Bibliographic note of the first edition: “Psychologia Wychowawcza”,

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY ISSN 0033-2860, 2020, No. 18, pp. 19–43;

SPECIAL ISSUE 2020 DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.6221

ANNA PASZKOWSKA-ROGACZ
University of Lodz, Institute of Psychology

CAREER ADAPTABILITY – PRELIMINARY VERIFICATION

OF THE CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT METHOD

Abstract: The aim of the article is to pre-
sent the assumptions behind the concept
of Career Adaptability proposed by Mark
Savickas and to present the psychometric
properties of the Polish version of the Ca-
reer Adapt-Ability Scale. It consists of five
dimensions: concern, control, curiosity,
confidence and cooperation. The analyses
were carried out with the participation of
young adults (N = 664; 63% female, 37%
male) aged 18–34 (M = 24.4, SD = 2.9). The
reliability of the instrument was assessed us-
ing the internal consistency method. Evi-
dence for the construct validity was ob-
tained through confirmatory analysis and
correlation with other, conceptually related
variables, such as social participation and
ambiguity tolerance in a career-related deci-
sion situation, measured using four indexes
– preference, tolerance, confidence and aver-
sion. The results obtained indicate very good
psychometric properties of the question-
naire. High levels of career adaptability are
characteristic of two types of social partici-
pation – integration and assimilation. High-
er levels of all five components of the Career
Adapt-Ability Scale are also accompanied by
greater acceptance of unknown, complex,
inconsistent and unpredictable information
when taking professional decisions.
Keywords: career adaptability, life orien-
tation, social participation, ambiguity tol-
erance.

CAREER ADAPTABILITY CONCEPT

Getting a job and taking subsequent decisions related to career development are
considered key developmental tasks of early adulthood. It is at this stage of life that
the individual usually takes decisions which will be shaping his or her future pro-
fessional career. It is not surprising then that interest of researchers was sparked
by particular manifestations of adulthood, namely vocational maturity and career
adaptability. Vocational maturity is a multi-faceted phenomenon and it represents
the individual’s ability to cope with professional tasks at a given stage of life (Su-
per, 1953, 1957, 1984). According to Super, vocational maturity is characterised by
five dimensions: (1) direction (orientation) to career selection, (2) information and
planning in relation to the selected career, (3) permanence of career preferences, (4)
crystallisation and stabilisation of traits, such as intelligence, talents, interests, val-
ues and attitudes, (5) career preference wisdom, i.e. comprehensive analysis of rela-
tions between possibilities and preferences of the individual on the one hand and

CCorrespondence address: anna.paszkowska-rogacz@now.uni.lodz.pl; ORCID: https://

orcid.org/0000-0002-9426-4888.
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
5
socio-economic conditions on the other. Later on Super (1990) replaced the term
‘vocational maturity’ with ‘career maturity’. In this view, the meaning of ‘career’
goes beyond that of ‘job’, because it refers to the lifelong process of developing atti-
tudes, values, skills, capacities, interests, personality traits and knowledge related to
professional activity. Career maturity is not strictly related to the chronological age
and consists in the individual’s readiness to take decisions related to career. One dif-
ficulty which Super saw was the application of this term to adults who are usually
considered to be mature, but whose career can be fluctuating and unstable. Conse-
quently, in one of his later publications (Super, 1994), he opted for the equivalent
term ‘career adaptability’, which could also be used in the description of the later
stages of human development. According to Super and commentators of his works
(among others, Goodman, 1994), this term refers to an individual’s maintaining
a balance between the professional and private environment. The components of
adaptability are values connected with work, such as autonomy and ability to take
one’s own decisions, long-term planning, looking for and taking new positions, tak-
ing decisions and willingness to reflect upon one’s own experience.
Super’s disciple and collaborator Savickas (2005) further developed the notion
of career adaptability, which at present seems more suitable than the notion of career
maturity proposed by Super (1984) in the period of a relatively stable social and eco-
nomic reality of the 20th century. The concept of career adaptability is characterised
by a new perspective on the job market. It no longer consists in finding a permanent
suitable place for the individual, like in the conventional approach; instead, it con-
sists in creating and preparing a job tailored to one’s needs, preferences and abilities.
The distinctive features of a new career are focus on feelings, passion and what truly
brings one satisfaction with life. In this way, career becomes a form of one’s life cre-
ation. Thus, career adaptability becomes a psycho-social meta-competence, which
facilitates appropriate reactions to changes and expectations of new economic real-
ity. It determines readiness, willingness and resources for dealing with present and
future professional tasks related to the need for taking choices, accepting challenges
and fulfilling professional roles or responding to new demands from the profession-
al environment (Rossier, 2015; Savickas, 2005, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). It is connected
with curiosity of the world and oneself as well as flexibility and openness to change,
or even resilience (Maree, 2017). EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
The concept of career adaptability is founded on the assumption that humans
gradually construct their career paths by adjusting to the changing social environ-
ments in such a way as to fulfil their goals and professional needs best and to regulate
professional activities in relation to developmental tasks and social roles. Consequent-
ly, adaptability is not a permanent trait. It can be better seen as a resource which is de-
veloped under the influence of experience and which is crucial to good functioning on
the job market. It helps one effectively manage developmental tasks, such as transition
from school to work or change of workplace or job (Savickas, Porfeli, 2012). In Savick-
as’s (1997, 2005) view, career adaptability is a multi-faceted construct, which consists
of such elements as: concern – focus on one’s own professional future, control – tak-
ing control of one’s future career, curiosity – looking for new possibilities to grow and
ideas for future, as well as confidence, or reinforcing one’s own competencies in such
a way as to safeguard achievement of professional goals.
 6 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

BASIC PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF CAREER ADAPT-ABILITY SCALE

IN INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
The Career Adapt-Ability Scale (CAAS) was developed by Savickas and Porfeli (2012).
It is used for measuring both general career adaptability and development of compe-
tencies in its particular areas. The original scale consists of 24 statements, which make
up four sub-scales: concern, control, curiosity and confidence. The statements describe
skills necessary for the development of a professional career. The study subject express-
es his or her judgement of each of them using a 5-point scale from 1 (not strong) to
5 (strongest). The international version of the questionnaire, available in English, was
developed on the basis of the analysis of data from 13 countries. The Cronbach’s α re-
liability coefficient for the original instrument was .92 for the general score and, re-
spectively, (.83), (.74), (.79) and (.85) for the scales of concern, control, curiosity and
confidence. The confirmatory analysis for all the studied groups showed good fit indi-
ces (CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05). In the subsequent years, the standardisation covered
another ten countries: Australia, Spain, Hong Kong (as cited in: Sulistiani, Handoyo,
2018), Croatia (Šverko, Babarović, 2016), Greece (Sidiropoulou-Dimakakou, Mikeda-
ki, Argyropoulou, Karilir, 2018), Iran (McKenna, Zacher, Ardabili, Mohebbi, 2016),
Lithuania (Urbanaviciute, Kairys, Pociute, Liniauskaite, 2014), Germany (Johnston,
Luciano, Maggiori, Ruch, Rossier, 2013), Romania (Negru-Subtrica, Pop, Crocetti,
2016) and Turkey (Kanten, 2012). In all the aforementioned studies, the reliability co-
efficients for the scales exceeded .80 and fit indices were satisfactory.
According to the existing reports on the standardisation of CAAS, originally ca-
reer adaptability had a 5-factor structure, including the dimension of cooperation,
which referred to the interpersonal competencies of an individual (Nye, Leong, Pras-
ad, Gardner, Tien, 2017). The authors of the scale Savickas and Porfeli (http://www.
vocopher.com/ms/cmic/CAAS+C.pdf, retrieved: 24 June 2020) were of the opinion,
however, that even though the cooperation subscale shows brilliant psychometric prop-
erties, it is not consistent with the other dimensions of CAAS in terms of its content.
Ultimately, they did not include the factor of cooperation in the international version
of the questionnaire, because the 5-factor model did not work very well in relation
to all the 13 countries which took part in the standardisation process. On the other
hand, scholars such as Einarsdóttir, Vilhjálmsdóttir, Smáradóttir and Kjartansdóttir
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

(2015) or McMahon, Watson and Bimrose (2012) noticed that the cooperation scale
can turn out to be a reliable and accurate technique in collective cultures in which the
quality of social relations is an important predictor of career adaptability. They sug-
gested that CAAS could measure the internal resources of an individual, while the
auxiliary cooperation scale could reflect environmental resources. Furthermore, Pula-
kos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon (2000) identified ‘interpersonal adaptability’ as
one of eight sub-dimensions of general adaptability, consisting of flexibility and open-
ness in contact with others, listening and taking into account their views and opinions
as well as developing effective relations with individuals representing different person-
ality types. A similar operation was carried out by Ployhart and Bliese (2006) in their
theory of adaptation by the inclusion of the dimension of interpersonal competen-
cies within general adaptability. On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, Nye,
Leong, Prasad, Gardner and Tien (2017) made an attempt at enriching the original
CAAS instrument with the dimension of cooperation using the 11 items proposed by
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
7
Savickas and Porfeli (http://www.vocopher.com/ms/cmic/CAAS+C.pdf, retrieved: 23
June 2020). The study subjects were from individualistic (USA) and collective (Tai-
wan and China) cultures. The final version of CAAS-5 includes six items with the
greatest factor loadings. The analysis demonstrated the accuracy of the 5-factor model
of career adaptability both in the case of American students with professional expe-
rience and students from China and Taiwan; importantly, the subjects from China
and Taiwan scored significantly higher than Americans on the cooperation scale (Co-
hen’s d effect of, respectively, .92 and .57). The Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for
this scale, even though slightly below the other scales, were similar in all the studied
groups and amounted to .77 (USA and China) and .84 (Taiwan).
Many studies of the external accuracy of the scale have been carried out, indi-
cating a positive relationship between adaptability and other variables which are sig-
nificant from the point of view of career development. The subjects characterised by
a greater adaptability had fewer problems taking career-related decisions. Also rela-
tionships between adaptation and variables connected with future orientation, such
as hope and optimism, have been confirmed (Ginevra, Palini, Vecchio, Nota, Soresi,
2016; Santilli, Nota, Ginevra, Soresi, 2014). Adaptation correlates positively also with
work (Haibo, Xiaoyu, Xioaming, Zjijin, 2017) and life satisfaction (Soresi, Nota, Fer-
rari, 2012). The subjects who scored higher on the adaptation scales were character-
ised by a higher self-assessment (Ataç, Dirik, Tetik, 2018), orientation towards goals,
pro-active personality, optimism in relation to career (Soresi, Nota, Ferrari, 2012; To-
lentino, Garcia, Restubog, Bordia, Plewa, 2014). Among professionally active per-
sons, positive correlations have been identified also with more objective indices of
career success, such as work effectiveness or annual income (Haibo et al., 2017). In
a transcultural study encompassing 986 high school students from Italy, Greece and
France (Sovet, Annovazzi, Ginevra, Kaliris, Lodi, 2018), a positive relationship was re-
corded between career adaptability and courage.
Some interesting results were obtained in studies of relationships between career
adaptability and job preferences. Whereas the relationship between adaptability and
specific job preferences proved to be weak (Šverko, Babarović, 2016), a high level of
adaptability was connected with a broader range of interests (Soresi et al., 2012).
In a 2017 meta-analysis of 90 studies, Rudolph, Lavigne and Zacher analysed the
correlations between career adaptability and three groups of variables: adaptavity, ex- EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
pressed for example through pro-activity, adapting responses, such as career planning,
and adaptation results, e.g. job satisfaction. They confirmed the positive relationship
between adaptability and career planning, exploring job opportunities and one’s sense
of effectiveness (both general and in relation to taking career-related decisions). Adapt-
ability also proved to be a predictor of identification with the job, feeling of true voca-
tion, satisfaction (life, job, school), involvement, employability, subjectively measured
effectiveness, income and positive affect. When it comes to demographic variables,
correlations with age and educational background proved significant. Furthermore,
negative relationships between career adaptability and job stress, thinking of quitting
and negative affect were confirmed.
The French researchers Pouyaud, Vignoli, Dosnon and Lallemand (2012) assumed
that career adaptability and work motivation are similarly related to the pursuit of the
individual’s goals. In accordance with their expectations, career adaptability correlat-
ed positively with the need for achievements, internal sense of control and future-ori-
ented temporal perspective and negatively with fear as a trait and fear of failure. Only
 8 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

the curiosity scale showed weaker correlation with motivation. The aspect of motiva-
tion in the context of career adaptability was explored also by the Dutch researchers
Vianen, Klehe, Koen and Dries (2012). To this end, they employed Higgins’s (1997)
concept of regulatory focus, which shifted emphasis from the description and explana-
tion of desirable outcomes of human actions to the explanation of the process of mo-
tivation through the identification of promotional and preventive self-regulation. The
results of their study showed that in line with their expectations the scores on promo-
tional self-regulation, testifying to the individual’s use of pro-developmental activities,
correlated positively with the scores on three adaptability scales – concern, curiosity
and confidence. On the other hand, the scores on the preventive self-regulation scale,
which covers the individual’s unwillingness to change, choice of obligatory activities
and loss reduction, correlated negatively with confidence and positively with control.
Also studies of the Spanish adaptation of CAAS (Merino-Tejedor, 2016) indicated
a positive relationship between self-regulation and overall career adaptation.
One of the main research areas concerning career adaptability as a meta-compe-
tence, are its relations with personality traits, disposition dimensions and environmen-
tal resources. The starting point were studies using 5-factor personality model, which
showed a relationship between selected personality traits and career dispositions of indi-
viduals. Specifically, neuroticism turned out to be negatively correlated with identifica-
tion with job (Costa, McCrae, Holland, 1984; Tokar, Swanson, 1995), satisfaction with
career choice (Boudreau, Boswell, Judge, 2001), looking for employment (Reed, Bruch,
Haase, 2004) and adaptation to work (Rottinghaus, Day, Borgen, 2005). On the other
hand, extraversion was connected with positive assessment of the working environment
(Tziner, Meir, Segal, 2002), while openness, diligence and extraversion turned out to
be predictors of success in the process of career transition (Hepner, Multon, Johnston,
1994). In this context, suppositions made by the Dutch (Vianen et al., 2012) and Brazil-
ian (Teixeira et al., 2012) researchers, assuming a direct relationship between personality
traits and dimensions of career adaptability, proved correct. They confirmed the connec-
tions between all the five personality dimensions with sub-scales measuring adaptabil-
ity through correlations ranging from –.18 (neuroticism) to .39 (openness). The varia-
bles least connected with adaptability turned out to be agreeableness and diligence. The
Dutch studies (Vianen et al., 2012) proved a particularly strong positive connection be-
tween extraversion and all the dimensions of adaptability.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

One of the conditions for the attainment of career maturity by an individual is the
ability to take decisions in the situation of uncertainty, which is connected with ambi-
guity tolerance. This notion dates back to the American sociology of organisations, and
more specifically to the works of March (as cited in: Hofstede, 2000, p. 177). Hofstede
(2000, p. 177) used the term ‘uncertainty avoidance’, defining it as ‘coping with situa-
tions of uncertainty in work environment’. This notion proved adequate for many other
social situations. Its characteristic trait is subjectivity. Uncertainty-ambiguity can also
be elements of cultural heritage, transmitted and reinforced by basic social institutions,
such as family, school and state. Uncertainty seen in this way is a factor which modifies
values and behaviours of the given culture. Uncertainty tolerance is also treated as one of
the dimensions of individual differences in the hierarchy of values accepted by the indi-
vidual (You, Donthu, Lenartowicz, 2011) or in respect of their cognitive motivation. In
the latter case, ambiguity tolerance was defined as the manner of perceiving and react-
ing to ambiguous situations or stimuli characterised by a range of unknown, complex
or inconsistent hints (Budner, 1962; Furnham, Ribchester, 1995). This construct has
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
9
a bipolar nature: on the one extreme, there are individuals who clearly prefer new and
surprising experiences, on the other, there are individuals who avoid such experiences.
According to Furnham and Ribchester (1995), persons with a low level of ambiguity tol-
erance have a tendency to experience severe stress, they react prematurely to avoid am-
biguous stimuli, while persons with a high ambiguity tolerance see untypical situations/
stimuli as desirable and interesting. In this respect, the notion of ambiguity tolerance
seems to be related to the concept of the need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski, 1990),
and all the more so because the term ‘need’, just like the term ‘preference’, refers more to
a certain tendency of the individual, or possibly a stable direction, than to a state which
results from the perception of some specific deficit. Need for cognitive closure and low
ambiguity tolerance alike prompt the individual to look for information which will re-
duce the level of subjectively perceived uncertainty (Jaworski, 1998; Kruglanski, Web-
ster, 1996; Webster, Kruglanski, 1994), which means that one can expect a positive re-
lationship between ambiguity tolerance and the domains of career maturity defined by
Savickas and Porfeli (2012).
Such a relationship was confirmed by the studies of Xu and Tracey (2014, 2015).
These scholars concluded that ambiguity tolerance was a predictor of overall indeci-
siveness, dysfunctional beliefs, lack of ability to resource information by a job candi-
date and all the dimensions of career adaptability. It was also a moderator of the rela-
tionship between the exploration of work environment and acquisition of inconsistent
information by the individual. In their subsequent studies (Xu, Tracey, 2017a, 2017b),
they identified a 4-element structure of ambiguity tolerance, which consisted of pref-
erence, tolerance, confidence and aversion. Preference describes the individual’s ten-
dency to experience interest in ambiguity when taking career-related decisions. Toler-
ance means a tendency to experience acceptance of uncertainty and to feel competent
in dealing with ambiguity when taking career-related decisions. Confidence is con-
nected with the individual’s sense of effectiveness, while aversion describes the indi-
vidual’s tendency to experience ambiguity as undesirable and to avoid it in the process
of taking career-related decisions.
The currently conducted studies focus on the analysis of relationships between ca-
reer adaptability and traits of the subjects and on the consequences of this ability such
as involvement in job (Rossier, Zecca, Staufer, Maggiori, Dauwalder, 2012). On the
other hand, we are lacking research which could help us determine the relationships EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
between overall maturity and career adaptability of young adults.
In the previous studies in the developmental paradigm, few as they were, age not
always proved to be a significant predictor of the development of career adaptability
(Hirschi, Läge, 2007; Hirschi, 2009; Hirschi, Valero, 2015). As claimed by the authors
of the career adaptability concept Savickas and Porfeli (2012), there exists a wide range
of developmental variables which can turn out to be predictors of its components.
These variables may include identity statuses. In the standardisation of the Ameri-
can version of CAAS, these scholars employed the technique of investigating profes-
sional identities (Porfeli, Lee, Vondracek, Weigold, 2011). It allows one to identify six
basic identity statues. Four of them (cf. Brzezińska, 2010) have been distinguished in
accordance with Marcia’s concept and are attained as a result of the combination of
two steps – exploration and making commitment. They are: identity achievement,
foreclosed identity, diffused identity and moratorium identity. In the aforecited study
(Porfeli et al., 2011), two additional statuses were distinguished due to the division of
the category of exploration into two categories (deepened vs. broadened) and the cat-
 10 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

egory of commitment (making vs identifying). In this manner, the searching morato-

rium identity, also known as tentative commitment, was placed between the statuses
of achieved identity and moratorium identity. A sixth status – undifferentiated – was
also distinguished, because for one fifth of the studied young people, it was difficult
to assign any of the five statuses. It turned out that the scores of all the dimensions of
CAAS grow systematically in groups characterised by increasing developmental po-
tential in the direction from diffuse identity to achieved identity.
Polish studies conducted in the developmental school by Turska and Stasiła-
Sieradzka (2018), even though not directly related to the concept of career adaptability,
indicated the occurrence of significant relationships between the attitude to entering the
job market and the variable connected with the development of young people, i.e. tran-
sitive life orientation (with positive attitude) and moratorium life orientation (with neg-
ative attitude). The authors employed also the concept proposed by Reinders and Butz
(2001), who, basing on the high vs. low intensity of the transitive orientation and mor-
atorium orientation, designated four paths of the development of young people. These
paths were defined as four types of social participation: integration (high levels of both
orientations), assimilation (strong transitive orientation and weak moratorium orienta-
tion), segregation (low level of transitive orientation, but high level of moratorium ori-
entation) and marginalisation (low levels of both orientations). It turned out that young
persons of the assimilation type represented a more positive approach to transition from
education to job market than persons of the segregation type.
Lastly, some attention should be devoted to the fact that those of the discussed
studies which took into consideration the demographic variable of gender rendered
ambiguous results, which are likely strongly related to cultural patterns. In the major-
ity, differences between women and men in respect of career adaptability turned out to
be insignificant (as cited in: Rudolph et al., 2017). There are, however, data from stud-
ies with Chinese young adults which suggest that men have greater career adaptability
than women (Hou, Leung, Li, Li, Xu, 2012) – with the exception of the concern di-
mension, where the difference is insignificant. Similar results were obtained in studies
of the Korean youth (Han, Rojewski, 2015). On the other hand, German studies indi-
cate no difference between genders (Hirschi, 2009); in Belgium (Dries, Van Esbroeck,
Van Vianen, De Cooman, Pepermans, 2012) and Portugal (Duarte et al., 2012), wom-
en scored conversely higher on the concern scale (Rossier et al., 2012).
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS DESIGN

To summarise, it has been assumed that career adaptability has a 5-dimensional struc-
ture. The contents of each the dimensions – concern, control, curiosity, confidence
and cooperation – together produce one scale. The decision was taken to extend the
questionnaire to include the cooperation scale, which can prove diagnostic in more
collectivist societies.
Later in the article, the psychometric properties of the adapted instrument will be
presented together with some argumentation to support its theoretical accuracy ob-
tained from the confirmatory analysis as well as results evidencing the accuracy of the
scales calculated using the internal consistency method. The model adopted in this
work for the verification of the measurement method accepts the significant role of
young people’s strategy towards the completion of maturity tasks and the intensity of
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
11
concerns concerning professional future which is difficult to foresee. In a transcultur-
al study of values, it turned out that Poles score high on avoiding uncertainty (project
GLOBE, project IBM, as cited in: Boski, 2009). Also studies conducted by Kasprzak
(2013) concerning career modelling indicated that the majority of Poles pursue a con-
ventional career – non-mobile and continuous. These analyses suggest that in the Pol-
ish conditions there is a connection between adaptability and avoidance of uncertain-
ty. Consequently, in order to assess the criterion accuracy, it was investigated to what
extent the results of the questionnaire correlate with the dimensions of life orientation
and ambiguity tolerance in taking career-related decisions. Moreover, the relationship
between the demographic characteristics of the subjects (gender and age) and the level
of career adaptability was scrutinised.

METHOD
Subjects
The data were collected from 664 subjects, including 420 women and 244 men aged
18–34 (M = 23.38; SD = 2.97). The study involved mostly students and graduates of
various universities and colleges, 64% of whom were professionally active persons with
professional experience, 24% were professionally non-active persons with profession-
al experience, and 6% – persons without any professional experience, and persons on
their first job, each. The subjects were recruited for stationary studies by pollsters.

Instruments
(1) Career Adapt-Ability Scale-5, CAAS-5 (Nye, Leong, Prasad, Gardner, Tien, 2017).
The Career Adapt-Ability Scale – CAAS-5 – consists of 30 items, six per each of
the five sub-scales: concern, control, curiosity, confidence and cooperation. Ale items
are phrased affirmatively. The set-up of statements for the first four scales is analogous
to the original one. Items for the fifth scale have been qualified by competent judges to
reflect the Polish cultural specificity. Responses indicating the intensity of particular
skills are marked on a 5-point scale from 1 (not strong) to 5 (strongest). Reponses are
added up both in sub-scales and in relation to the global score (the sum of responses
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

to all test items).

In the process of preliminary adaptation of the scales, the group translation meth-
od was employed – the text was translated by two English language experts and two
psychologists proficient in English, who together agreed on the final version.
For the assessment of the criterion accuracy of this scale, the following two instru-
ments were used:

(2) Social Participation Questionnaire, SPQ-2 (Polish: Kwestionariusz Partycypacji

Społecznej, KPS-2; Rękosiewicz, 2013a, 2013b). The questionnaire is an original Pol-
ish instrument developed by Brzezińska, Hejmanowski and Rękosiewicz on the basis
of a theoretical account of social participation types emerging in the period of transi-
tion from adolescence to adulthood by Reinders, Merkens and Bergs-Winkels (Reinders,
2006). This scale is intended for diagnosing the types of moratorium life orientation (e.g.
If possible, I avoid duties and spend time enjoying myself ) and transitive life orientation
 12 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

(I do a lot to have such a job in the future that will make me successful); it also makes it pos-
sible to distinguish between four dimensions of social participation – integration, seg-
regation, marginalisation and assimilation. In the study, the abridged version of SPQ-2
was used – recommended for use in scientific studies (age: 19–35). The instrument con-
sists of 20 items which make up two sub-scales. The study subject assesses statements
using a 5-point scale (from 1 – no, to 5 – yes). A high score in the moratorium scale in-
dicates that the subject is focused on the achievement of present goals and using current
opportunities. A high score in the transitive orientation scale, on the other hand, sug-
gests that the subject is oriented towards development and attainment of goals located
in the future. Studies confirmed the satisfactory psychometric properties of the instru-
ment: Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients amounted to .86 for the moratorium orienta-
tion subscale and .84 for of the transitive orientation subscale (Rękosiewicz, 2014).

(3) Polish pilot version of the Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-R, CDAT
(Xu, Tracey, 2015). The questionnaire was developed for the purpose of measurement
of individual’s response to unknown, complex, inconsistent and unpredictable infor-
mation when taking career-related decisions. It consists of 20 items which make up
four sub-scales – preference, e.g. It is fascinating to learn about my own strengths and
weaknesses, tolerance, e.g. I take into consideration the possibility of changing interests in
future, confidence, e.g. I can take decisions in the situation of many equally attractive op-
portunities, and aversion, e.g. I try to avoid taking complicated career-related decisions.
The scale of trust is a new one and is currently being tested by the authors (Xu, per-
sonal communication). The subjects assess the statements using a 7-point scale. The
Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for the subscales are, respectively (values for the
Polish pilot version are given in brackets): .79 (.87); .69 (.87); (.85); .83 (.79). For the
confidence scale, the reliability coefficient is available only for the Polish version.

RESULTS
Internal structure analysis
The analysis of the instrument’s structure was performed on the basis of the criterion
accuracy analysis. The size of the sample (N = 664) was sufficient for the performance
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

of this analysis, as Mitchel’s (1993, as cited in: Garson, 2010) rule, according to which
the model should contain 10 to 20 times more observations than the measurable varia-
bles (in this case the number of variables amounts to 30), was met. In order to find out
whether the verified model is supported by the empirical data, two confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) were carried out (Konarski, 2009) using the programme AMOS 25 for
the hierarchic models of the 4-factor and 5-factor Career Adapt-Ability Scale-5. Both
models contained a second order factor (a latent variable – generalised career adapta-
bility) which was supposed to explain four or five latent variables – factors correspond-
ing to the scales of the two versions of Career Adapt-Ability Scale – 4- and 5-factor.
The parameters of both models were estimated using the ADS (asymptotically distribu-
tion-free) method, because the multivariate kurtosis = 185.22 and the cr test = 54.62
indicated non-fulfilment of the condition of scores distribution in relation to the ex-
pected normal distribution. The descriptive statistics for individual items of the five
factors, presented in Table 1, show little symmetry of scores in individual statements.
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
13
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and discriminatory power of the items of Career Adapt-Ability Scale-5

item-
ITEM M SD skewness kurtosis
scale r
Concern
1. Thinking about what my future will
2.85 1.07 .14 –.62 .63
be like
2. Realizing that today’s choices shape
3.14 1.07 –.05 –.65 .65
my future
3. Preparing for the future 2.88 1.05 .09 –.45 .72
4. Becoming aware of the educational
2.93 1.14 .05 –.70 .67
and career choices that I must make
5. Planning how to achieve my goals 3.10 1.10 –.06 –.64 .65
6. Concerned about my career 2.82 1.13 .14 –.78 .60
Control
1. Keeping upbeat 3.20 1.43 –.23 –1.28 .44
2. Making decisions by myself 3.36 1.24 –.37 –.83 .69
3. Taking responsibility for my actions 3.68 1.12 –.56 –.49 .68
4. Sticking up for my beliefs 3.70 1.05 –.41 –.62 .55
5. Counting on myself 3.67 1.13 –.55 –.45 .58
6. Doing what’s right for me 3.38 1.13 –.29 –.63 .52
Curiosity
1. Exploring my surroundings 3.07 1.10 –.14 –.78 .50
2. Looking for opportunities to grow as
3.20 1.08 –.03 –.95 .64
a person
3. Investigating options before making
3.42 1.13 –.14 –.68 .58
a choice
4. Observing different ways of doing
3.24 1.06 –.33 –.73 .66
things
5. Probing deeply into questions I have 3.06 1.22 –.11 –.66 .58
6. Becoming curious about new
3.28 1.12 .03 –.75 .64
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
opportunities
Confidence
1. Performing tasks efficiently 3.33 1.05 –.27 –.67 .66
2. Taking care to do things well 3.56 1.03 –.19 –.72 .59
3. Learning new skills 3.43 1.05 –.22 –.64 .66
4. Working up to my ability 3.45 1.04 –.14 –.76 .69
5. Overcoming obstacles 3.22 1.14 –.39 –.42 .69
6. Solving problems 3.31 1.13 –.22 –.57 .65
Cooperation
1. Using advice and help 3.08 1.18 –.06 –.92 .49
2. Playing my part on a team 3.50 1.20 –.50 –.61 .58
3. Understanding others’ point of view 3.48 1.20 –.37 –.84 .62
 14 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

TABLE 1. cd.

item-
ITEM M SD skewness kurtosis
scale r
4. Taking feedback from the
3.32 1.13 –.19 –.77 .68
surrounding persons
5. Taking into consideration feelings of
3.83 1.13 –.74 –.25 .50
family and friends
6. Resisting group pressure 3.12 1.28 –.06 –.92 .25

The estimation of the fit was based on the χ2/df statistics, GFI, CFI and TLI,
RMSEA, SRMR and NFI. Furthermore, the 4- and 5-factor models were tested tak-
ing into consideration the covariance between item errors connected with MI equal to
or over 20 (Hu, Bentler, 1999).

TABLE 2
Confirmatory analysis – comparison of the models

Model χ2 df χ2/df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR NFI

4-factor
1522.6* 249 6.12 .82 .84 .82 .09 .09 .81
(Poland)
4-factor
887.83* 248 3.58 .82 .84 .82 .08
(Switzerland)
4-factor
adjusted
755.11* 231 3.27 .91 .93 .92 .06 .07 .91
(Poland)
(18 MI > 20)
4-factor
adjusted
543* 242 2.25 .89 .92 .91 .06
(6 MI > 20)
(Switzerland)**
5-factor
1988* 401 4.96 .82 .83 .81 .08 .09 .79
(Poland)
5-factor
adjusted
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

1258.8* 382 3.3 .89 .93 .89 .06 .08 .87

(Poland)
(17 MI > 20)
5-factor
(USA, China, 3084.2* 1204 2.56 .91 .06 .06
Taiwan)***
*p < .001; df – degrees of freedom; GFI – goodness of fit index, CFI – comparative fit index, TLI –Tucker-
Lewis index; RMSEA – root mean square error of approximation, SRMR – standardised root mean residu-
al; NFI – normed fit index; MI > 20: the model takes into consideration the covariance between item errors
related to the modification index equal to or greater than 20; **Rossier et al. (2012); *** Nye, Leong,
Prasad, Gardner, Tien (2017).

The value of χ2 together with the freedom degree, which summarises the discrep-
ancy between the observed covariance matrix and the one implied by the model, is
the conventional measure which enables the testing of the hypothesis about the lack of
discrepancy between these matrices in the population. Applied in this case, it leads to
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
15
the rejection of the hypothesis and, consequently, the model. However, its usefulness,
in particular in the case of large samples, is limited, because it leads to rejection of
correct models too often (Arbuckle, 2006). Conventionally, results of this test are in-
cluded in publications. At the same time, the value of the relatively common measure
of the quality of fit of the model – χ2/df – has been included. The upper limit for well-
fitted models is set at the level of 5 (Arbuckle, 2006). The comparison of the 4- and
5-factor model (Table 2) suggests better fit of the 5-factor model, because the χ2/df
does not exceed 5 in this case. On the other hand, the adjusted 4- and 5-factor mod-
els do not differ in terms of this measure, because for both its value did not exceed 4.
The CFI values in both adjusted models exceeded .90, the GFI, TLI and NFI in the
adjusted 4-factor model indicated better fit than in the adjusted 5-factor and exceeded
.90. In both adjusted models, RMSEA and SRMR were below or equal to the criti-
cal value .08, which justifies the acceptance of both model as well-fitted to the data.
The results of the confirmatory analysis were compared with analogous stand-
ardisation studies conducted in Switzerland (Rossier et al., 2012) and USA, China
and Taiwan (Nye, Leong, Prasad, Gardner, Tien, 2017). The groups of reference were
selected for the similarity of the procedure of the applied analyses (even though the
number of the reported fit indices in the Swiss study was smaller) and for the fact
that the studies in USA, China and Taiwan were the only ones conducted so far us-
ing the 5-factor Career Adapt-Ability Scale. As far as the adjusted 4-factor model is
concerned, slightly lower fit indices were obtained in comparison to the model tested
in Switzerland (also adjusted with the same MI). The comparison of the Polish 5-fac-
tor adjusted model with the results of the studies conducted on students from USA,
China and Taiwan indicates a slightly higher RMSEA in the Polish study, while the
remaining fit indices achieved very similar and acceptable values.
In the next step, the factor loadings of individual scale items were investigated.
Figure 1 presents simplified (with errors markers omitted) path diagrams of the con-
firmatory factor analysis of the measurement models for four and five scales of CAAS.
The diagram has the values of standardised regression coefficients, i.e. factor loadings
between the latent variables (scales) and observable indices (scores for individual po-
sitions), marked. All the standardised coefficients proved to be positive, high and sta-
tistically significant at the level of p < .01, which confirmed the homogeneity of the
sub-scales. EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
In order to ensure identifiability of the model, the variance of the latent vari-
ables was set at the level of 1, meaning that they are standardised variables. In the
4-factor model, the lowest loading, with the still acceptable value of .49, character-
ises statement 1 on the control scale – ‘Keeping upbeat’, and in the 5-factor model,
statement 6 of the cooperation scale – ‘Resisting group pressure’, which reached the
loading value of .32. In spite of the lower loading than others, this statement was
retained to preserve the original structure of the questionnaire. In the 4-factor ver-
sion of the questionnaire (Savickas, Porfeli, 2012) and in the 5-factor version (Nye,
Leong, Prasad, Gardner, Tien, 2017), similar scores were obtained, and the stand-
ardised parameters ranged from .48 to .75 for the four basic scales and for the coop-
eration scale from .57 to .83.
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis have allowed the determination of
the structure of CAAS-5 as 5-factor (with a general higher order factor). Such a struc-
ture of the instrument enables the interpretation of its results both in relation to indi-
vidual dimensions and the general career adaptability construct.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
16

FIGURE 1. Hierarchical structure and standardised coefficients of two models – 4- and 5-factor of the Polish versions of Career Adapt-Ability Scale.
Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
17
Scales reliability
The first calculated statistic was the coefficient of an item’s discriminatory power,
which indicates the extent to which it differentiates the studied population in respect
of the trait to which refers. The correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r) between the indi-
vidual statements of the questionnaire and the score on the relevant sub-scale were ac-
cepted as the indices of discriminatory power, with the compared statement excluded
(Table 1). The coefficients of the correlation between the item and the sub-scale score,
except for the two mentioned above, exceed the value of .50, which indicates good dis-
criminatory power of the instrument. The next stage of the analysis was the estimation
of reliability, which was carried out on the basis of the calculation of internal consist-
ency coefficients – Cronbach’s α. For all the sub-scales, this coefficient reached val-
ues over .70 (Table 3), which indicates that each of them is a homogeneous construct
with a high internal consistency (Lance, Butts, Michels, 2006). The original question-
naire in the 4-factor version (Savickas, Porfeli, 2012) and in the 5-factor version (Nye,
Leong, Prasad, Gardner, Tien, 2017) is characterised by very similar values of Cron-
bach’s α coefficient.

TABLE 3
Results of reliability analysis for Career Adapt-Ability Scale-5 – Polish and international studies

Poland Switzerland USA, China, Taiwan

Scales
Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α
Concern .86 .85 .88
Control .81 .76 .83
Curiosity .83 .81 .85
Confidence .86 .83 .87
Cooperation .77 – .77
Adaptation .92 .94 .96

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

CRITERION VALIDITY
The criterion validity of the questionnaire was determined by means of a compari-
son of the results of the adjusted instrument with the results of two methods in-
vestigating constructs theoretically close to career adaptability – CDAT and SPQ
(Table 4). When determining the convergent validity, the analysis covered the re-
lationships between the three dimensions of ambiguity tolerance in taking career-
related decisions – preference, tolerance and confidence – and the transitive life
orientation with the distinguished two dimensions of social participation – inte-
gration and assimilation. The divergent validity was analysed by matching the di-
mensions of CAAS-5 with aversion of the ambiguity tolerance scale, moratorium
orientation and the remaining two dimensions of social participation – segregation
and marginalisation.
As a result of the correlation analysis (Pearson’s r), a positive and statistically sig-
nificant relationship between all the dimensions of career adaptability was confirmed.
 18 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

The weakest correlation was noted between the dimension of concern and the dimen-
sions of cooperation (r = .24, p < .01) and control (r = .38, p < .01), while the strongest
between confidence and control as well as curiosity (r = .63, p < .01).
The relationship between the dimensions of career adaptability and the dimen-
sions of CDAT – preference, tolerance and confidence – turned out to be positive,
while the relationship with the dimension of aversion – negative. One exception is the
dimension of concern, whose relationship with ambiguity tolerance turned out to be
statistically insignificant.
All the correlation coefficients between the transitive life orientation and the
dimensions of adaptability turned out to be statistically significant and positive;
the strongest one was noted for the correlation between the transitive orientation
and concern. The relationship between the moratorium orientation and scores on
CAAS-5, such as curiosity, confidence, cooperation and the global score, turned out
to be statistically insignificant. Concern and control were related to the moratorium
orientation, respectively, in a negative and positive fashion, but these correlations
were not strong. Interestingly, the control dimension correlates positively with both
orientations.
The relationship between age and the dimensions of career adaptability is insignif-
icant. Age correlates only negatively with the moratorium orientation and aversion of
the ambiguity tolerance scale and positively with the confidence scale of CDAT. These
correlations, even though statistically significant, are weak.
In the subsequent step, four types of social participation were distinguished
in the studied group as the criterion by means of the analysis of k-means clus-
tering for the moratorium and transitive orientations. In effect, the following in-
dependent groups of subjects were obtained: 1. integrative type: high moratorium
orientation and high transitive orientation (28.5% of the subjects); 2. assimilation
type: low moratorium orientation and high transitive orientation (33.7% of the sub-
jects); 3. segregation type: high moratorium orientation and low transitive orienta-
tion (13.6%); 4. marginalisation type: low transitive orientation and low moratori-
um orientation (24.2% of the subjects).
All the clusters differ from each other in respect of four dimensions – concern
[F (3, 660) = 58.64; p < .001; η2 = .21]; control [F (3, 659) = 8.45; p < .001; η2 = .04];
curiosity [F (3, 658) = 16.32; p < .001; η2 = .07]; confidence F (3, 659) = 10.91;
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

p < .001; η2 = .05; and overall adaptability [F (3, 657) = 20.02; p < .001; η2 = .08].
The clusters do not differ significantly in terms of cooperation [F (3, 658) = 2.17;
η2 = .01]. The greatest intensity of concern, curiosity, confidence and overall adapt-
ability was observed in persons of the integration and assimilation participation
types, while the smallest in persons of the segregation type. Large differences be-
tween the clusters are also visible at the level of control. Its high level is characteris-
tic of the integration type, while low of the remaining types (Figure 2). This means
that a high level of control is accompanied by a high level of moratorium and tran-
sitive orientation.
The analysis of differences between women and men indicated their similarity in
respect of the CAAS-5 variables (Table 4). True enough, there are statistically signifi-
cant differences in respect of control, curiosity, confidence and overall adaptability,
but the size of the η2 effect is small and oscillates between 1% and 3%.
 TABLE 4
Analysis of relationships between the variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Career 1. Concern 1
Adaptability 2. Control .38** 1
3. Curiosity .51** .46** 1
4. Confidence .53** .63** .63** 1
5. Cooperation .24** .35** .40** .48** 1
6. Adaptation .71** .75** .79** .87** .65** 1
Orientation 7. Transitive .54** .12** .30** .27** .13** .36** 1
8. Moratorium –.19** .17* .02 .03 .07 .02 –.25** 1
Career 9. Preference .28** .28** .34** .29** .21** .37** .36** .08 1
Decision 10. Tolerance –.02 .24** .17** .12** .10** .16** –.07 .24** .31** 1
Ambiguity
Tolerance 11. Confidence .34** .47** .34** .42** .19** .46** .21** .10* .44** .44** 1
12. Aversion –.25** –.32** –.20** –.28** –.11** –.30** –.10** .04 –.18** –.16** –.38** 1
13. Age .05 .04 .05 .04 .01 .06 .02 –.17** –.04 .05 .12** –.09* 1
*p < .05; **p < .01
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
19

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

 20 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

FIGURE 2. Intensity of the dimensions of career adaptability in four types of social participation on the basis
of k-means clustering.

TABLE 5
Comparison of the scores of females and males in Career Adapt-Ability Scale-5 (ANOVA)

Gender
Female Male η2 effect
Scale F
N = 420 N = 244 size
M SD M SD
Concern 2.92 .84 3.01 .83 1.78 .00
Control 3.39 .87 3.68 .79 19.13*** .03
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

Curiosity 3.16 .84 3.31 .78 5.50* .01

Confidence 3.34 .86 3.47 .76 3.89* .01
Cooperation 3.44 .81 3.31 .78 3.58 .00
Adaptation 16.26 3.23 16.79 2.87 4.45* .01
* p < .05; *** p < .001

DISCUSSION
The results of the study clearly indicate that the Polish version of CAAS-5 is an accu-
rate and useful instrument for the assessment of career adaptability and its five com-
ponents. All its dimensions are also significantly related to ambiguity tolerance in tak-
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
21
ing career-related decisions and to the moratorium life orientation, the transitive life
orientation together with the distinguished four dimensions of social participation –
integration, segregation, marginalisation and assimilation, which indicates that career
adaptability can be significantly related to the attributes of adulthood.
As far as the validation of the Polish version of CAAS-5 is concerned, the psy-
chometric properties have been obtained at a level similar to other language versions
(Nye, Leong, Prasad, Gardner, Tien, 2017; Rossier et al., 2012; Savickas, Portfe-
li, 2012). The higher order factor analysis, in accordance with theoretical assump-
tions, confirmed the 5-factor structure of the instrument with a second order factor
– overall career adaptability. This allows one to analyse the results both in the five
indexes of adaptation and in the form of the overall score. The values of correlations
between the scales of the questionnaire are moderately related and align with the
assumptions of the model. The weaker relationships of the cooperation dimension
with the remaining aspects of adaptation can result from its different character, be-
cause it refers more to interpersonal skills, while the remaining dimensions capture
intrapersonal competencies.
The analysis of the internal structure of the questionnaire confirmed satisfactory
discriminative power of the test items. The instrument is also characterised by a high
internal consistency, similar to the one obtained in the international studies (Savickas,
Portfeli, 2012; Sulistiani, Handoyo, 2018).
The significant pattern of correlations between career adaptability and the tran-
sitive orientation with the two dimensions of social participation – integration and
assimilation – proves the convergent reliability of CAAS-5. The distribution of the
participation types is consistent with the results obtained by other authors who
investigated young adults (Rękosiewicz, 2014; Savickas, Portfeli, 2012; Turska,
Stasiła-Sieradzka, 2016, 2018) and indicates a majority of persons of the assimilative
and integrative types among the studied persons, however the group of the assimila-
tive type (low moratorium and high transitivity) is characterised by a weaker sense
of control of the future career, which can testify to a realistic assessment of the con-
temporary job market which they make, as confirmed in the Polish study by Kaspr-
zak (2013). Persons of the integrative type represent the broadest spectrum and the
greatest score on career adaptability, while persons of the marginalising and segrega-
tive types, the lowest. The latter, however, in opposition to the marginalising type, EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
have a higher sense of control (at higher moratorium orientation). In the results of
the studies carried out by Turska and Stasiła-Sieradzka (2016, 2018), such persons
exhibited the most reluctant attitude to entering the job market – perhaps because
they did not want to lose the ability to influence their surroundings. Interesting-
ly, the highest scores of adaptability measurements were obtained by persons with
a high intensity of both moratorium and transitive orientations, which is not entirely
in line with the results of the studies of Savickas and Porfeli (2012) conducted on the
American youth, which pointed to the greatest development of career adaptability
in persons with the achieved identity status. On the contrary, in the Polish studies,
the moratorium identity seems to play a positive role in the adaptation process. Per-
haps this is an expression of cultural diversity and it may stem from the fact that the
environment caters sufficiently to the needs of young people, not expecting them to
participate actively. Another aspect which hinders the comparison of the American
and Polish groups is the difference of age – the average age of the American subjects
was 16.5, while of the Polish 23.4.
 22 Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz

Similarly to other standardisation studies (Hirschi, Läge, 2007; Rudolf et al.,

2017), it has been established that career adaptability is not related to age, which de-
serves further research. It is possible that some factors related to age contribute to ca-
reer adaptation (e.g. increase in diligence and agreeableness), while other hinder it
(e.g. decrease in cognitive abilities that comes with age). These changes can mutually
set each other off, which renders a generally weak correlation between age and career
adaptability. It is also possible that this ability becomes more important at specific ca-
reer stages, e.g. in the periods of transition – taking or changing jobs or retirement.
Gender as another demographic variable differentiating women from men brings
the results of the Polish study closer to the Asian ones (Han, Rojewski, 2015; Hou et
al., 2012), as men scored higher on the majority of career adaptability dimensions:
control, curiosity, confidence and overall score. The effects in all the compared popu-
lations are not high, though.
The relationship between career adaptability and the dimensions of ambiguity
tolerance confirmed the importance of this construct, which should be taken into ac-
count in order to understand and predict the course of taking career-related decisions
(Xu, Tracey, 2015). It was interesting to find out the lack of relationship between the
dimension of concern and only one dimension of CDAT – tolerance, when at the same
time important correlations with preference, confidence and aversion were noted; in
the studies by Xu and Tracey, all these dimensions moderately, but significantly corre-
lated with concern. Perhaps this is another manifestation of the cultural specificity of
the studied Polish group and – as pointed out by Boski (2009) when interpreting the
phenomenon of uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s projects – in the case of a high
level of uncertainty avoidance, the central role is played by strong negative emotions
connected with the sense of danger that the members of a given culture experience in
connection with an unknown situation. In this sense, Poland is among the top of the
countries which avoid uncertainty. The tolerance dimension included in CDAT may
not be sufficiently emotion-laden in comparison with the other three dimensions.
One limitation of the presented study is the non-representative sampling (great-
er number of women and persons with longer professional experience). The source of
this methodological problem was frequent refusal of men to take part in the study and
quite a high number of young adults who take jobs early. In the future, it would be
advisable to carry out further studies aimed at the validation of the instrument which
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020

would take into consideration various stages of professional development, including

periods of transition, as well as professional groups which require different levels of
flexibility and adaptation to changes.
To sum up, the study clearly demonstrated that the Polish version of CAAS-5
can become a good instrument for the measurement of career adaptability which can
prove useful in predicting young people’s success in performing the obligations of
adulthood.

REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J.L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User’s Guide. young adult. International Journal for Ed-
Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. ucational and Vocational Guidance, 18,
Ataç, L.O., Dirik, D., Tetik, H.T. (2018). Pre- 45–61, doi: 10.1007/s10775-017-9346-1.
dicting career adaptability through self- Boski, P. (2009). Kulturowe ramy zachowań
esteem and social support: A research on społecznych [Cultural framing of social
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
behaviour]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN, Academica Wydaw-
nictwo SWPS.
Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., Judge, T.A.
(2001). Effects of personality on execu-
tive career success in the United States
and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 58, 53–81.
Brzezińska, A. (2010). Społeczna psychologia
rozwoju [Social psychology of develop-
ment]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Na-
ukowe Scholar.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity
as a personality variable. Journal of Per-
sonality, 30, 29–50.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., Holland, J.
(1984). Personality and vocational in-
terests in an adult sample. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 69, 390–400.
Dries, N., Van Esbroeck, R., Van Vianen, A.,
De Cooman, R., Pepermans, R. (2012).
Career Adapt-Abilities Scale-Belgium
Form: Psychometric characteristics and
construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 674–679. doi: 10.1016/j.
jvb.2012.01.012.
Duarte, M.E., Soares, M.C., Fraga, S., Ra-
fael, M., Lima, M.R., Parades, I., Ago-
stinho, R., Djalo, A. (2012). Career
Adapt-Abilities Scale–Portugal Form:
Psychometric properties and relation-
ships to employment status. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 725–729. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.019.
Einarsdóttir, S., Vilhjálmsdóttir, G.,
Smáradóttir, S.B., Kjartansdóttir, G.B.
(2015). A culture-sensitive approach in
the development of the Career Adapt-
Abilities Scale in Iceland: Theoretical
and operational considerations. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 89, 172–181. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.06.006.
Furnham, A., Ribchester, T. (1995). Toler-
ance of ambiguity: A review of the con-
cept, its measurement and applications.
Current Psychology, 14, 179–199.
Garson, D. (2010). Structural Equation
Modeling, http://www.chass.ncsu.edu/
garson/pa765/structur.htm.
Ginevra, M.C., Palini, S., Vecchio, G., Nota,
L., Soresi, S. (2016). Future orientation
and attitudes mediate career adaptabili-
23
ty and decidedness. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 96, 102–110.
Goodman, J. (1994). Career Adaptability in
Adults: Construct whose time has come.
The Career Development Quarterly, 43,
74–84.
Haibo, Y., Xiaoyu, G., Xioaming, Z., Zji-
jin, J. (2017). Career adaptability with
or without career identity. How career
adaptability leads to organizational suc-
cess and individual career success? Jour-
nal of Career Assessment, 2, 312–325.
Han, H., Rojewski, J.W. (2015). Gender-
specific models of work-bound Korean
adolescents’ social supports and career
adaptability on subsequent job satisfac-
tion. Journal of Career Development, 42,
149–164.
Heppner, M.J., Multon, K.D., Johnston, J.A.
(1994). Assessing psychological resourc-
es during career change: Development of
the career transitions inventory. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 44, 55–74.
Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and
pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–
1300.
Hirschi, A. (2009). Career adaptability de-
velopment in adolescence: Multiple pre-
dictors and effect on sense of power and
life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74, 145–155. doi: 10.1016/j.
jvb.2009.01.002.
Hirschi, A., Läge, D. (2007). Holland,s sec-
ondary constructs of vocational interests
and career choice readiness of secondary
students. Journal of Individual Differenc- EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
es, 28, 205–218.
Hirschi, A., Valero, D. (2015). Career adapt-
ability profiles and their relationship to
adaptivity and adapting. Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior, 88, 220–229. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.010.
Hofstede, G. (2000). Kultury i organizacje.
Zaprogramowanie umysłu [Cultures and
organisations. Programming the mind].
Warszawa: WN PWN.
Hou, Z.J., Leung, S.A., Li, X., Li, X., Xu,
H. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities
Scale–China Form: Construction and
initial validation. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 686–691. doi: 10.1016/j.
jvb.2012.01.006.
 24
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff cri-
teria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional cri-
teria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55, doi:
10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jaworski, M. (1998). Polska adaptacja Ska-
li Potrzeby Domknięcia Poznawczego
[Polish adaptation of the Need for Cog-
nitive Closure Scale]. Przegląd Psycholo-
giczny, 41, 251–163.
Johnston, C.S., Luciano, E.C., Maggiori, C.,
Ruch, W., Rossier, J. (2013). Validation of
the German version of the Career Adapt-
Abilities Scale and its relation to orienta-
tions to happiness and work stress. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 295–304.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.002.
Kanten, S. (2012). Kariyer uyum yetenekleri
o¨lc¸eg˘i: Gec¸erlilik ve gu¨venilirlik
c¸alıs¸ması. Su¨leyman Demirel U¨ niver-
sitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitu¨su¨ Dergisi,
2, 191–205.
Kasprzak, E. (2013). Poczucie jakości ży-
cia pracowników realizującej różne wzo-
ry kariery zawodowej [Sense of life qual-
ity of employees pursuing different
career paths]. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo
UKW.
Konarski, R. (2009). Modele równań struk-
turalnych. Teoria i praktyka [Structural
equations modelling. Theory and prac-
tice]. Warszawa: WN PWN.
Kruglanski, A.W. (1990). Lay epistemic the-
ory in social-cognitive psychology. Psy-
chological Inquiry, 1, 181–197.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
Kruglanski, A.W., Webster, D.M. (1996).
Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing”
and ”freezing”. Psychological Review,
103, 263–283.
Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M., Michels, L.C.
(2006). The sources of four commonly
cutoff criteria what did they really say?
Organizational Research Methods, 9,
202–220.
Maree, K. (red). (2017). Psychology of career
adaptability, employability and resilience.
Cham: Springer International Publish-
ing.
McKenna, B., Zacher, H., Ardabili, F.S.,
Mohebbi, H. (2016). Career Adapt-Abil-
ities Scale–Iran Form: Psychometric
Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz
properties and relationships with career
satisfaction and entrepreneurial inten-
tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93,
81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.01.004.
McMahon, M., Watson, M., Bimrose, J.
(2012). Career adaptability: A qualitative
understanding from the stories of older
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,
762–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.016.
Merino-Tejedor, E. (2016). Career adapta-
bility and its relation to self-regulation,
career construction, and academic en-
gagement among Spanish university stu-
dents, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93,
92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.01.005.
Negru-Subtrica, O., Pop, E.J., Crocetti, E.
(2016). Developmental trajectories and
reciprocal associations between career
adaptability and vocational identity:
A three-wave longitudinal study with
adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 88, 131–142.
Nye, Ch.D., Leong, F., Prasad, J., Gardner,
D., Shelley Tien, H.S. (2017). Examin-
ing the Structure of the Career Adapt-
Abilities Scale: The Cooperation Dimen-
sion and a Five-Factor Model. Journal of
Career Assessment, 26, 549–562.
Ployhart, R.E., Bliese, P.D. (2006). Indi-
vidual adaptability (I-Adapt) theory:
Conceptualizing the antecedents, con-
sequences and measurement of indi-
vidual differences in adaptability. In:
C.S. Burke, E. Salas (eds.), Understand-
ing adaptability. A prerequisite for effec-
tive performance within complex envi-
ronments (pp. 3–39). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Porfeli, E.J., Lee, B., Vondracek, F.W., We-
igold, I.K. (2011). A multi-dimension-
al measure of vocational identity status.
Journal of Adolescence, 34, 853–887. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.02.001.
Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A.,
Plamondon, K.E. (2000). Adaptability
in the workplace: Development of a tax-
onomy of adaptive performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.
Pouyaud, J., Vignoli, E., Dosnon, O., Lalle-
mand, N. (2012). Career adapt-abilities
scale-France form: Psychometric proper-
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
ties and relationships to anxiety and mo-
tivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80, 962–697.
Reed, M.B., Bruch, M.A., Haase, R.F.
(2004). Five-factor model of personality
and career exploration. Journal of Career
Assessment, 12, 223–238.
Reinders, H. (2006). Jugendtypen zwis-
chen Bildung und Freizeit. Theoretische
Präzisierung und empirische Prüfung ein-
er differenziellen Theorie der Adoleszenz.
Münster, New York, München, Berlin:
Waxmann.
Reinders, H., Butz, P. (2001). Entwicklung-
swege Jugendlicher zwischen Transition
und Moratorium. Zeitschrift fur Pada-
gogik, 47, 913-928.
Rękosiewicz, M. (2013a). Kwestionariusz
partycypacji społecznej (KPS): Kon-
strukcja i analiza właściwości psycho-
metrycznych [Social Participation Ques-
tionnaire (SPQ): Construction and
analysis of psychometric properties],
Studia Psychologiczne, 51, 35–52. doi:
10.2478/v10167-010-0071-4.
Rękosiewicz, M. (2013b). Type of social par-
ticipation and identity formation in ado-
lescence and emerging adulthood. Polish
Psychological Bulletin, 3, 151–161. doi:
10.2478/ppb-2013-0031.
Rękosiewicz, M. (2014). Orientacja życiowa
i typ partycypacji społecznej w okresie
adolescencji i wyłaniającej się dorosłości
[Life orientation and social participation
type in adolescence and emerging adult-
hood]. Kontekst edukacyjny. Psychologia
Rozwojowa, 19, 73–85.
Rossier, J. (2015). Career adaptability and life
designing. In: L. Nota, J. Rossier (eds.),
Handbook of life design: From practice to
theory and from theory to practice (pp.
153–167). Boston, MA: Hogrefe Pub-
lishing.
Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Staufer, S.D., Mag-
giori, Ch., Dauwalder, J. (2012). Career
Adapt-Abilities Scale in a French-speak-
ing Swiss sample: Psychometric proper-
ties and relationships to personality and
work engagement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 734–743.
Rottinghaus, P., Day, S., Borgen, F. (2005).
The Career Futures Inventory: A meas-
25
ure of career-related adaptability and op-
timism. Journal of Career Assessment, 13,
3–24.
Rudolph, C., Lavigne, K., Zacher, H. (2017).
Career adaptability: A meta-analysis of
relationships with measures of adaptiv-
ity, adapting responses and adaptation
results. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
98, 17–34.
Santilli, S., Nota, L., Ginevra, M.C., Soresi,
S. (2014). Career adaptability, hope and
life satisfaction in workers with intellec-
tual disability. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 85, 67–74.
Savickas, M.L. (1997). Career adaptability:
An integrative construct for life-span,
life-space theory. The Career Develop-
ment Quarterly, 45, 247–259.
Savickas, M.L. (2005). The theory and
practice of career construction. In:
S.D. Brown, R.W. Lent (eds.), Career de-
velopment and counseling: Putting theory
and research to work. Hoboken, New Jer-
sey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Savickas, M.L. (2011). Career counseling.
Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association Books.
Savickas, M.L. (2012a). Career construction
theory and practice. In: S.D. Brown,
R.W. Lent (eds.), Career development and
counseling: Putting theory and research to
work (2 wyd.) (pp. 147–183). Somerset,
NJ, USA: Wiley.
Savickas, M.L. (2012b). Life design: A para-
digm for career intervention in the 21st
century. Journal of Counseling and Devel- EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
opment, 90, 13–19.
Savickas, M.L., Porfeli, E.J. (2012). Career
Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, re-
liability, and measurement equivalence
across 13 countries. Journal of Vocation-
al Behavior, 80, 661–673. doi: 10.1016/j.
jvb.2012.01.011.
Sidiropoulou-Dimakakou, D., Mikedaki,
K., Argyropoulou, K., Karilir, A. (2018).
A Psychometric Analysis of the Greek
Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in Universi-
ty Students. International Journal of Psy-
chological Studies, 10, 95–108.
Soresi, S., Nota, L, Ferrari, L. (2012). Career
Adapt-Abilities Scale-Italian Form: Psy-
chometric properties and perceived bar-
 26
riers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,
705–711.
Sovet, L., Annovazzi, C., Ginevra, M.C.,
Kaliris, A., Lodi, E. (2018). Life Design
in adolescence: The role of positive psy-
chological resources. In: V. Cohen-Scali,
J. Rossier, L. Nota (eds.), New perspec-
tives on career counseling and guidance in
Europe Building careers in changing and
diverse societies (pp. 23–37). New York:
Springer.
Sulistiani, W., Handoyo, S. (2018). Career
Adaptability: The influence of readiness
and adaptation success in the education
context: A literature review. Advances in
Social Science, Education and Humanities
Research, 133, 195–205.
Super, D.E. (1953). A theory of vocational
development. American Psychologist, 8,
185.
Super, D.E. (1957). The psychology of careers.
New York: Harper & Row.
Super, D.E. (1984). Career and life develop-
ment. In: D. Brown, L. Brooks (eds.),
Career choice and development (pp. 192–
234). San Francisco, Washington, Lon-
don: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Super, D.E. (1990). A life-span, life-space
approach to career development. In:
D. Brown, L. Brooks and Associates
(eds.), Career choice and development:
Applying contemporary theories to practice
(2nd edition, pp. 197–261). San Francis-
co, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Super, D.E. (1994). A life span, life space.
Perspective on convergence. In:
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020
M.L. Savickas, R.W. Lent (eds.), Con-
vergence in career development theories
(pp. 63–74). Palo Alto, California: CPP
BOOKS.
Šverko, I., Babarović, T. (2016). Integrating
personality and career adaptability in-
to vocational interest space. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 94, 89–103. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.017.
Teixeira, M.A.P., Bardagi, M.P., Lassance,
M.C.P., Oliveira Magalhaes, M., Du-
arte, M.E. (2012). Career Adapta-Abili-
ties Scale – Brazilian form: Psychometric
properties and relationship to personal-
ity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,
680–685.
Anna Paszkowska-Rogacz
Tokar, D.M., Swanson, J.L. (1995). Evalu-
ation of the correspondence between
Holland’s vocational typology and the
Five-Factor Model of Personality. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 89–108.
Tolentino, L., Garcia, P.R.J.M., Lu, V., Res-
tubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P., Plewa, C.
(2014). Career adaptation: The relation
of adaptability to goal orientation, pro-
active personality, and career optimism.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 39–
48. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.11.004.
Turska, E., Stasiła-Sieradzka, M. (2016).
Orientacja życiowa i typ partycypacji
społecznej a gotowość do aktywności
przedsiębiorczej w okresie wschodzącej
dorosłości [Life orientations and social
participation types in the context of en-
trepreneurship in the period of emerging
adulthood]. Społeczeństwo i Edukacja,
21, 89–102.
Turska, E., Stasiła-Sieradzka, M. (2018).
Orientacje życiowe a postawy wobec
rynku pracy ludzi młodych. Mediująca
rola wartości [Young people’s life orien-
tations and attitudes towards the labour
market]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne –
Psychological Journal, 24, 143–150.
Tziner, A., Meir, E.I., Segal, H. (2002). Oc-
cupational congruence and personal
task-related attribute: How do they re-
late to work performance? Journal of Ca-
reer Assessment, 10, 401–412.
Urbanaviciute, I., Kairys, A., Pociute, B., Lin-
iauskaite, A. (2014). Career adaptabili-
ty in Lithuania: A test of psychometric
properties and a theoretical model. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 433–
442. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.09.005.
Vianen, A.E.M., Klehe, U., Koen, J., Dries,
N. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale —
Netherlands form: Psychometric proper-
ties and relationships to ability, person-
ality, and regulatory focus. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 716–724.
Webster, D.M., Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). In-
dividual differences in need for cognitive
closure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
Xu, H., Tracey, T.J.G (2015). Career Deci-
sion Ambiguity Tolerance Scale: Con-
struction and initial validations. Jour-
Career Adaptability – preliminary verification of the concept and measurement…
nal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 1–9. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.01.006.
Xu, H., Tracey, T.J.G (2017a). Career de-
cision ambiguity tolerance and its re-
lations with adherence to the RI-
ASEC structure and calling. Journal
of Career Assessment, 25, 715-730, doi:
1177/1069072716665874.
Xu, H.,, Tracey, T.J.G. (2017b). The recip-
rocal dynamic model of career decision
27
ambiguity tolerance with career indeci-
sion: A longitudinal three-wave investi-
gation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
64, 538–549. doi: 10.1037/cou0000220.
You, B., Donthu, N., Lenartowicz, T. (2011).
Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions
of cultural values at the individual lev-
el: development and validation of CVS-
CALE. Journal of International Consum-
er Marketing, 23, 193–210.
Transl. Ewa Butowska
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Special Issue 2020