Journal of Career Assessment

http://jca.sagepub.com

The Future of Career Assessment: Integrating Vocational Interests with

Self-Efficacy and Personal Styles
Nancy E. Betz and Fred H. Borgen
Journal of Career Assessment 2000; 8; 329
DOI: 10.1177/106907270000800402

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/329

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

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

Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 25 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/4/329

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Journal of Career Assessment
Volume 8/Number 4/Fall 2000/Pages 329-338

The Future of Career Assessment:

Integrating Vocational Interests With
Self-Efficacy and Personal Styles
Nancy E. Betz
The Ohio State University
Fred H. Borgen
Iowa State University
This article reviews what is believed to be one of the most
important trends in vocational research and career assessment, that
is, that body of work integrating vocational interest measurement
with the concepts of self-efficacy and personal styles. Beginning
with a review of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, recent work in which
parallel measures of interests and self-efficacy (or confidence) are
used to improve the prediction of vocational choice behavior and
the comprehensiveness of career assessment and counseling is
examined. Following this, the use of measures of personal styles, such
as those on the Strong Interest Inventory, along with vocational
interests in vocational research and counseling are reviewed.
Implications of both of these trends for future research and for
career counseling are discussed.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, vocational interests,

personal styles, career assessment
The of vocational interest measures in vocational research and career
use

counseling has been arguably one of the most important and durable
contributions to counseling psychology. Used in hundreds of studies and
with millions of counseling and organizational clients each year, inventories
such as the Strong Interest Inventory (SII; Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, &
Hammer, 1994), the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (Kuder & Zytowski,
1991), the UNIACT (Prediger & Swaney, 1995), and the Campbell Interest
and Skill Survey (CISS; Campbell, Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992) have proven to have
widespread theoretical and practical uses in our field. A recent book, edited
by Savickas and Spokane (1999) and entitled Occupational Interests: Meaning,
Measurement, and Counseling Use, summarized the proceedings of an
invitational conference on vocational interest measurement held at Lehigh
University in the spring of 1997.

Correspondence concerning this article and requests for offprints should be addressed
to Dr. Nancy E. Betz, Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1222.

Published and copyright © 2000 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. All rights reserved.

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
330 Journal of Career Assessment

Historically, both the measurement of vocational interests and the

interpretation of vocational interest inventories was focused on three major
types of scales. Occupational scales were originally developed by E. K.
Strong, Jr. (1927) in the Strong Vocational Interest Blank and are used
commonly today in such inventories as the Strong Interest Inventory
(Harmon et al., 1994) and the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (Kuder
& Zytowski, 1991). Basic interest scales were originated by Frederick Kuder
in the Kuder Preference Record (Kuder, 1964) and were introduced to the
Strong in 1968. Broad occupational orientations or personality types as
exemplified by Holland’s (1997) theory and scales of the Vocational
Preference Inventory (Holland, 1985b) and Self-Directed Search (Holland,
1994), the General Occupational Themes of the SII, the related themes of
the CISS and UNIACT, and Roe’s (1956) field theory, represent the third type
of scale.
Although Holland has always labeled his themes as personality types and
has written about the close relationship of vocational interests and
personality (e.g., Holland, 1999), it is only more recently that the integration
of vocational interests with other individual differences variables has begun
to more generally characterize both the construction and interpretation of
interest inventories and to be a much more frequent focus of vocational
research. Two of these areas of research attention will be highlighted in the
sections to follow. The first derives from Hackett and Betz’s (1981; Betz &
Hackett, 1981) application of self-efficacy theory to career behavior. Twenty
years later, self-efficacy is a widely studied explanatory variable in career
development as well as an important basis for career interventions and is
increasingly used jointly with vocational interest measures in career
counseling. The second major trend is research integrating personality and
interest measurement, exemplified herein by the Personal Styles Scales
of the SII.

Interests and Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy Theory
A recent, special issue of the Journal of Career Assessment contained
an article (Betz, 2000) that provides a comprehensive review of the basic
constructs and hypotheses of Bandura’s (1977, 1997) self-efficacy theory as
it has been applied to career assessment. In brief, self-efficacy expectations
refer to one’s beliefs concerning one’s ability to successfully perform a given
task or behavior. These expectations are postulated by Bandura to be major
mediators of behavior as indicated by at least three behavioral indicators:
(a) approach versus avoidance behavior, (b) quality of performance of
behaviors in the target domain, and (c) persistence in the face of obstacles
or disconfirming experiences. Low self-efficacy expectations regarding a
behavior or behavioral domain lead to avoidance of those behaviors, poorer
performance, and a tendency to give up at the first sign of difficulty. In the
context of career decision making, approach behavior is especially crucial
because it refers to those activities, educational majors, and occupations that
the individual is willing to try or to pursue-low self-efficacy, leading to
avoidance, would, thus, likely cause the individual to eliminate options in
that area. Not only would low self-efficacy and its consequent avoidance lead
to the elimination of career options, but it is also postulated (e.g., Betz, 1999)
to limit initial interest development by avoidance of the kinds of new

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Integrating Vocational Interests 331

experiences and learning opportunities that could facilitate the development

of new interests. Thus, low self-efficacy is postulated to have both direct and
indirect (i.e., through limitations of interest development) effects on
educational and career options and choices.
Fortunately, Bandura (1977) specified not only the consequences of low
or weak expectations of personal efficacy but the factors basic both to their
initial development and to their subsequent modification through
intervention. The four sources of information through which self-efficacy
expectations are learned and by which they can be modified include the
following: (a) performance accomplishments, that is, experiences of
successfully performing the behavior in question; (b) vicarious learning or
modeling, (c) social persuasion, for example, encouragement and support
from others; and (d) lower levels of emotional arousal, that is, lack of
anxiety, in connection with the behavior. Thus, the theoretical context of the
self-efficacy construct provides not only a means for understanding the
development of self-efficacy beliefs, but the means for their modification
through interventions incorporating positive applications of the four sources
of efficacy information.
Before discussing research integrating vocational interests and the
concept of perceived self-efficacy, it should be noted that there is also a
rich literature focusing on the integration of interest and ability measures
in career counseling. Prediger (1999) has reviewed the joint use of ability
and interest measures in career exploration and agrees with two central
points-first, that measured abilities differ from self-perceived abilities
(or ability self-confidence) and, second, that both are useful in career
counseling. Prediger notes that measured abilities are generally of more
interest to employers who want to know what an individual can do based on
objective measures, whereas, self-perceived abilities are likely to be
influential in the kinds of occupations an individual will consider in the first
place. Therefore, the review of Prediger and research such as that of
Randahl (1991) and Swanson (1993) reinforce the importance of measured
abilities in career assessment, though such abilities are beyond the scope
of this article.

Self-Efficacy and Interests

There are two major perspectives from which to examine both self-efficacy
and interests in career theory, assessment, and counseling. The first is
based on an assumption that perceived self-efficacy with respect to a given
occupation or vocationally relevant behavior domain is necessary, along
with interests in that occupation, for an individual to view it as a viable
educational or career option.
Evidence supporting this contention has been accumulating since Betz and
Hackett’s first study applying self-efficacy theory to the study of career
behavior. In that first study, Betz and Hackett (1981) found that both self-
efficacy and interests predicted the kind of career options college students
considered. Since that first study, a number of other studies have provided
additional evidence for the incremental predictive ability of perceived self-
efficacy (e.g., Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Lapan, Shaughnessy, & Boggs,
1996). Probably the largest scale study was that of Donnay and Borgen
(1999), who used scores on Holland’s six general occupational themes (GOT)
of the SII and the six general confidence themes (GCT) of the Skills

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
332 Journal of Career Assessment

Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996; Betz, Harmon,
& Borgen, 1996) to predict occupation among 1,105 adults employed in 21
occupational groups. Using discriminant analysis in both a validation and
a cross-validation sample, Donnay and Borgen found significant incremental

validity for the self-efficacy scales (GCTs) beyond that accounted for by
the GOTs. As a separate multivariate set, the GCTs were somewhat more
powerful than the GOTs in separating the 21 occupational groups (six times
greater than chance vs. five times greater than chance). In percentage of
variance terms, GOTs accounted for 79% of occupational differences, GCTs
for 82% of occupational differences, and the combined GOTs and GCTs
accounted for 91% of occupational differences.
Isaacs, Borgen, Donnay, and Hansen (1997) investigated the extent to
which self-efficacy added to the prediction of college major, beyond the
predictive efficacy of interests. Using the GOTs from the SII and the GCTs
from the SCI, they found that self-efficacy and the combined synergistic effect
of interests and self-efficacy added to the prediction of the Holland theme
of the college major.
Given findings of the predictive utility of both interests and self-efficacy,
it is appropriate that means for joint use of such measures in career
counseling are now increasingly available. There are now several measures
of self-efficacy with respect to one or more of the six Holland (1997) types;
research by Lenox and Subich (1994), Lapan et al. (1989), and Rooney and
Osipow (1992), has been based on self-efficacy measures for the Holland
themes. Most recently, the SCI, containing six GCT scores measuring self-
efficacy with respect to the Holland themes, was developed for use as an
optional accompaniment to the SII. Joint use of the SII and the SCI (or any
parallel set of interest and confidence measures) is based on a cross-
classification of interests and confidence, with each cell of the cross-
tabulation having unique implications for career counseling.
In the simplest example, both interests and confidence are classified
as high or low, yielding a 2 x 2 cross-tabulation. (See Betz, 1999; Betz,

Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Harmon et al., 1996; for extended discussions and
case examples of the joint use of interest and confidence measures in
career counseling.) Holland types for which both interests and confidence
are high constitute high priorities for occupational exploration. Holland

types for which there is some interest but low confidence may well be
possible options if confidence can be increased using Bandura’s (1977)
four sources of efficacy information. Areas of low interest, but higher
confidence, may provide options if interests can be strengthened, but
consideration of these areas may not be necessary if the previous two cells
provide career options. Finally, areas of low interest and low confidence are
generally considered low priorities for exploration. Those familiar with
the Campbell Interest and Skills Survey (Campbell et al., 1992) may note
the resemblance of the interpretations suggested in this figure to the
fourfold interpretive system of the CISS: Pursue (high interest, high skills),
Develop (high interest, lower skills), Explore (high skills, lower interests),
and Avoid (low skills, low interests). For the recommendation to Develop,
the report suggests that &dquo;Respondents should be encouraged to further
develop their skills in this area or, failing that, to appreciate this area as
an avocational focus&dquo; (p. 403).

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Integrating Vocational Interests 333

These interpretive principles can be used with any interest measure for
which there is a parallel confidence measure. These include the CISS,
which contains 7 orientations, 29 basic interest, and 60 occupational scales
all accompanied by skills measures, which Campbell et al. (1992) says are
more appropriately interpreted as measures of confidence. The SDS asks

respondents to provide self-estimates of ability for each RIASEC type as well

as to indicate preferences for activities and occupations. Holland (1985a)

suggested that an individual’s pattern of self-estimates of ability on the SDS

can, in some cases, be used to help clients, women especially, plan for more
adventurous goals (p. 145). American College Testing’s Career Planning
Program, which includes the UNIACT Interest Inventory (Prediger &
Swaney, 1995) also yields assessments of ability self-estimates. Lucas,
Wanberg, and Zytowski (1997) describe the development of a 30-item scale
measuring self-efficacy for tasks corresponding to Kuder’s 10 vocational
interest areas (Kuder & Zytowski, 1991). They discuss the benefits of using
this task self-efficacy scale along with the Kuder Occupational Interest
Survey. Although such conjoint use of interest and self-efficacy measures is
based on empirical evidence of their joint explanatory power, more research
on their actual joint use in career counseling is needed.

In addition to joint use in career counseling, self-efficacy may be

importantly related to interests in another way, as a possible causal factor
in their development. Although a review of related literature is beyond the
scope of this article, the possible role of self-efficacy in interest development
was presaged by findings that task success (akin to the performance
accomplishment source of efficacy information) can increase interest, task
liking, or both (e.g., Campbell & Hackett, 1986; Korman, 1967; Osipow,
1972; Osipow & Scheid, 1971). Strong (1943) wrote that an interest may
emerge following recognition of successful use of one’s abilities.
Barak and his colleagues (Barak, 1981; Barak, Librowsky, & Shiloh,
1989) formulated a cognitive theory of the development of interests in
which perceived abilities are one of the major determinants of interest
development. In a study by Barak, Shiloh, and Haushner (1992), children
receiving an intervention designed to increase their perceived abilities on
a task also showed increased preferences for the tasks subject to

manipulation. Likewise, Lapan and his colleagues (Lapan et al., 1989;

Lapan et al., 1996) have been pursuing research based on the presumption
that increasing self-efficacy can increase interests. Lapan and his colleagues
(1989) found evidence that lower self-efficacy with respect to Realistic and
Investigative areas may explain women’s lower Realistic and Investigative
interests. And Lapan and his colleagues (1996) used path analysis to support
the importance of both math self-efficacy and math interests in predicting
entry into math and science majors and in the mediation of gender
differences in these decisions.
The most recent theory attempting to relate self-efficacy theory to
vocational interest development, also based on the more general social-
cognitive model originally formulated by Bandura (1986), is that of Lent,
Brown, and Hackett (1994; see also Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). Their
1994 model highlights three &dquo;person&dquo; mechanisms-self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, and goals-that form the core of a social-cognitive approach
to career behavior. Among other studies testing this model, Fouad and
Smith (1996) tested the social cognitive model with respect to math and

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
334 Journal of Career Assessment

science self-efficacy in a sample of inner city middle school students in the

Midwest. They reported a strong relationship between self-efficacy and
interests, which, in turn, related to choice intentions. Lopez, Brown, and
Gore (1997) reported the results of a comprehensive test of the social-
cognitive model for predicting math-related interests and performance in a
sample of 296 students enrolled in math courses at a predominately White,
middle class high school. Both self-efficacy and outcome expectations
predicted subject matter interest, and self-efficacy partially mediated the
effects of measured ability on course grades. Thus, the authors conclude good
support for a model in which ability relates to self-efficacy, which, in turn,
facilitates greater outcome expectations and stronger interests.
Betz (1999) argued that self-efficacy expectations may mediate the
development, or exploration of interests, or both, through the mechanism
of the avoidance behavior postulated to be a consequence of low self-efficacy.
That is, if an individual avoids an area because of perceived inability to
accomplish the behaviors or tasks involved, it is also unlikely that the
individual will gain enough familiarity with the task domain to give interests
a chance to develop. As an example, assume an individual, who is &dquo;computer

phobic,&dquo; avoiding learning to use a computer because of fears that &dquo;he/she

can’t learn to do it.&dquo; Until the individual overcomes this avoidance or is
helped to do so, the opportunity to develop an enjoyment of the many
capabilities of computers will never happen.
Given both empirical and theoretical support for the possible role of
increased self-efficacy in increasing interests, studies of interventions
designed to do this are needed and are beginning to appear in the literature.
Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, and Martinelli (1998) reported that a math-
science self-efficacy intervention increased not only math self-efficacy but
math and science interests in a sample of undecided college students.
Betz and Schifano (2000) reported that an intervention focused on Realistic
(from Holland’s themes) self-efficacy was effective not only in increasing
Realistic self-efficacy but Realistic interests in college women. In this study,
an all-day intervention, including classes on architecture and the
construction trades, the use of hand tools and hardware, and building and
repairing common household objects was utilized.
To summarize at this point, the potential usefulness of theoretical and
practical integrations of measures of vocational interests and self-efficacy
will likely be a major focus of vocational research and assessment in the
next decade.

Integrating Interests and Personality:

The Case of the Personal Styles Scales
The 1994 revision of the SII explicitly incorporated personality measures
known as the Personal Styles Scales. A review of personality and interest
linkages in vocational assessment, leading up to the creation of the Personal
Styles Scales, is provided by Borgen and Harmon (1996). As described in
detail in the Manual for the Strong Interest Inventory (Harmon et al., 1994),
all but one of the four Personal Styles Scales were based on scales from
earlier versions of the SII (e.g., Hansen, 1992). For the new scales described
later, Work Style is related to the earlier Introversion-Extroversion scale;
Learning Environment to the earlier Academic Comfort scale; and Risk-
Taking/Adventure to the Adventure Basic Interest scale. As detailed in the
Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Integrating Vocational Interests 335

SII manual, the four personal styles scales are the following: (a) Work Style,
distinguishing individuals who prefer to work with people from those who
prefer working with data, ideas, or things; (b) Learning Environment, which
distinguishes people who prefer academic learning environments from those
who prefer practical, hands-on learning environments; (c) Leadership Style,
distinguishing people who enjoy leading, persuading, meeting, and directing
others from those preferring not to take charge of others; and (d) the Risk-
Taking/Adventure scale, distinguishing those tending to take risks and act
spontaneously or impulsively from people who avoid risks, who want to
&dquo;play it safe&dquo; (Harmon et al., 1994, p. 160).
The SII manual presents figures showing that occupations are clearly
differentiated on the Personal Styles Scales. Similar data were analyzed
more formally by Donnay and Borgen (1996) and showed that the Personal

Styles Scales differentiate occupations with effect sizes quite comparable to

traditional interest measures such as the Holland GOTs and the basic
interest scales. This result was particularly evident at the univariate level;
at the multivariate level, the 6 GOTs, as a set, do slightly better than the 4
Personal Styles Scales at differentiating occupations, and the 25 basic
interest scales, as a set, do substantially better than either the GOTs or the
Personal Styles Scales.
Lindley and Borgen (in press) examined the relationships of the Personal
Styles Scales to the Big Five personality dimensions. Using two samples of
college students, (ns 740 and 321), they postulated that Extraversion
=

would correlate positively with all four Personal Styles Scales, but most
strongly with Leadership Style. Further, Agreeableness was expected to
correlate with Work Style, and both Conscientiousness and Openness were
expected to correlate with Learning Environment. The Big Five dimensions
were measured with the John (1990) marker scales for the Adjective Check
List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Results, replicated across the two samples,
were consistent with most expectations, and there were no significant

gender differences in the relationships of the Personal Styles Scales to the

Big Five dimensions. As expected, the strongest relationships were between
Leadership Style and Extraversion (rs .48 and .59, for women in the two
=

samples; rs .48 and .55, for men in the two samples). Learning
=

Environment was also consistently related to Openness (rs .35 and .42, for =

women in the two samples; rs .34 and .44, for men in the two samples).
=

The postulated Personal Styles Scales correlates with Big Five Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness were not consistently found. Overall, the Lindley and
Borgen results showed that the Personal Styles Scales, built on items
originally designed to measure interests, are linked to important dimensions
of personality, especially Extraversion and Openness.
The Personal Styles Scales stimulate new ways of looking at interest
measures for both research and practice (Borgen, 1999; Borgen & Harmon,
1996). As Holland (1997) has long argued, Personal Styles Scales suggest
that interests and personality are closely linked. As researchers, we should
not be surprised to discover that many of the occupational differences and
behaviors related to interests are also related to similar personality
differences. Numerous research opportunities now present themselves to map
the links between interests, personality, and work. The emerging presence
of personal style measures within the Strong Interest Inventory make this
kind of research particularly feasible.

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
336 Journal of Career Assessment

For practice, the Personal Styles Scales open up several promising

applications. Research that has already been conducted can give counselors
a quite clear picture of the meaning and validity of each of the four Personal

Styles Scales. They can be used in counseling to augment the other scales and
give the counselor and client more information about the client’s preferred
styles of working. This can be useful for choosing among occupational
settings, and also for building a career path within a particular occupation.
Summary
The theoretical and practical integration of concepts of interests, self-
efficacy, and personality provides one of the most significant and exciting
directions for career assessment and vocational research. We hope this
article has stimulated research ideas and interests among vocational and
counseling psychologists.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barak, A. (1981). Vocational interests: A cognitive view. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75,
77-86.
Barak, A., Librowski, I., & Shiloh, S. (1989). Cognitive determinants of interests: An
extension of theoretical model and initial empirical examinations. Journal of Vocational
a
Behavior, 34, 318-334.
Barak, A., Shiloh, S., & Haushner, O. (1992). Modification of interests through cognitive
restructuring: Test of a theoretical model in preschool children. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 39, 490-497.
Betz, N. E. (1999). Getting clients
to act on their interests: Self-efficacy as a moderator of
the implementation of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.),
Occupational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp. 327-344). Palo Alto,
CA: Davies-Black.
Betz, N. E. (2000). Self-efficacy theory as a basis for career assessment. Journal of Career
Assessment, 8, 205-222.
Betz, N., Borgen, F., & Harmon, L. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory applications and
technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations
to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
399-410.
Betz, N., Harmon, L., & Borgen, F. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland
themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.
Betz, N., & Schifano, R. (2000). Increasing Realistic self-efficacy and interests in college
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 35-52.

Borgen, F. H. (1999). New horizons in interest theory and measurement: Toward expanded
meeting. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning,
measurement, and counseling use (pp. 383-412). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Linking interest assessment and personality
theory: An example of convergence between practice and theory. In M. L. Savickas & W. B.
Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 251-266). Palo Alto, CA:
Davies-Black.
Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest and
Skill Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Integrating Vocational Interests 337

Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance on math
self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 149-162.
Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 Strong
Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275-291.
Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of vocational self-
efficacy : An examination of interest, self-efficacy, and occupation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 432-447.
Fouad, N., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Test of a social-cognitive model for middle school
students: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 338-346.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.

Harmon, L., Borgen, F., Bereth, J. M., King, J. C., Schauer, D., & Ward, C. (1996). The Skills
Confidence Inventory: A measure of self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 457-477.
Harmon, L., Hansen, J., Borgen, F., & Hammer, A. (1994). Manual for the Strong Interest
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making Vocational Choices: A theory of vocational personalities and
work environment (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1985b). Vocational Preference Inventory-Manual-1985 edition . Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-Directed Search Form R: 1994 Edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and
work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1999). Why interest inventories are also personality inventories. In M. L.
Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling
use (pp. 88-101). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Isaacs, J., Borgen, F. H., Donnay, D. A. C., & Hansen, T. A. (1997, August). Self-efficacy
and interests: Relationships of Holland themes to college major. Poster presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.
Korman, A. K. (1967). Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship between self-perceived
abilities and vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 180-192.
Kuder, F. (1964). Kuder General Interest Survey. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Kuder, F., & Zytowski, D. (1991). Manual for the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey.
Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator of
Investigative and realistic general occupational themes on the Strong Interest Inventory.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 176-182.
Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocational
interests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 277-291.
Lenox, R., & Subich, L. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and inventoried
vocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory
of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,
79-122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to
career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36-49.
Lindley, L. D., & Borgen, F. H. (in press). Personal Styles of the Strong Interest Inventory:
Linking personality and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
338 Journal of Career Assessment

Lopez, F. G., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Role of social-cognitive
expectations in high school students’ mathematics related interest and performance. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 44, 44-52.
Lucas, J. L., Wanberg, C. R., & Zytowski, D. G. (1997). Development of a career task self-
efficacy scale: The Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 432-459.
Luzzo, D., Hasper, P., Albert, K., Bibby, M., & Martinelli, E. (1998). Effects of self-efficacy
enhancing interventions on the math-science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, and
actions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233-243.
Osipow, S. H. (1972). Success and performance: A replication and extension. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 56, 179-180.
Osipow, S. H., & Scheid, A. B. (1971). The effect of manipulated success ratios on task
preference. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 93-98.
Prediger, D. J. (1999). Integrating interests and abilities for career exploration. In M. L.
Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling
use (pp. 294-326). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Prediger, D. J., & Swaney, K. B. (1995). Using UNIACT in a comprehensive approach to

assessment for career planning. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 429-452.
Randahl, G. (1991). A typological analysis of the relations between measured vocational
interests and abilities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 333-350.
Roe, A. (1956). The psychology of occupations. New York: Wiley.
Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale: The
development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 14-32.
Savickas, M. L., & Spokane, A. R. (Eds.). (1999). Vocational interests: Meaning,
measurement, and counseling use. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1927). Strong Vocational Interest Blank for men. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1943). Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Swanson, J. L. (1993). Integrated assessment of vocational interests and self-rated skills
and abilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 50-65.

Downloaded from http://jca.sagepub.com by iulia pilaf on November 29, 2007

© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.