIASEC Matrices
GFI
PGFI'
Model df x2 BBNFI TLI M SD M
Holland's circumplex 1557 13,940.57 .80 .81 .91 .05 .73
3-group partition 1556 20,817.74 .70 .71 .85 .06 .62
Combined circumplex-3-group
partition 1556 13,113.83 .83 .91 .05 .66
Combined circumplex-unequal-3-group
partition 1555 12,311.86 .82 .84 .92 .05 .62
Free 15 parameter 1545 10,645.75 .85 .86 .94 .05 .94

Note. RIASEC = realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, conventional; BBNFI = Bentler and
Bonett's (1980) normed fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973); GFI = goodness-of-
fit index (Joreskog&Sorbom, 1986); and PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (Mulaik et al., 1989).
" The standard deviations for the PGFI estimates are identical to those for the GFI estimates.

ters. Furthermore, given its ability to incorporate overlap, IND- rated from R. Because of (a) the relatively small difference in
CLUS could provide a more appropriate examination of an the VAFs between the three- and four-cluster unconstrained
overlapping circular structure in addition to the standard, mu- models, (b) the similarity of cluster composition involved across
tually exclusive cluster structure. the three- and four-cluster solutions, and (c) the added complex-
The fit of Gati's nonoverlapping-three-group-partition ity of adding another cluster for six objects, the three-cluster
model to the data as well as that of several other models was solution appeared to be superior and perhaps the best represen-
examined. If the circular ordering of the RIASEC types was tation of the data, given its fit and parsimony.
valid, then two alternative cluster solutions would be sug- The fit of Gati's nonoverlapping-three-group-partition solu-
gested. First, the reverse of Gati's three-group partition model, tion (VAF = .36) was not as good as any of the above models, nor
specifically the nonoverlapping-three-group partitions of IA, was it superior to the unconstrained two-cluster model (VAF =
SE, and CR, would be an informative alternative. If Gati's .36). Viewing the cluster structure in nonoverlapping terms is
model fit the data better than the reverse of his model, some simpler and clearer than the overlapping structure, but such
support would be yielded for the superiority of this specific simplicity may not be valuable when viewed in the light of data
three-group partition in relation to other conceivable ones. Sec- fit. Too much information is lost in the nonoverlapping struc-
ond, perhaps the best discrete depiction of a circular order ture. However, Gati's nonoverlapping-three-group-partition so-
among the RIASEC relations was one in which there were six lution was superior in data fit to the reverse nonoverlapping-
overlapping clusters that were linked in pairs: RI, IA, AS, SE, three-group-partition solution (VAF =.18). Note, however, that
EC, and CR. in the unconstrained three-cluster model, the only adjacent
Along with examining the fit of each of these three models in
a confirmatory manner (by constraining cluster membership),
we also used INDCLUS in an exploratory manner to identify Table 6
the optimal two-, three-, and four-cluster solutions for compara- Summary of the Individual-Differences Cluster Analysis
tive purposes. In these exploratory analyses, no constraints Across 104 RIASEC Matrices
were placed on cluster membership, and the INDCLUS pro-
gram used an iterative process to select optimal cluster mem- Variance
accounted
bership. Thus, six models were examined: Gati's nonoverlap- Model for (VAF)
ping-three-group partition, the reverse of Gati's three nonover-
lapping groups, six linked overlapping clusters, and the two, Unconstrained 4 cluster .56
three, and four unconstrained clusters. The composition and (a) S, E, C (b) I, A, S
variance accounted for (VAF) of each of these models as pro- (c) E, C, R (d) R, I
Unconstrained 3 cluster .48
vided by INDCLUS is presented in Table 6. (a) S, E, C (b) R, I, A
The best fit to the data was the six-linked-cluster solution. (c) E, C, R
The six-linked-cluster model approximated the circular order- Unconstrained 2 cluster .36
ing of the data. The next best fit existed for the three- and (a) S, E, C (b) R, I, A, S
Gati 3-group partition .36
four-cluster solutions, with VAFs of .48 and .56, respectively. (a) R, I (b) A, S (c) E, C
The three-cluster solution had the types R, C, and E serving as Opposite Gati 3-group partition .18
the linking cluster between the other two clusters. The only (a) I, A (b) S, E (c) R, C
difference between the three- and four-cluster solutions was Linked 6 cluster .63
that the fourth cluster was just a division of the RIA cluster in (a) R, I (b) I, A (c) A, S
(d) S, E (e) E, C (f) C, R
the three-cluster solution into two clusters, where A was sepa-
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GAITS MODELS
types (in terms of Holland's order and circumplex models) that
were not included in the same cluster were A and S, demonstrat-
ing the greater difference between these two adjacent variables
than between other adjacent variables.
Given these results, in which A and S do not appear to belong
to the same cluster and the fit of the six-linked-cluster model is
superior, it appears that Gati's mutually exclusive model may
not be an adequate representation not only with respect to its
mutually exclusive nature but also because of the specific inclu-
sion of A and S into the same cluster. Gati (1991, p. 317) did
note that one way to improve his model would be to allow
overlap among the groups and that the artistic type might best
belong in a group by itself (although it is not clear what group
social types would belong to if this separation of artistic types
were to occur or how the resulting model would look). Overall,
the results were not supportive of the three-group-nonoverlap-
ping-partition model of Gati. Although it was superior to the
reverse nonoverlapping-three-group-partition model, it did not
incorporate aspects of the other cluster models that demon-
strated superior fit to the data. So, even with an analysis that
would favor the discrete structure of Gati's partition, little sup-
port was found.
Summary and Implications
Gati's (1991) conclusion that Holland's model was flawed
and that his own three-g'roup-partition model of RIASEC types
was superior is questionable on both empirical and logical
grounds. To the contrary, we found considerable support for the
superiority of Holland's model. The results of the three separate
analyses, each examining Gati's and Holland's models from
varying perspectives, provide evidence of the superiority of
Holland's models (both the order model and the circumplex
model) over Gati's three-group partition. Support for the superi-
ority of Holland's models was provided using the methods ad-
vocated by Gati (1991, p. 319) of testing predictions on the raw
data itself (i.e., correlation matrices) and of using a variety of
different types of analyses to obviate the idiosyncrasies of each
analysis.
Gati's Criticism of Holland's Model
Gati (1991) posed a number of criticisms of Holland's model,
for example, issues of dimensionality, interpretation of dimen-
sions, inconsistency of Holland's ordering of types, and vari-
ance in the distances between adjacent types. For each criti-
cism, Gati selected several studies to support his argument,
ignoring, in most cases, studies that were not supportive of
these criticisms. Although we differ with the interpretation and
adequacy of these selected studies, it seems that most of these
criticisms would have been better addressed empirically, using
a quantitative approach to synthesize the literature rather than a
narrative one. Our analyses countered many of the problems
with Holland's model claimed by Gati (1991). However, two
issues in Gati's criticism of Holland's model that merit com-
ment are his equating of Roe's and Holland's models and the
presence of the "hole in the middle" of the circumplex model.
Although we focused only on Gati's (1991) criticism of Hol-
land's model of RIASEC interests, Gati also examined the
241
structure of interests using Roe's (1956) fields. However, instead
of examining the merits of his model in relation to Holland's
model on RIASEC types and his model in relation to Roe's on
Roe's fields separately, Gati (1991) linked Holland's and Roe's
models by labeling these two structures the hexagonal-circular
model, thereby creating the perception that criticisms of Hol-
land's structure were applicable to Roe's structure and vice
versa. For example, Gati (1991) stated, "to conclude, the combi-
nation of the conceptual and the empirical problems faced by
the circular-hexagonal structure just discussed raises doubts
regarding the model's adequacy [emphasis added ] and indicates
the need for an alternative" (p. 312). Granted that both Holland
and Roe proposed spatial models and that several attempts
(Lunneborg & Lunneborg, 1975; Meir & Ben-Yehuda, 1976)
have been made to document that the two models parallel each
other, Holland and Roe had different vocational-interest catego-
ries and measures to assess these categories, and most impor-
tant, researchers have yet to replicate Roe's hypothesized circu-
lar order of interest categories (Rounds & Zevon, 1983). In com-
parison, it is rare to find a study that has not replicated
Holland's RIASEC order (Gati, 1991).
Furthermore, when Gati (1991, p. 310) focused on Roe's
model, he failed to make it clear whether he was evaluating
Roe's circular structure or the different representation of Roe's
eight fields proposed by Meir (1973) and Lunneborg and Lunne-
borg (1975). And meanwhile, yet another inventory-based or-
dering of Roe's categories has been proposed (Knapp & Knapp,
1984; Knapp, Knapp, & Buttafuoco, 1978). Usually, when a
theoretical model fails to fit the empirical data, the next step is
to evaluate the measures developed to assess the constructs
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) rather than revise or reject the
theory. Because only a few studies (Gati, 1991) have been con-
ducted on Roe's model—using primarily the Ramak (Meir,
1975), one of three vocational-interest measures proposed to
measure Roe's interest categories—it seems premature to revise
or propose yet another alternative model, such as Gati's hierar-
chical model. Instead, research should focus on how the eight
interest constructs are being assessed.
Gati (1991) criticized Holland's model, and circular models
in general, with respect to the presence of a "hole in the mid-
dle" (p. 311). Because there are two dimensions underlying the
circumplex model, he claimed there should be types that would
lie in the middle of the spatial depiction (i.e., moderate on both
dimensions instead of having all scores distributed in a circular
order, equally distant from the origin). Gati's criticism was in
error in that it confused the factor space with the subject space.2
The circumplex, or circular models in general, represents the
relations among scales (or types as used by Holland) defined by
factors. In this factor space, any scale that would be depicted at
the origin would have no relation to the factors. However, if one
were plotting individuals with respect to their factor scores (i.e.,
the subject space), points near the origin would indicate moder-
ate values on the factors. Thus, because circular models seek to
account for the structural properties that exist among scales,
2
We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this
distinction between factor space and subject space in accounting for
the hole in the middle.
242 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS
the hole in the middle is a desirable property. If there were
scales or types found in the middle, these scales would not be
accounted for in the proposed structure, calling the proposed
structure into question. The hole that Gati saw in the middle is
not a liability, but an asset.
Discrete Versus Spatial Representations
An important issue embedded in the present model compari-
sons is the type of representation used to describe and examine
relations of personality traits, specifically discrete versus spa-
tial representations. The relative merit of discrete and spatial
representations has been extensively debated (e.g., Arabic et al.,
1987; Seller, 1990; Prusansky, Tversky, & Carroll, 1982; Sattath
& Tversky, 1977; Shepard, 1980). The spatial approach focuses
on representing a set of objects in a continuous multidimen-
sional space with the relative distances representing the
strength of the relation. Examples of the spatial approach are
MDS and factor analysis. Discrete representations, such as
those used in most cluster analyses, focus on classifying objects
into discrete clusters. These clusters can be viewed as represent-
ing common features.
At least as examined here, the spatial representation yields a
better model in terms of goodness of fit and interpretability, the
typical criteria of evaluation. It appears to be difficult to view
the RIASEC types as discrete types or groups of types. It is
obvious from the present results that there is blending and mu-
tuality among the types and that a discrete representation
seems overly reductive and incomplete. The spatial model, spe-
cifically the circumplex, appears to best capture the data varia-
tion.
Circumplexes and Vocational Interests
Within personality assessment, there are two fairly distinct
models of conceptualizing traits: factor lists and circumplexes
(Hogan, 1983). The delineation of the common personality
traits (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987) represents the factor-list
model and involves the determination of the minimum number
of independent underlying dimensions or factors that character-
ize the space of personality differences. Typically, factor analy-
sis is used with a simple structure criterion. Underlying dimen-
sions are viewed as independent and continuous. In the area of
vocational interests, the factor-list approach is well represented
(cf. Guilford, Christensen, Bond, & Sutton, 1954; Hansen,
1984; Jackson, Holden, Locklin, & Marks, 1984; Kuder, 1977;
Rounds & Dawis, 1979). Circumplex models, on the other
hand, are designed to characterize the relations that exist
among different types or combinations of dimensions. In cir-
cumplex models, the focus is on describing how the types relate
to each other; the overlap among types is of interest. Unlike
using the simple structure criterion in factor analysis where
independence is sought, independence is ruled out in a circum-
plex, and the relations among types are explained.
Wiggins (1982) and Hogan (1983) view personality as com-
posed of prototypes that are composed of different traits. The
types are "fuzzy sets" (Rosch & Mervis, 1975), and thus they
overlap. Membership is probabalistic rather than deterministic
and discrete. The circumplex provides a theoretical model for
understanding how various prototypes relate, which is not typi-
cally provided in factor-list approaches. There are currently a
number of circumplex models in personality research (e.g., Ben-
jamin, 1974; Conte & Plutchik, 1981; Kiesler, 1983; Leary,
1957; Wiggins, 1979). Circumplex models provide predictions
regarding similarity and compatibility of different points in
space or types on the basis of relative proximity in the circum-
plex.
Most other circumplexes (e.g., Kiesler, 1983; Leary, 1957;
Wiggins, 1979) focus exclusively on the interpersonal realm,
and Holland's model could be viewed as describing similar be-
havior. Holland's model focuses on interests, what people like
to do in a broader context than solely occupational interests
(Dawis, 1980). The interest area is strongly linked to interper-
sonal behavior. In his description of the RIASEC types, Hol-
land (1985, pp. 15-23) made it clear that there was an extensive
interpersonal component to each type. It is difficult to conceive
of interests, or even occupations, as removed from interper-
sonal aspects. Schneider (1987) argued that people and their
behavior determine occupational environments. Perhaps the
reason both vocational interests and interpersonal behavior
can be represented by circumplex models is that the same un-
derlying processes and constructs exist in each. Foa and Foa
(1974) hypothesized that the interpersonal variables included
in most circumplex models could be viewed as a set of cognitive
categories used for processing social information. If true, these
same cognitive sets might be used in processing vocational in-
formation also. The area of the similarity of vocational interests
and interpersonal traits warrants further examination. Typi-
cally, vocational interest assessment and personality assess-
ment have remained fairly mutually exclusive.
Finally, the focus of this study has involved a comparison of
two explicitly stated structural models of RIASEC interests.
However, further analyses remain to be conducted. The spe-
cific occurrences in which the order predictions of each model
were not supported need to be examined to yield information
on how these models may be modified, if at all. Similarly, the
residual matrices yielded for the confirmatory factor analysis
need to be similarly examined. These deviations in fit could
prove to be related to structure, sample, or instrument charac-
teristics. Examinations of this sort are being conducted and
hopefully will prove useful in model modification. Regardless,
the presence of alternative, explicitly stated models in psychol-
ogy is rare, and the focus here was on evaluating, using several
methods of structural meta-analysis, the relative structural va-
lidity of these alternative models.
References
Arabie, P., Carroll, J. D, & DeSarbo, Vvt S. (1987). Three-way scaling and
clustering. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1986). Review of developments in meta-analy-
tic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 388-399.
Beller, M. (1990). Tree vs. geometric representation of tests and items.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 13-28.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysisof social behavior. Psycholog-
ical Review, 81, 392-425.
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los
Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GATI'S MODELS
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588-606.
Bobele, R. M., Alston, H. L., Wakefield, J. A., & Doughtie, E. B. (1976).
A comparison of Holland's model using constructs measured by two
different methods. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 245-250.
Bobele, R. M., Alston, H. L., Wakefield, J. A., & Schnitzen, J. P. (1975).
Relationship among Holland's personality types measured by an
adjective checklist. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7, 201-206.
Borgen, F. H. (1986). New approaches to the assessment of interests. In
W B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Advances in vocational psychol-
ogy: Vol. 1. The assessment of interests (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Brown, D, & Brooks, L. (1990). Career choice and development (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Euros, O. K. (Ed.). (1978). The eighth mental measurement yearbook.
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Campbell, D. P., & Holland, J. L. (1972). A merger in vocational inter-
est research: Applying Holland's theory to Strong's data. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 2, 353-376.
Carroll, J. D, & Arabie, P. (1982). How to use INDCLUS: A computer
program for fitting individual differences generalization of the AD-
CLUS model [Computer program manual]. Murray Hill, NJ: AT&T
Bell Laboratories, Room 2F-128A.
Cole, N. S. (1973). On measuring the vocational interests of women.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20,105-112.
Cole, N. S., & Hanson, G. R. (1971). An analysis of the structure of
vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 478-486.
Conte, H. R., & Plutchik, R. (1981). A circumplex model for interper-
sonal personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 701-714.
Cooley, W W, & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Multivariate data analysis. New
York: Wiley.
Crabtree, P. D., & Hales, L. W (1974). Holland's hexagonal model ap-
plied to rural youth. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 22, 218-223.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychologi-
cal tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance
structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
Dawis, R. V (1980). Measuring interests. In D. A. Payne (Ed.), New
directions for testing and measurement: Recent developments in affec-
tive measurement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dawis, R. V (1992). The individual difference tradition in counseling
psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 7-19.
Edwards, K. J., & Whitney, D. R. (1972). Structural analysis of Hol-
land's personality types using factorial and configural analyses.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19,136-145.
Feldman, S., & Meir, E. I. (1976). Measuring women's interests using
Holland's vocational classification. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
9, 345-353.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Spring-
field, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Fouad, N. A., Cudeck, R., & Hansen, J. C. (1984). Convergent validity
of the Spanish and English forms of the Strong-Campbell Interest
Inventory for bilingual Hispanic high school students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31, 339-348.
Gati, I. (1979). A hierarchical model for the structure of vocational
interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 90-106.
Gati, I. (1982). Testing models for the structure of vocational interests.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 164-182.
Gati, I. (1991). The structure of vocational interests. Psychological Bul-
letin, 109, 309-324.
Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.
Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
Gottfredson, G. D, & Holland, J. L. (1989). Dictionary of Holland occu-
243
pational codes (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Guilford, J. P., Christensen, R. R., Bond, N. A., &Sutton, M. A. (1954).
A factor analytic study of human interests. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 68(4, Whole No. 375).
Guttman, L. R. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex.
In P. E Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences
(pp. 258-348). New York: Columbia University Press.
Hansen, J. C. (1984). The measurement of vocational interests: Issues
and future directions. In S. D. Brown & R. W Lent (Eds.), Handbook
of counseling psychology (pp. 99-136). New York: Wiley.
Hansen, J. C. (1987). Cross-cultural research on vocational interests.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 19,
163-176.
Hansen, J. C., & Johansson, C. B. (1972). The application of Holland's
vocational model to the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for
women. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 2, 479-493.
Hanson, G. R., Prediger, D. J., & Schussel, R. H. (1977). Development
and validation of sex-balanced interest inventory scales (ACT Re-
search Report No. 78). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing
Program.
Harrington, T. E, & O'Shea, A. T. (1982). The Harrington-O'Shea Ca-
reer Decision-Making System manual. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Hedges, L. V, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1982: Personality. Current
theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 6, 35-45.
Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham,
MA: Blaisdell.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making of vocational choices: A theory of voca-
tional personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L., Whitney, D. R., Cole, N. S., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1969).
An empirical occupational classification derived from a theory of per-
sonality and intended for practice and research (ACT Research Re-
port No. 29). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1987). Evaluating order hypotheses within
proximity matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 172-178.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis:
Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jackson, D. N., Holden, R. R., Locklin, R. H., & Marks, E. (1984).
Taxonomy of vocational interests of academic major areas. Journal
of Educational Measurement, 21, 261-275.
Johansson, C. B. (1976). Manual for the Career Assessment Inventory.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Johansson, C. B. (1986). Career Assessment Inventory: The enhanced
version. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Joreskog, K. G. (1974). Analyzing psychological data by structural anal-
ysis of covariance matrices. In R. C. Atkinson, D. H. Krantz, R. D.
Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathemati-
cal psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-56). New York: W H. Freeman.
Joreskog, K. G, & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear
structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood.
Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for
complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90,
185-214.
244 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS
Knapp, R. R., & Knapp, L. (1984). Manual COPS Interest Inventory.
San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Knapp, R. R., Knapp, L., & Buttafuoco, P. M. (1978). Interest changes
and the classification of occupations. Measurement and Evaluation
in Guidance, 11, 14-19.
Kuder, G. F. (1939). Kuder Preference Record. Chicago: Science Re-
search Associates.
Kuder, G. F. (1977). Activity interests and occupational choice. Chicago:
Science Research Associates.
Kuder, G. F, & Diamond, E. E. (1979). Kuder Occupational Interest
Survey: General manual. Chicago: Science Research.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ron-
ald Press.
Lokan, J. J., & Taylor, K. F. (Eds.). (1986). Holland in Australia: A voca-
tional choice in research and practice. Melbourne, Australia: Austra-
lian Council for Educational Research.
Lunneborg, C. E., & Lunneborg, P. W (1975). Factor structure of the
vocational interest models of Roe and Holland. JournalofVocational
Behavior, 7, 313-326.
McCormick, C. C, & Kavanagh, J. A. (1981). Scaling interpersonal
checklist items to a circumplex model. Applied Psychological Mea-
surement, 5, 421-447.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor
model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
Meir, E. I. (1973). The structure of occupations by interests—A small
space analysis. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 3, 21-31.
Meir, E. I. (1975). Manual for the Ramak and Courses interest invento-
ries. Unpublished manuscript. Tel Aviv University, Department of
Psychology, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Meir, E. I., & Ben-Yehuda, A. (1976). Inventories based on Roe and
Holland yield similar results. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 8, 269-
274.
Mitchell, J. V (Ed.). (1985). The ninth mental measurement yearbook.
Lincoln, NE: Euros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N, Lind, S., &
Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for struc-
tural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
Osipow, S. H. (1983). Theories of career development (3rd ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Paterson, D. G., & Darley, J. G. (1936). Men, women, and jobs. Minneap-
olis: University of Minnesota Press.
Prediger, D. J. (1976). A world-of-work map for career exploration.
Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 24, 198-208.
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland's hexagon: Miss-
ing link between interests and occupations? Journal ofVocational
Behavior, 21, 259-287.
Prusansky, S., Tversky, A., & Carroll, J. D. (1982). Spatial versus tree
representation of proximity data. Psychometrika, 47, 3-24.
Rachman, D, Amernic, J., & Aranya, N. (1981). A factor-analytic study
of the construct validity of Holland's Self-Directed Search. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 41, 425-437.
Roe, A. (1956). The psychology of occupations. New York: Wiley.
Roe, A., & Klos, D. (1969). Occupation classification. Counseling Psy-
chologist, 1, 84-89.
Roe, A., & Lunneborg, P. W (1990). Personality development and ca-
reer choice. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and devel-
opment (2nd ed., pp. 68-101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosen, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the
internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rounds, J. B. (in press). Vocational interests: Evaluating structural hy-
potheses. In R. V Dawis & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Assessing individual
differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rounds, J. B., Davison, M. L., & Dawis, R. V (1979). The fit between
Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory General Occupational Themes
and Holland's hexagonal model. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 15,
303-315.
Rounds, J. B., & Dawis, R. V (1979). Factor analysis of Strong Voca-
tional Interest Blank items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 132-
143.
Rounds, J. B., Tracey, T. J., & Hubert, L. (1992). Methods for evaluating
vocational interest structural hypotheses. Journal ofVocational Be-
havior, 40, 239-259.
Rounds, J. B., & Zevon, M. A. (1983). Multidimensional scaling re-
search in vocational psychology. Applied Psychological Measure-
ment, 7, 491-510.
Sattath, S., & Tversky, A. (1977). Additive similarity trees. Psychome-
trika, 42, 319-345.
Schneider, B. (1987). E = f(R B): The road to a radical approach to
person-environment fit. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 31, 353-
361.
Shepard, R. N. (1980). Multidimensional scaling, tree-fitting and clus-
tering. Science, 210, 390-398.
Shepard, R. N., & Arabie, P. (1979). Additive clustering: Representa-
tion of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping proper-
ties. Psychological Review, 86, 87-123.
Spokane, A. R. (1985). A review of research on person-environment
congruence in Holland's theory of careers. Journal ofVocational Be-
havior, 26, 306-343.
Steiger, J. H. (1979). A computer program for fast, accurate, small-sam-
ple testing of correlational pattern hypotheses. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 39, 677-680.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-257.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1943). Vocational interests of men and women. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1912). The permanence of measured interests and
their relation to abilities. Popular Science Monthly, 18, 449-456.
Thurstone, L. L. (1931). A multiple factor analysis of vocational inter-
ests. Personnel Journal, 10, 198-205.
Tracey, T. J. (1991). RANDORD: A program for evaluating Holland's
and Gati's order hypotheses using the randomization test of hypothe-
sized order relationships [Computer program]. Champaign, IL: Uni-
versity of Illinois, Department of Educational Psychology, Urbana-
Champaign.
Trapnell, P. D. (1989). Structural validity in the measurement of Hol-
land's vocational typology: A measure of Holland's types scaled to an
explicit circumplex model. Unpublished master's thesis, University
of British Columbia, British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Tuck, B. F., & Keeling, B. (1980). Sex and cultural differences in facto-
rial structure of the Self-Directed Search. Journal ofVocational Be-
havior, 16, 105-114.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maxi-
mum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of 'occupational titles (4th
ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1979). Guide for occupational exploration.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
 EVALUATING HOLLAND'S AND GATI'S MODELS
U.S. Department of Labor. (1990). Occupational outlook handbook.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wakefield, J. A., & Doughtie, E. B. (1973). The geometric relationship
between Holland's personality typology and the Vocational Prefer-
ence Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 513-518.
Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E., & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment
calls in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 259-264.
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Bradford, B. D, Lew, D. E., & Himmell, C. D. (1986).
Major contributors and major contributions to the vocational behav-
ior literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 42-47.
Weinrach, S. G, & Srebalus, D. J. (1990). Holland's theory of careers. In
D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (2nd
ed., pp. 37-67). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive
Appendix
References for Vocational Personalities and Work Environments Data Sources
American College Testing Program. (1968). The ACT Guidance Profile
manual. Iowa City, IA: Author.
American College Testing Program. (1972). Handbook for the ACT
career planning program. Iowa City, IA: Author.
American College Testing Program. (1977). Handbook for the ACT
career planning program. Iowa City, IA: Author.
American College Testing Program. (1988). Interim psychometric
handbook for the 3rd edition of the ACT career planning program.
Iowa City, IA: Author.
Athanasou, J. A. (1982, February). Factor analysis of male and female
responses on the vocational interest scales of the Vocational Preference
Inventory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Council
for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia.
Athanasou, J. A. (1986). A Vocational Interest Survey: Six experimen-
tal scales for the measurement of Holland's vocational types. In J. L.
Lokan & K. F. Taylor (Eds.), Holland in Australia (pp. 139-148).
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Athanasou, J. A., O'Gorman, J., & Meyer, E. (1981). Factorial validity
of the vocational interest scales of the Holland Vocational Prefer-
ence Inventory for Australian high school students. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 41, 523-527.
Athanasou, J. A., O'Gorman, J. G., & Meyer, E. (1986). Two compari-
sons of the Holland and Eysenck personality typologies among Aus-
tralian high school students. In J. L. Lokan & K. F. Taylor (Eds.),
Holland in Australia (pp. 52-60). Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Bull, P. E. (1975). Structure of occupational interests in New Zealand
and America on Holland's typology. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 22, 554-556.
Campbell, D. P. (1974). Manual for the Strong-Campbell Interest Inven-
tory T325 [merged form]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Campbell, D. P. (1977). Manual for the Strong-Campbell Interest Inven-
tory (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Campbell, D. P., & Hansen, J. C. (1981). Manual for the SVIB-SCII (3rd
ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Carroll, J. A. (1986). Revision of Holland's VPI for use with Brisbane
metropolitan high school students. In J. L. Lokan & K. F. Taylor
(Eds.), Holland in Australia (pp. 149-161). Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Crabtree, P. D, & Hales, L. W (1974). Holland's hexagonal model ap-
plied to rural youth. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 22, 218-223.
Folsom, C. H., Jr. (1972). The validity of Holland's theory of vocational
245
terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 395-412.
Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in
clinical psychology. In P. C. Butcher & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Hand-
book of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183-221). New
York: Wiley.
Wiggins, J. S., Steiger, J., & Gaelick, L. (1981). Evaluating circumplexity
in personality data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 263-289.
Wigington, J. H. (1983). The applicability of Holland's typology to
clients. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 23, 286-293.
Wolf, E M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research
synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zytowski, D. G. (1985). Kuder Occupational Interest Survey: Manual
supplement. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
choice (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine at Orono, 1971).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 4345A.
Fouad, N. A. (1984). Comparison of interests across cultures (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts
International 45,1012B.
Fouad, N. A., Cudeck, R., & Hansen, J. C. (1984). Convergent validity
of the Spanish and English forms of the Strong-Campbell Interest
Inventory for bilingual Hispanic high school students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31, 339-348.
Garfinkle, J. P. (1979). A study of Holland's theory of vocational choice
as it applies to the job satisfaction among male and female supervi-
sors (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1978). Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 40, 671A.
Gottfredson, G. D, Holland, J. L., & Holland, J. E. (1978). The seventh
revision of the Vocational Preference Inventory. JSAS: Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 98. (Ms. No. 1783)
Hansen, J. C., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the SVIB-SCII
Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consult-
ing Psychologists Press.
Hansen, J. C., & Johansson, C. B. (1972). The application of Holland's
vocational model to the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 479-493.
Hanson, G. R. (1974). Assessing the career interests of college youth:
Summary of research and applications (ACT Research Report No.
67). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
Hanson, G. R., Prediger, D. J., & Schussel, R. H. (1977). Development
and validation of sex-balanced interest inventory scales (ACT Re-
search Report No. 78). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing
Program.
Harrington, T. E, & O'Shea, A. J. (1980). Applicability of the Holland
(1973) model of vocational development with Spanish-speaking
clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 246-251.
Harrington, T. E, & O'Shea, A. J. (1982). The Harrington-O'Shea Career
Decision-Making System manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
ance Service.
Holland, J. L. (1965). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory
(6th revision). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L. (1972). The Self-Directed Search: Professional manual.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L. (1975). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L. (1979). The Self-Directed Search: Professional manual.
246 TERENCE J. TRACEY AND JAMES ROUNDS
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Holland, J. L. (1985a). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1985b). The Self-Directed Search: Professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., Whitney, D. R., Cole, N. S., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1969).
An empirical occupational classification derived from a theory of per-
sonality and intended for practice and research (ACT Research Re-
port No. 29). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
Jin, S. (1987). The factorial structure of the Holland typology in Chi-
nese high school students: Sex differences (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1986). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 47, 2512A.
Johansson, C. B. (1976). Manual for the Career Assessment Inventory.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Johansson, C. B. (1986). Career Assessment Inventory: The enhanced
version. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Keierleber, D. L. (1981). The relationship between measured voca-
tional abilities and interests: A reassessment (Doctoral dissertation.
University of Minnesota, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International,
42. 2505B.
Kittrell, D. L. (1980). The relationship among the interest score on six
occupational themes and job satisfaction and performance of Ohio
cooperative extension county agents (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41,
1351A.
Krumberger, J. H. (1984). The relationship between interest and ad-
justment to spinal cord injury for spinal cord injured men (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 44, 35! OB.
Lamb, R. R., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Technical report for the Unisex
Edition of the ACT Interest Inventory (UNIACT). Iowa City, IA:
American College Testing Program.
Lowman, R. L., &Schurman,S. J. (1982). Psychometric characteristics
of a Vocational Preference Inventory short form. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 601-613.
Lowman, R. L., Williams, R. E., & Leeman, G. E. (1985). The structure
and relationship of college women's primary abilities and vocational
interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 298-315.
Lunneborg, C. E., & Lunneborg, P. W (1975). Factor structure of the
vocational interest models of Roe and Holland. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 7, 313-326.
Mercurius-Fraser, E. P. (1980). Personality types and vocational
choice: A test of Holland's theory with samples of Guyanese students
and employed persons (Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University
of America, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 600A.
Naylor, F. D, & Mount, T. J. (1986). Issues in the generality of Holland's
hexagonal model. In J. L. Lokan & K. F. Taylor (Eds.), Holland in
Australia (pp. 19-25). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educa-
tional Research.
Naylor, F. D, & Thorneycroft, P. W (1986). The relations between Hol-
land's and Eysenck's types: A further perspective. In J. L. Lokan &
K. F. Taylor (Eds.), Holland in Australia (pp. 61-67). Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Power, P. G., Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C, & Takai, R. T. (1979). The
relation of student characteristics to the influence of the Self-Dir-
ected Search. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 12, 98-107.
Prediger, D. J. (1989). [UNIACT interest scale correlations). Unpub-
lished raw data.
Prediger, D. J., & Johnson, R. W(1979, May). Alternatives to sex-restric-
tive vocational interest assessment (ACT Research Report No. 79).
Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
Robertson, D. W (1975). Prediction of naval aviator career motivation
and job satisfaction from the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Doc-
toral dissertation, United States International University, 1974). Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 35, 4244B.
Rose, H. A., & Elton, C. F. (1982). The relation of congruence, differen-
tiation, and consistency to interest and aptitude scores in women
with stable and unstable vocational choices. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 20, 162-174.
Rounds, J. B., Jr. (1982). The comparative and combined utility of need
and interest data in the prediction of job satisfaction (Doctoral dis-
sertation. University of Minnesota, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts In-
ternational, 42, 4920B.
Salas, R. G. (1986). Investigations of a more realistic approach to mea-
suring vocational interests in a selection setting. In J. L. Lokan &
K. F. Taylor (Eds.), Holland in Australia (pp. 161-167). Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Tuck, B. F, & Keeling, B. (1980). Sex and cultural differences in the
factorial structure of the Self-Directed Search. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 16, 105-114.
Tuck, B. F, & Keeling, B. (1986). Sex and cultural differences in the
factorial structure of the Self-Directed Search. In J. L. Lokan & K. F.
Taylor (Eds.), Holland in Australia (pp. 11-18). Melbourne: Austra-
lian Council for Educational Research.
Wakefield, J. A., & Doughtie, E. B. (1973). The geometric relationship
between Holland's personality typology and the Vocational Prefer-
ence Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20. 513-518.
Wiggins, J. D. (1976). The relation of job satisfaction to vocational
preferences among teachers of the educable mentally retarded. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 13-18.
Wiggins, J. D. (1984). Personality-environmental factors related to job
satisfaction of school counselors. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 33,
169-177.
Wiggins, J. D, Lederer, D. A., Salkowe, A., & Rys, G. S. (1983). Job
satisfaction related to tested congruence and differentiation. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 23, 112-121.
Wiggins, J. D, & Weslander, D. L. (1979). Personality characteristics of
counselors rated as effective or ineffective. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 15, 175-185.
Wigington, J. H. (1983). The applicability of Holland's typology to
clients. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 286-293.
Received October 21,1991
Revision received January 27,1992
Accepted January 27,1992 •