Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

How do CHOICES and the SDS facilitate or hinder career planning Provost, Charles Henri 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A2 P76.pdf [ 8.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0053658.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0053658-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0053658-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0053658-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0053658-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0053658-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0053658-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0053658-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0053658.ris

Full Text

HOW DO CHOICES AND THE SDS FACILITATE OR HINDER CAREER PLANNING By CHARLES HENRI PROVOST B.A, The U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1971 B.Ed., Saint F r a n c i s Xavier U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 M.Ed., Acadia U n i v e r s i t y , 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Counsel1ing-Psycho1ogy) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1987 Charles Henri Provost, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of COOMS&t-t-JA/t- - Psi/Cffo^oO^f The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 II A b s t r a c t CHOICES, the c a r e e r p l a n n i n g computer program, was e v a l u a t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g 35 grade 11 and 12 s t u d e n t s . U s i n g the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t t e c h n i q u e , r e p o r t s were e l i c i t e d of what f a c i l i t a t e d or h i n d e r e d t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . These c o l l e c t e d i n c i d e n t s were c a t e g o r i z e d by s i m i l a r i t y to p r o v i d e c o u n s e l l o r s and o t h e r s w i th a map of e x a c t l y what the program does t o h e l p or h i n d e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . T h i s map p o t e n t i a l l y enab les c o u n s e l l o r s to c a p i t a l i z e on b e n e f i t s and to min imize p o s s i b l e d e t r i m e n t s . S e c o n d l y , t h i s map was q u a l i t a t i v e l y compared to a s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i o n of the S e l f - D i r e c t e d S e a r c h . O v e r a l l , i t was found t h a t the two i n t e r v e n t i o n s have d i f f e r i n g advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s . CHOICES s t r e s s e s r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s , s p e c i f i c i t y and e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s . The SDS u n d e r l i n e s s e l f - a w a r e n e s s and an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the matching p r o c e s s . I t seems t h a t CHOICES i s more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p l a n n i n g and s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g o p t i o n s wh i le the SDS tends to f o c u s on g e n e r a l e x p l o r a t i o n and d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g f i e l d s . Acknowledgements III The w r i t e r wishes to e x p r e s s h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s : To D r . L a r r y C o c h r a n , r e s e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r , whose p a t i e n c e , a v a i l a b i l i t y and c o u n t l e s s hours over s i x y e a r s made t h i s s t u d y p o s s i b l e . To Dr . Marv Westwood, whose c o n t i n u a l s u p p o r t e s p e c i a l l y f o r the c l i n i c a l comprehens ive , was g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . To D r . B i l l B o r g e n , whose encouragement a t the a p p r o p r i a t e t ime enab led me to p e r s e r v e r e . To D r . Norm Amundson, whose i n s p i r e d s y n t h e s i s made the o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n smoother . To D r . Ron MacGregor , whose s u g g e s t i o n s were a p p r e c i a t e d . To the s t u d e n t s , to the s t a f f of Matthew McNair S e n i o r Secondary and to the c o u n s e l l o r Mike C a s s e l m a n , whose c o - o p e r a t i o n and s u p p o r t made t h i s s t u d y p o s s i b l e . To M r s . Irma E i c h l e r , f o r her devoted t ime and e f f o r t i n t y p i n g t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . And f i n a l l y , to my p a r e n t s Rene and L u c i l l e , t o my s i s t e r s L o u i s e and A n i t a , and to my b r o t h e r J e a n , f o r t h e i r c o n t i n u a l s u p p o r t and encouragement . IV TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t II Acknowledgements III Tab le of Conten ts IV L i s t of T a b l e s VII CHAPTER 1 : I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 CHAPTER 2 : CHOICES 5 Computer A s s i s t e d Career Guidance 5 E v a l u a t i o n 8 E v a l u a t i o n of Comupter -based Guidance System- 12 D e s c r i p t i o n of CHOICES 16 E v a l u a t i o n of CHOICES 20 CHAPTER 3 : The S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search (SDS) 24 E x t e n t of Research 24 Assumpt ions and D e s c r i p t i o n 25 E v i d e n c e and Support 27 Types of S t u d i e s 28 C r i t i c i s m s of the SDS 34 Needed Research 35 CHAPTER 4 : Methodology 39 S u b j e c t s 39 C r i t i c a l I n c i d e n t Technique 40 I n t e r v i e w Procedures 43 Data A n a l y s i s 4 5 V CHAPTER 5 : R e s u l t s 46 CHOICES F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s 52 CHOICES H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s 61 SDS F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s 70 SDS H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s 85 CHAPTER 6 : Comparison 9 5 Comparison of CHOICES and SDS 95 Sa feguards - CHOICES 104 Sa feguards - SDS 107 Other 110 CHAPTER 7 : R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y 117 R e l i a b i l i t y of C a t e g o r i z a t i o n 117 R e l i a b i l i t y as V a l i d i t y 122 Comprehensiveness 122 L e v e l of A b s t r a c t i o n 123 B a s i s of C a t e g o r i e s 124 P o s i t i o n of R e p o r t e r s to Report V a l i d I n c i d e n t s 126 Agreement w i th Research 127 V a l i d i t y as U s e f u l n e s s 130 CHAPTER 8 : D i s c u s s i o n 141 L i m i t a t i o n s 142 I m p l i c a t i o n s 144 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u t u r e Research 150 Summary 152 REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L APPENDIX M APPENDIX N APPENDIX 0 VI 1 5 4 Computer Based Guidance System 190 Routes to I n f o r m a t i o n 192 Routes 195 Consent Form 197 C a t e g o r i e s 199 Types of C a t e g o r i e s each s t u d e n t e x p r e s s e d (CHOICES) 203 Type of Student who p a r t i c i p a t e d in each c a t e g o r y (CHOICES) 207 Types of C a t e g o r i e s each s t u d e n t e x p r e s s e d (SDS) 214 Type of Student who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each c a t e g o r y (SDS) 218 Type of Student who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each c a t e g o r y (Other) 227 Map of CHOICES and Safeguards 230 Map of SDS and Safeguards 233 Map of Other Ways of F a c i l i t a t i n g Career P l a n n i n g 240 L e t t e r and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e to 126 E x p e r i e n c e d C o u n s e l l o r s 241 Summary of S i m i l a r i t i e s and D i f f e r e n c e s of CHOICES and the SDS 247 VII TABLES Tab le 1 : CHOICES f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s 50 T a b l e 2 : CHOICES h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s 63 Tab le 3 : SDS f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s 71 T a b l e 4 : SDS h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s 87 Tab le 5 : What e l s e would be h e l p f u l i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g 111 T a b l e 6 : Percentage of agreement between judges and e s t a b l i s h e d c a t e g o r y systems 120 Tab le 7 : Years of e x p e r i e n c e of c o u n s e l l o r s r e s p o n d i n g to q u e s t i o n n a i r e 135 Tab le 8 : Summary of c o u n s e l l o r s r e a c t i o n t o the CHOICES c a t e g o r i e s 136 Tab le 9 : Summary of c o u n s e l l o r s r e a c t i o n to the SDS c a t e g o r i e s 138 CHAPTER 1 Page 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n The g e n e r a l a im of t h i s s t u d y was to improve the p r a c t i c e of c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e g a r d to two prominent i n t e r v e n t i o n s , CHOICES ' ( J a r v i s , 1976a) and the S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search ( H o l l a n d , 1974) . G e n e r a l l y , r e s e a r c h on these i n t e r v e n t i o n s has been concerned w i th p r o d u c t s or outcomes. The g e n e r a l problem i s t h a t outcome s t u d i e s have f a i l e d to c l a r i f y or d i s t i n g u i s h these i n t e r v e n t i o n s f o r in formed c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . I n v e s t i g a t e d outcomes have been i n c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n f i r m e d , sometimes t a n g e n t i a l to main purposes of the i n t e r v e n t i o n s , and v e r y i n c o m p l e t e . C u r r e n t l y , a r e a s o n a b l y c l e a r and comprehensive p i c t u r e of what each i n t e r v e n t i o n does to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g i s l a c k i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y , the s p e c i f i c a im of t h i s s t u d y i s to p r o v i d e a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of the p r o c e s s even ts t h a t take p l a c e d u r i n g invo lvement w i th each i n t e r v e n t i o n and t h a t f a c i l i t a t e or h i n d e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . With a more comprehensive and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of how each i n t e r v e n t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g , c o u n s e l l o r s would be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o match i n t e r v e n t i o n s to c l i e n t n e e d s , p repare c l i e n t s to b e n e f i t , b u i l d i n Page 2 s a f e g u a r d s , add s u p p o r t i v e a c t i v i t i e s , and sharpen f u t u r e outcome s t u d i e s . CHOICES (computer ized h e u r i s t i c o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n s y s t e m ) , i s an i n t e r a c t i v e computer i zed c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n system d e s i g n e d t o h e l p s t u d e n t s i n p l a n n i n g a c a r e e r . Whi le t h e r e are p r e s e n t l y a g r e a t number of CHOICES programs i n s c h o o l s , c o l l e g e s and employment c e n t r e s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , i n Canada, i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and i n E u r o p e , the re has been no e v a l u a t i o n of the p r o c e s s even ts t h a t tend to f o s t e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . A number of e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s ( e . g . , C a s s e r l y , 1977; G u e r e t t e , 1980; S c h e l l e n b e r g , 1981; Van Z o o s t , 1982) have been done on CHOICES, u s i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e - t y p e of a p p r o a c h . However, t h i s type of e v a l u a t i o n g i v e s o n l y an i n d i c a t i o n of whether u s e r s , p a r e n t s or c o u n s e l l o r s l i k e d i t or how they f e l t about i t . These s t u d i e s do not p r o v i d e ev idence on e x a c t l y how CHOICES b e n e f i t s or h i n d e r s c l i e n t s . Knowing how CHOICES or any o ther c a r e e r a s s i s t a n c e package works i s impor tant f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s . C o u n s e l l o r s would be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to h e l p people to maximize b e n e f i t s and min imize d e t r i m e n t s . T h e o r i s t s would have a broader base of s u p p o r t and they would have b e t t e r grounds f o r e v a l u a t i n g , s e l e c t i n g and compar ing i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Page 3 As a l o w - c o s t r i v a l to CHOICES, H o l l a n d ' s (1977a) S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search (SDS) i s a workbook d e s i g n e d f o r about the same purpose as CHOICES, to h e l p i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . I t might be h e l p f u l to c o u n s e l l o r s t o know i f these two ins t ruments have s i m i l a r e f f e c t s c o n s i d e r i n g the t ime and expense of a CHOICES system as compared t o the SDS. Over two hundred s t u d i e s have been done u s i n g the SDS, but s t i l l many q u e s t i o n s p e r s i s t as t o a c t u a l l y how i t h e l p s (or h i n d e r s ) s t u d e n t s i n p l a n n i n g a c a r e e r (Brown, 1972; D o l l i v e r & Hansen, 1977; H o l l a n d , 1979a; O ' N e i l , P r i c e & T r a c e y , 1979; T a k a i & H o l l a n d , 1979; T a l b o t & B i r k , 1979) . The s t u d i e s on CHOICES and the SDS both l a c k a s p e c i f i c focus on e x a c t l y how the i n t e r v e n t i o n s h e l p or h i n d e r . T h i s l a c k , c o u p l e d w i th v a r i o u s problems a s s o c i a t e d wi th t r a d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s ( F r e t z , 1981; Goldman, 1978; O l i v i e r , 1979) , has i n f l u e n c e d the development of the r a t i o n a l e used i n t h i s s t u d y . A s tudy t h a t would i n v e s t i g a t e how CHOICES and the SDS work and what they do seems to be w a r r a n t e d . T h i s s tudy has two s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s . F i r s t , th rough i n t e r v i e w i n g , t h i s p r o j e c t a t tempted to determine what a s p e c t s of the CHOICES program h e l p or h i n d e r p r o g r e s s i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g and a l s o to s p e c i f y what the outcomes are t h a t h e l p or h i n d e r . By Page 4 i n t e r v i e w i n g s t u d e n t s u s i n g the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t t e c h n i q u e ( F l a n a g a n , 1954) , t h i s s t u d y proposed to e l i c i t r e p o r t s from s t u d e n t s of what f a c i l i t a t e d or h i n d e r e d t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g i n t h e i r invo lvement w i th CHOICES. These c o l l e c t e d i n c i d e n t s were c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o s i m i l a r i t y to p r o v i d e c o u n s e l l o r s and o t h e r s w i th a map of the v a r i o u s ways CHOICES might h e l p or h i n d e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . With t h i s type of map, a c o u n s e l l o r would be a b l e to c a p i t a l i z e on b e n e f i t s and to min imize p o t e n t i a l d e t r i m e n t s . Second , t h i s map was compared q u a l i t a t i v e l y to a s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i o n of the SDS. A q u a l i t a t i v e compar ison i s impor tant not o n l y f o r e v a l u a t i o n , but f o r in formed s e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t wants and n e e d s . CHAPTER 2 Page CHOICES C o m p u t e r - A s s i s t e d Career Guidance One of the major f u n c t i o n s of c o u n s e l l i n g p s y c h o l o g i s t s i s to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r d e c i s i o n and c a r e e r p l a n n i n g (Krumbol t z , B e c k e r - H a v e n , & B u r n e t t , 1979) . With the v a s t amount of i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r a comprehensive c a r e e r p l a n n i n g approach (Greehnaus, Hawkins, & B r e n n e r , 1983) , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the computer seems q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e . A number of a u t h o r s ( e . g . , J a r v i s , 1976a, 1978; Myers & C a i r o , 1983; S m i t h , 1978; S u p e r , 1970, 1978; T iedeman, 1983; T o l b e r t , 1980) have e x p r e s s e d the need f o r i n n o v a t i v e and b e t t e r methods to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g and deve lopment . C o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d c a r e e r gu idance (CACG) i s not a new n o t i o n . As e a r l y as 1950, people were s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g computers ( J a r v i s , 1978) . The reasons f o r implement ing computers i n c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g have been enumerated o f t e n i n the l i t e r a t u r e ( B a l l a n t i n e , 1986; B u t l e r & Dowsey, 1978; C l o s s , 1978; C o g l o n , 1987; C o l o z z i & Haehn len , 1982; Donovan, 1980; Dowsey, 1978; G r a y , 1986; Hanson, 1986; H a r r i s - B o w l s b e y , 1983a, 1983b Page 6 1984; Heginbotham, 1978; J a r v i s , 1978; Katz & S h a t k i n , 1983; Mar -Brennan , 1981; M c K i n l a y , 1984; M i n o r , Meyers , & S u p e r , 1969; Pound, 1981; P r i c e , 1971; P y l e , 1984; Sampson, 1983. 1986a; Sankey, 1977; S h a r f , 1984; S m i t h , 1978; S p e n c e r , 1979; S t a h l , 1984; Sugarman, 1986; Super , 1970, 1978; T a y l o r , 1978; T o l b e r t , 1980; T u r g e o n , 1979; Wagman, 1984; W a l l i s , 1978; Wat ts , 1978; Wooler & Wisudha, 1985) . These would i n c l u d e the c a p a c i t y t o : 1. s t o r e and r e t r i e v e q u i c k l y v a s t amounts of i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e reduce the c o u n s e l l o r ' s c l e r i c a l t a s k s . 2. do these t a s k s r e p e a t e d l y and w i th complete a c c u r a c y . 3. s t i m u l a t e a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i th the c l i e n t and t h e r e f o r e p e r s o n a l i z e the t r a n s a c t i o n wh i le a s s i s t i n g the g e n e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s . 4. be paced c o m p l e t e l y by the c l i e n t . By 1965, t h e r e were over 40 such s y s t e m s . By 1975, the numbers, through inadequate d a t a bases and s o f t w a r e , had a c t u a l l y d e c l i n e d t o fewer than 20 ( J a r v i s , 1978) (See Appendix A ) . With the advent of the m i c r o - c o m p u t e r , another p r o l i f e r a t i o n of programs and systems has o c c u r r e d . Hansen (1986) c i t e s a s t u d y by B e l l o t t o (1985) t h a t enumerates over 50 c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t c a r e e r and e d u c a t i o n a l gu idance and Page 7 c o u n s e l l i n g programs. The main- f rame systems however, have been c a t e g o r i z e d as f i r s t , second or t h i r d g e n e r a t i o n by Rayman and Bowlsbey (1977) . The f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n ba tch i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l sys tem can be r e p r e s e n t e d by Student Guidance I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s ( J a r v i s , 1978) . An example of second g e n e r a t i o n o n - l i n e i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l system i s the Computer ized V o c a t i o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n System ( J a r v i s , 1978; S m i t h , 1978) . T h i r d g e n e r a t i o n o n - l i n e i n t e r a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n systems t h a t a c t u a l l y go beyond c a r e e r i n f o r m a t i o n and d e l i v e r s i g n i f i c a n t guidance c o n t e n t a re e x e m p l i f i e d by System of I n t e r a c t i v e Guidance and I n f o r m a t i o n , Computer-Based Career Development System ( B u t l e r & Dowsey, 1978; Rayman & Bowlsbey , 1977; T iedman, 1983) . Now, CACG systems are o f t e n c a t e g o r i z e d i n two types of s y s t e m s : i n f o r m a t i o n systems and complete c a r e e r gu idance systems ( H a r i n g - H i d o r e , 1984; J o h n s o n , 1983) . The f o c u s of t h i s s t u d y , CHOICES, f a l l s between these two types and i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g used e x t e n s i v e l y i n Canada, i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and i n Europe ( J a r v i s , 1986; J o h n s o n , 1983) . Page 8 Evaluation Few e v a l u a t i o n s have been done t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of computer based gu idance s y s t e m s . Nine r e c e n t v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n rev iews ( B e t z , 1977; F r e t z , 1981; Krumbol tz e t a l . , 1979; Much insky , 1983; Osipow, 1976; Super & H a l l , 1978; T i n s l e y & H e e s a c k e r , 1984; Wa lsh , 1979; Z y t o w s k i , 1978) have p r o g r e s s i v e l y u n d e r l i n e d the " s p o t t y and uneven" ( Z y t o w s k i , 1978, p.155) a s p e c t of not o n l y computer -based r e s e a r c h but the whole a s p e c t of c a r e e r development l i t e r a t u r e . One reason f o r t h i s p o o r l y managed e v a l u a t i o n i s the p r e s s u r e c r e a t e d by the i n t e r e s t to implement c a r e e r e d u c a t i o n programs a f t e r 1971. Most of the e n e r g y , t i m e , and money spent i n c r e a t i n g programs, has s e v e r e l y c u r t a i l e d the fundamental examina t ion of e x a c t l y what h e l p s or h i n d e r s s t u d e n t ' s c a r e e r p l a n n i n g (Super & H a l l , 1978) . Few c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e s , i n c l u d i n g c a r e e r i n t e r v e n t i o n s , have been t h o r o u g h l y r e s e a r c h e d and e v a l u a t e d to f i n d out why and how they b e n e f i t (or h i n d e r ) c l i e n t s ( C a i r o , 1983; Goldman, 1978; H e a l y , 1982; K r u m b o l t z , 1966; T o l b e r t , 1980) . Those s t u d i e s t h a t have at tempted to e v a l u a t e c a r e e r i n t e r v e n t i o n s have run i n t o a number of p rob lems . Goldman (1978) i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l Page 9 weaknesses i n v a r i o u s types of s t u d i e s . He s t r e s s e d t h a t , a p a r t f rom a few b e h a v i o u r a l t e c h n i q u e s , few i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n c o u n s e l l i n g have changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y due t o s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h and e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s . Worthen and Sanders (1973) have o u t l i n e d the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of the v a r i o u s methodo log ies and d a t a c o l l e c t i n g schemes a s s o c i a t e d w i th them. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e - t y p e s of s t u d i e s have g e n e r a l l y been used i n the e v a l u a t i o n of c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d gu idance programs and of CHOICES i n p a r t i c u l a r ( C a i r n s , 1978; C a s s e r l y , 1977, 1978; C a s s i e , R a g s d a l e , & R o b i n s o n , 1979; G o s s e , 1980; G u e r e t t e , 1980; H i m l e r , 1982; L a i r d , 1982; S c h e l l e n b e r g , 1981; S l o a n , 1980; S p e n c e r , 1979; V a n Z o o s t , 1982; W i l s o n , 1979; W r i g h t , 1981) . Some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s as o u t l i n e d by Worthen and Sanders (1973) a r e : (a) There i s no r e a l a s s u r a n c e t h a t the c l i e n t unders tands the q u e s t i o n s or t h a t the r i g h t q u e s t i o n s are b e i n g a s k e d , and (b) I t i s p o s s i b l e to s t e e r the respondent through c a r e f u l l y c o n s t r u c t e d q u e s t i o n s . H e r z b e r g , Mausuer , & Snyderman (1966) have a l s o added t h a t t h e r e i s no r e a l way t o probe f u r t h e r , to c l a r i f y an answer , t o r e a l l y unders tand j u s t how the i n t e r v e n t i o n a f f e c t e d the pe rson and why. Another major prob lem i s the l a c k of agreement about c r i t e r i a and c o r r e s p o n d e n t ins t ruments to a s s e s s Page 10 e f f e c t i v e n e s s ( C a i r o , 1983; D a n i e l s , M i n e s , & G r e s s a r d , 1981; H e a l y , 1982; Sampson, 1986b; T y l e r , 1969; Watts & B a l l a n t i n e , 1983; W i l l i a m s o n & B o r d i n , 1941) . These range from v a r i o u s t e s t s t h a t l a c k s t r i n g e n t r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y d a t a , to o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s t h a t a re used i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y . For example , one i n t e r v e n t i o n i s e v a l u a t e d by whether or not c l i e n t s become d e c i s i v e or d e c i d e d . P e r c e n t a g e s and t a b l e s are drawn to demonstrate the c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s new i n t e r v e n t i o n . Be ing d e c i s i v e or d e c i d e d , however, i s not a lways an a p p r o p r i a t e g o a l f o r e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l . For some p e o p l e , expanding t h e i r o p t i o n s might be a more e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g (Cochran , 1987) . L i n k e d w i th the n o t i o n of c r i t e r i a , a t h i r d prob lem i s the use of "hard d a t a " to s u b s t a n t i a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the i n t e r v e n t i o n . Spencer (1979) , f o r example , s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the use of CHOICES would reduce the dropout r a t e s i n v o c a t i o n a l programs, t h a t youth unemployment would d e c r e a s e and t h a t the re would be a lower t u r n o v e r r a t e , thus r e d u c i n g r e t r a i n i n g i n f i r s t j o b s . A l l of these c r i t e r i a p r e s e n t p r o b l e m s . The v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h , f o r example, unemployment, a re e x t e n s i v e . To take the c r e d i t f o r the d e c r e a s e or to take the blame f o r the i n c r e a s e i n unemployment would be unwarranted i n v iew of numerous r i v a l f a c t o r s t h a t seem Page 11 more p l a u s i b l e ( e . g . , economic r i s e s and d e c l i n e s ) . A f o u r t h problem i n e v a l u a t i o n i s t h a t the computer systems a r e so new and chang ing so q u i c k l y t h a t b u i l d i n g upon p a s t r e s e a r c h i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t ( G r i e s t , 1984; H e a l y , 1982; Johnson & Sampson, 1985; Sampson, 1986a; 1986b) . A t h e o r e t i c a l o v e r l a y i s needed i n o rder t o c o - o r d i n a t e the v a r i o u s types ( H e a l y , 1982) . A f i f t h problem has been t h o r o u g h l y d i s c u s s e d by F r e t z (1981) . C l i e n t a t t r i b u t e s t h a t c o u l d d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t the r e s u l t s of the i n t e r v e n t i o n have been named a p t i t u d e t rea tment i n t e r a c t i o n s ( A T I ) . ATI s t u d i e s h e l p to c o u n t e r - a c t the use of group a v e r a g e s , which a l l o w f o r s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s but tend to be dub ious as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . That i s , an average may o n l y r e p r e s e n t a few p e o p l e . The v a r i a b l e s t h a t can a f f e c t an i n t e r v e n t i o n are numerous and combine i n numerous ways. T e s t i n g a l l of them appears to be a h e r c u l e a n t a s k . Taka i and H o l l a n d (1979) , f o r example , found t h a t many i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s have s i m i l a r e f f e c t s d e s p i t e g r o s s d i f f e r e n c e s i n methods of deve lopment , i n v e n t o r y format and p r o c e d u r e s . One h y p o t h e s i s s u g g e s t s a c e i l i n g e f f e c t f o r t h i s type of i n t e r v e n t i o n (Taka i & H o l l a n d , 1979) . Another h y p o t h e s i s c o u l d be t h a t each type of i n v e n t o r y taps a c e r t a i n p o p u l a t i o n . S i n c e t h i s type of e v a l u a t i o n Page 12 s t r e s s e s a v e r a g i n g f o r a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , we have no r e a l way of knowing which type of i n d i v i d u a l i s a f f e c t e d by which type of i n t e r v e n t i o n . For example , the i n t e r v e n t i o n might h e l p a few g r e a t l y but a c t u a l l y h i n d e r the m a j o r i t y s l i g h t l y , y e t s t i l l y i e l d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . I t would be h e l p f u l t o know e x a c t l y how the i n t e r v e n t i o n a f f e c t s peop le ( F r e t z , 1981) and more c o n c r e t e l y . In c o n c l u s i o n , i t seems c l e a r t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l methods of q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n have p r o v i d e d adequate e v a l u a t i o n s of c a r e e r i n t e r v e n t i o n . However, q u a l i t a t i v e methods might p r o v i d e the added d imens ion t h a t seems to be needed . A growing number of r e s e a r c h e r s a re s t r e s s i n g the need fo r q u a l i t a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e types of s t u d i e s (Goldman, 1978; Hayes , 1981; H i l l , 1982; Lecompte, Dumont, & Z i n g l e , 1981; Woolsey, 1986) . E v a l u a t i o n of Computer-Based Guidance Systems Computer -based gu idance systems have g e n e r a l l y been shown to be e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y endorsed by s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s and c o u n s e l l o r s , as easy t o u s e , and as the p r e f e r r e d way of o b t a i n i n g c a r e e r i n f o r m a t i o n i n s t e a d of the t r a d i t i o n a l s o u r c e s . A l s o , they have been shown to be c a p a b l e of g e n e r a t i n g measurable i n c r e a s e s i n c a r e e r Page 13 maturity and occupational knowledge (Closs, 1986; Harris, 1968, 1974; Maola & Kane, 1976; Melhus, Hershenson, & Vermillion, 1973; P i l a t o & Myers, 1973; Pinder & F i t z g e r a l d , 1984; Price, 1971; Pyle & S t r i p l i n g , 1976; Roberts & Witherspoon, 1978; Sampson & S t r i p l i n g , 1979; Schenk, Murphy, & Shelton, 1980; Spencer, 1979), of being useful with the hearing impaired (McKee Gelesko & Chiavaroli Schroedl, 1984), with the learning disabled (Long, 1984), and as supporting decision-making (Ballantine, 1986). However, many studies present evaluation problems. For example, Pyle and S t r i p l i n g (1976) found s i g n i f i c a n t growth in career maturity as measured by the Vocational  Maturity Inventory (VMI) on 66 students, using the System of Interactive Guidance and Information computer program. To know that "career maturity" has been increased i s minimally helpful p a r t i a l l y because the VMI has been shown to lack in v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y (Casserly, 1980; Chodzinski, 1983; Pecku, 1982; Robinson, 1982). But more importantly, t h i s finding does not show exactly how the intervention helped or hindered the student in career plannng. Other researchers also stress the need for counsellors to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of CACG in a s p e c i f i c way (Eberly & Cech, 1986; Pyle, 1984; Sampson, 1986a). Page 14 Another s t u d y examined the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of CHOICES i n promot ing c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making (P inder & F i t z g e r a l d , 1984) . Two ins t ruments were chosen to measure the c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making commitment of u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s : the C a r e e r D e c i s i o n S c a l e (Osipow, 1976) and the Assessment of Career D e c i s i o n Making (based on an u n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t by Harren (1976) as noted i n P i n d e r & F i t z g e r a l d , 1984) . While i t i s e n c o u r a g i n g to note t h i s i n c r e a s e i n c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making commitment, i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y b e n e f i c i a l to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g ( C o c h r a n , 1987) . Other problems w i th t h i s e v a l u a t i o n stem from the l a c k of p u b l i s h e d s u p p o r t f o r one of the ins t ruments and the v a r i a n c e of the p r e - t e s t s c o r e s between the e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l groups (P inder & F i t z g e r a l d , 1984) . P y l e (1984) s t r e s s e d many q u e s t i o n s t h a t need t o be r e s e a r c h e d i n o rder to f u r t h e r our knowledge and awareness of CACG: What i s the impact of computers? What a re the approaches by which the c o u n s e l l o r can bes t manage the c o u n s e l l i n g p r o c e s s w i th the computer as p a r t of the p r o c e s s ? What e x a c t l y do they do? What a re the i n d i v i d u a l s t r e n g t h s of the v a r i o u s systems? What systems need improvement? A number of r e s e a r c h e r s have s t r e s s e d the need f o r new t o o l s to e v a l u a t e CACG Systems Page 15 (Harris-Bowlsbey, 1984; Walz & Bleuer, 1985). These evaluative problems have not deterred at least four studies from attempting to determine the best system (Jarvls, 1976b; Maze & Cummings, 1982; Morgan Management System, 1978; Spencer, 1979). In an extensive survey carried out on the major computerized guidance systems in North America, Morgan Management Systems (1978) concluded that CHOICES was among the best for d e l i v e r i n g career information to c l i e n t s . These results were based on an analysis of the c a p a b i l i t i e s of each system including potential for future modification. Maze and Cummings (1982) also offer advice on how to choose a computer assisted guidance system and they rated CHOICES very highly. In a comparison of the three dominant t h i r d generation systems in Canada (BISP, SGIS, CHOICES), Ja r v i s , (1976b) outlined the advantages of CHOICES over the others: 1. It allows for access and printout i n either o f f i c i a l language. 2. It has access to a national education/training i n s t i t u t i o n . 3. It has more f l e x i b i l i t y and broader range of data f i l e s with a p o s s i b i l i t y of changing any answer at any time based on the computer response. This i s Page 16 expected to enhance the career decision-making p o t e n t i a l . 4. It i s designed in a predominately exploratory mode which features d i r e c t access (interactive inquiry) to data f i l e s . 5. Details of "why" s p e c i f i c occupations or i n s t i t u t i o n s that were not l i s t e d can be accessed. 6. Comparisons of pre-conceived occupational or i n s t i t u t i o n a l choices on the basis of any accessing c r i t e r i a i s also possible. 7. A linkage f i l e w i l l also be eventually i n s t i t u t e d to enable answers to questions l i k e , "What can I do with my (education)?" "How can I become a (occupation)?" Spencer (1979), after an extensive search, also found CHOICES superior in many of the same ways, but again does not specify exactly how i t helps career planning. Description of CHOICES CHOICES originated in a 1976 proposal by P h i l Jarvis under contract with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. Some of i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s are impressive: Information on 97% of the occupations in Canada, detailed information on 1114 primary occupations Page 17 and b r i e f references to over 3200 related occupations. The basic assumption underlying the CHOICES system, is that there are three basic processes in vocational guidance: 1. Helping the individual to know and to understand his or her own a b i l i t i e s and inte r e s t s . 2. Supplying the individual with information concerning educational and occupational opportunities and requirements. 3. Helping him or her to see the implications of s i t u a t i o n a l and personal data for his or her career (Jarvis, 1976a). CHOICES attempts to provide an answer to the problems of r e l a t i n g s e l f to the world of work (Jarvis, 1982) . Another underlying assumption in CHOICES i s the importance of the interactive e f f e c t of client-counsellor-computer (Jarvis, 1982a; Turgeon, 1979). The immediate r e a l i t y testing in a low risk counselling environment provides both the c l i e n t and the counsellor with information that is valuable in the career counselling process (Turgeon, 1979). CHOICES, i t is assumed, helps the c l i e n t by indicating the degree to which they are: Page 18 1. o r i e n t e d to the wor ld of work 2. a b l e t o seek and unders tand v o c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 3. a b l e t o make d e c i s i o n s i n l i g h t of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n 4. a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s v o c a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e (Turgeon , 1979) . CHOICES a l s o has a number of b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r c o u n s e l l o r s and they would i n c l u d e a s s i s t i n g c l i e n t s : 1. i n g a i n i n g a g r e a t e r knowledge of s e l f 2. i n a r r i v i n g a t a c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the wor ld of work 3. i n d e v e l o p i n g c a r e e r p l a n n i n g 4. i n f o r m u l a t i n g , d i s c u s s i n g and e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s and m o t i v a t i o n towards work (Turgeon , 1979) . J a r v i s (1982a) , in the C o u n s e l l o r ' s  manual , d e s c r i b e s CHOICES as a t h r e e - p h a s e approach to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . In the f i r s t p h a s e , the c o u n s e l l o r d e s c r i b e s the system and h e l p s the s t u d e n t s f i l l out a workbook e n t i t l e d A Handbook of CHOICES ( J a r v i s , 1982b). A number of q u e s t i o n s d i v i d e d i n t o 12 t o p i c s a r e then answered i n the T r a v e l Guide ( J a r v i s , u n d a t e d ) : I n t e r e s t s , a p t i t u d e s , temperaments, e d u c a t i o n l e v e l , e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , f u t u r e o u t l o o k , e a r n i n g s , Page 19 hours of work, t r a v e l , p h y s i c a l demands, p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , i n s i d e / o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , o c c u p a t i o n a l f i e l d s , t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d , summary of work per formed and s i m i l a r o c c u p a t i o n s (see Appendix B f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of each t o p i c ) . The second phase i n v o l v e s a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i th the computer . Here , the s t u d e n t , by p r e s s i n g one or two k e y s , can have a p e r s o n a l i z e d i n t e r a c t i o n w i th CHOICES. With the a i d of t h e i r comple ted T r a v e l G u i d e P t hey answer q u e s t i o n s posed by the computer . Four v a r i o u s r o u t e s a re open to them: EXPLORE, RELATED, COMPARE and SPECIFIC (see Appendix C f o r the t o p i c s a v a i l a b l e i n each r o u t e ) . S tudents can use the EXPLORE rou te to s e a r c h f o r o c c u p a t i o n s t h a t a re c o m p a t i b l e w i th t h e i r n e e d s , a b i l i t i e s and a s p i r a t i o n s . The SPECIFIC and COMPARE r o u t e s a l l o w u s e r s t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about any p r i m a r y o c c u p a t i o n of t h e i r own c h o o s i n g . SPECIFIC f o c u s e s on one o c c u p a t i o n i n d e t a i l w h i l e COMPARE a l l o w s u s e r s to a n a l y s e two or t h r e e o c c u p a t i o n s c o n c u r r e n t l y i n a m u l t i p l e f o r m a t . RELATED expands the o c c u p a t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y c h o s e n . From a base o c c u p a t i o n , s t u d e n t s can generate many o t h e r s t h a t share s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The e n t i r e i n t e r a c t i o n , which averages about an h o u r , i s r e c o r d e d on a p r i n t o u t f o r the user t o keep . The t h i r d phase of t h i s t h r e e p a r t p r o c e s s now b e g i n s . Page 20 Usually the student needs help in interpreting the printout, in planning the next step or simply in discussing the v a l i d i t y of the boiled down l i s t . This printout, as indicated in the assumptions, i s meant to generate thinking, probing and planning about the person's career orientation (Jarvis, 1982a). Evaluation of CHOICES Studies based on CHOICES have also generally side-stepped the basic question of whether the intervention i s e f f e c t i v e . A questionnaire-type of study evaluating attitudes towards CHOICES rather than i t s actual e f f e c t in career planning, comprised the o r i g i n a l f i e l d t r i a l (Casserly, 1977). T h i r t y students of the S i r John A. MacDonald High School in Ottawa reported that they lik e d CHOICES because i t was fun, easy to use, educational, and most importantly, non-threatening and accepting of any response made. Also the privacy and the immediacy of feedback were considered to be very p o s i t i v e . A majority also thought that CHOICES would af f e c t t h e i r career plans to some degree. They a l l indicated that other people in their age group should be given the opportunity to work with CHOICES. About two thirds mentioned that they would now be able to talk to thei r parents more e f f e c t i v e l y about th e i r career plans Page 21 after taking home their CHOICES printout. These o r i g i n a l findings have been confirmed in various provinces and states by subsequent and si m i l a r questionnaire-type studies (Cairns, 1978; Cassie et a l . , 1979; Colozzi & Haehnlen, 1982; Gosse, 1980; Guerette, 1980; Himler, 1982; L a i r d , 1982; Pinder & Fi t z g e r a l d , 1984; Schellenberg, 1981; Sloan, 1980; Spencer, 1979; VanZoost, 1982; Wilson, 1979; Wright, 1981). In a more rigorous-looking evaluation (pre-test, post-test, experimental, control group design), Casserly (1978) administered before and after questionnaires to c l i e n t s of Canada Employment Centres. After treatment, the 263 experimental subjects were more incl i n e d to have begun career planning and implementation steps than were the 150 control subjects who were more l i k e l y to have made no career planning despite having received t r a d i t i o n a l career counselling. This was deduced from a question with seven options offered to the respondent. They were asked i f they were now (a) undecided, (b) qui t t i n g school, (c) continuing their education, (d) looking into careers by other means, (e) making career implementation steps, (f) keeping present job, and (g) other. On a closer inspection of the raw data, only three choices favored the experimental group with the other four items even. The three chosen do not seem to Page 22 point strongly at evidence of career planning. The f i r s t one chosen (continuing t h e i r education) does not necessarily indicate good career planning. The second one (making s p e c i f i c career implementation steps) i s not c l e a r l y spelled out. This could mean whatever the respondent wanted. We have no r e a l way of knowing. The problems associated with the t h i r d one (more l i k e l y to be "decided") have been discussed e a r l i e r . Being decisive or decided is not always appropriate or desirable as an immediate outcome of career counselling (Cochran, 1987). Casserly (1978) also asserts in t h i s evaluation that CHOICES users had an increased a b i l i t y to select jobs which are more personally suitable and s a t i s f y i n g . This would, according to Casserly, indicate increased career maturity. Again, on a closer examination of the raw data, i t was revealed that t h i s finding was tentative at best. These people were asked i f they had found a job in the l a s t month a f t e r using CHOICES and i f i t had better working conditions than their former job, the same conditions or worse conditions. T h i r t y - s i x percent (versus 11% of control group) rated t h e i r new jobs better. However, about the same rated their new job even (18% versus 16%) and 16% (versus only 2%) rated their new job worse. This l a s t s t a t i s t i c is s u r p r i s i n g . Page 23 One could make a case for preserving the status quo by not using CHOICES or at least not having a worse job! But the most puzzling feature of th i s evaluation i s that we do not know what contributed to these percentages or why. The only completed evaluation in the l i t e r a t u r e comparing CHOICES with another intervention (other than a computerized one) i s by Reardon, Bonnell, & Huddleston (1982). Seventy-five u n i v e r s i t y students were compared on the SDS and the explore route of CHOICES. Thirty-seven completed the SDS f i r s t , then, within 8 days, they went through CHOICES. Thirty-eight others used CHOICES f i r s t , then the SDS. Two nine-item tests of appreciation or s a t i s f a c t i o n were used to evaluate effectiveness. While both were rated p o s i t i v e l y , CHOICES was more so on four items. Again, these conclusions do not indicate exactly what students appreciated about CHOICES or the SDS, nor do they d i r e c t how they were helped (or hindered) in the i r career planning. Page 24 CHAPTER 3 The S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search (SDS) E x t e n t of Research As compared t o CHOICES, the SDS by J . L . H o l l a n d (1977a) and the accompanying t h e o r y has been s u b j e c t e d to an enormous amount of r e s e a r c h . For example , the annua l v o c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e rev iews ( B e t z , 1977; F r e t z , 1981; Krumbol tz e t a l . , 1979; Much insky , 1983; Osipow, 1976; Super & H a l l , 1978; T i n s l e y & Heesacher , 1984; Wa lsh , 1979; Z y t o w s k i , 1978) have a l l u n d e r l i n e d H o l l a n d ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n and the e n s u i n g r e s e a r c h h i s t h e o r y has g e n e r a t e d . Over t h r e e hundred s t u d i e s have been p u b l i s h e d on the t h e o r e t i c a l framework, on the V o c a t i o n a l P r e f e r e n c e I n v e n t o r y ( H o l l a n d , 1978a) and on the f o c u s of t h i s s t u d y , the SDS ( H o l l a n d , 1977a) . The SDS i t s e l f i s used by over one q u a r t e r of a m i l l i o n people a year and has been used i n over two hundred s t u d i e s ( H o l l a n d , 1979) . However, a number of q u e s t i o n s s t i l l remain unanswered. T h i s r e v i e w w i l l a t t e m p t , a f t e r a b r i e f overv iew of a s s u m p t i o n s , d e s c r i p t i o n , e v i d e n c e , t ypes of s t u d i e s and c r i t i c i s m s , to u n d e r l i n e and a c c e n t u a t e the type of s t u d y t h a t c o u l d b e t t e r answer those q u e s t i o n s . Page 25 A s s u m p t i o n s a n d D e s c r i p t i o n Holland's theory and therefore the SDS, i s based on three assumptions. The f i r s t i s that there are s i x ideal types of people: R e a l i s t i c , Investigative, A r t i s t i c , S o c i a l , Enterprising, and Conventional. The second, i s that there are s i x corresponding ideal types of environments. These are defined p a r t i a l l y by the work that i s done, but mostly by the kinds of people that work there. The t h i r d assumption is that people who are matched to an appropriate environment w i l l be more s a t i s f i e d , productive, and stable (Holland, 1973). These types are organized into a hexagonal shape: c A Page 26 On the basis of a three l e t t e r code, the assumption i s that adjacent types (for example RIA) are consistent and therefore are more congruent, more apt to be stable, productive and s a t i s f i e d . They are also able to find an environment that f i t s . Incongruent types (for example EIR) w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y with a l l of these (Holland, 1973) . The SDS i s a self-administered, s e l f - s c o r i n g and se l f - i n t e r p r e t e d career counselling instrument. It consists of two booklets. The f i r s t i s an assessment booklet and the second is the Occupation Finder (Holland, 1978b). The user s t a r t s off by l i s t i n g occupational daydreams and by locating the three l e t t e r code for each in the Occupations Finder. Then the respondent answers the next three subsections: A c t i v i t i e s (six scales of eleven items each) using " l i k e " or " d i s l i k e " responses; Competencies (six scales of eleven items each) and Occupations (six scales of fourteen items each) using "yes" or "no" responses for both. The f i f t h and f i n a l sub-section i s the Self Estimates (two sets of s i x ratings, each rating corresponding to a type). This t o t a l s 228 items and usually takes between 40 and 60 minutes. The respondent then calculates a thre e - l e t t e r summary code representing the resemblance to the s i x personal orientations Page 27 ( H o l l a n d , 1979a) . The user can now proceed to l i s t o c c u p a t i o n s t h a t have i d e n t i c a l codes and a l s o s i m i l a r codes from the O c c u p a t i o n s F i n d e r . T h i s b o o k l e t l i s t s 456 o c c u p a t i o n a l t i t l e s w i th the accompanying seven d i g i t Canadian  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and D i c t i o n a r y of O c c u p a t i o n s (CCDO) (1974) . They a re a l s o p r e s e n t e d i n groups a c c o r d i n g to the s i x p e r s o n a l i t y / e n v i r o n m e n t t y p e s . The l a s t s e c t i o n of the SDS i n c l u d e s s u g g e s t i o n s on how to o b t a i n more i n f o r m a t i o n t o make v o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s and l i s t s a number of s a f e g u a r d s to p reven t d e t r i m e n t a l outcomes ( H o l l a n d , 1979) . Another b o o k l e t u s u a l l y accompanying the SDS i s U n d e r s t a n d i n g Y o u r s e l f and Your Career ( H o l l a n d , 1977b) . V a r i o u s t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i th the s i x p e r s o n a l i t y t ypes a re l i s t e d . H o l l a n d o f f e r s an e x p l a n a t i o n on how the s i x types tend t o congregate towards v a r i o u s o c c u p a t i o n s . He enumerates t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i th the s i x e n v i r o n m e n t s . He then o f f e r s f i v e c o n c r e t e s u g g e s t i o n s f o r i n c r e a s i n g q u a l i t y of c a r e e r d e c i s i o n s . E v i d e n c e and Support The ev idence found w i t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the SDS and i t s accompanying t h e o r y are g e n e r a l l y Page 28 supported. The manual (Holland, 1979) states that the 1977 e d i t i o n appears to have the same r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y as the 1970 e d i t i o n . Odd-even r e l i a b i l i t y was tested on 105 men and 104 women. The SDS re f l e c t e d a high degree of internal consistency as the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from .83 to .95. Retest r e l i a b i l i t y was demonstrated through a small sample of adults (N=30) and the correlations ranged from moderate to high (Holland, 1979a). Gottfredson and Holland (1975) tested 624 freshmen college students (192 males and 432 females) for predictive v a l i d i t y over a 3 year i n t e r v a l . For males, 43% stayed in the same category. For females, 66% stayed in the same category. Another study (Cutts 1977) demonstrated that the SDS has a moderate degree of internal consistency. Cutts noted that samples of 2000 to 6000 college freshmen showed correlations ranging from .67 to .94. She states that the item content and format r e f l e c t clear content v a l i d i t y . Types of studies Generally, the multitude of published a r t i c l e s points to a good grounding of both theory and empirical Page 29 data for the SDS (Seligman, 1974). These a r t i c l e s can be organized in f i v e types of studies: 1. The f i r s t type, and the most popular among researchers, i s focused on the occupational c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, studying the structure and/or v e r i f y i n g the individual occupational codes (Aubin, 1983; Bolton, 1985; Brusch & Krieshok, 1981; Campbell & Holland, 1972; Edwards & Whitney, 1972; Fishburne & Walsh, 1976; Gottfredson & Daiger, 1977; Hansen, 1977; Healey & Mourton, 1984a, 1984b; Holland, 1976b; Iachan, 1984; Matthews & Walsh, 1978; Mount & Muchinsky, 1978a, 1978b; Nafziger, Holland, Helms, & McPartland, 1974; O'Brien & Walsh, 1976; O'Neil, 1977; O'Neil, Magoon, & Tracey, 1978; Osipow, 1983; Payne & Sabaroch, 1985; Pounds, Davison, & Davis, 1979; Prediger, 1981; Rose, 1984; Rounds, Davison, & Davis, 1979; Smart, 1978; Villwock, Schnitzen, & Carbonari, 1976; Walsh et a l . , 1983; Ward & Walsh, 1981; Warren, Winer, & Dailey, 1981; Wiggington, 1983; Winer, Wilson, & Pierce, 1983; Wiggington, 1983; Zytowski, 1986). The generally positive findings lead us to believe that the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings produce a f a i r l y sound system. Hanson (1987), even found c r o s s - c u l t u r a l v e r i f i c a t i o n of the hexagonal structure. Future work in t h i s area is needed to unclutter a few Page 30 ambiguities of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y with the categories of R e a l i s t i c and Conventional (Holland, 1979) . 2. Another area that has been studied extensively is the sex bias in the SDS. (Boyd, 1976; Diamond, 1975; Gottfredson, 1976, 1978, 1982; Gottfredson & Holland, 1975; Harmon & Zytowski, 1980; Healy & Mourton, 1984a; Holland, 1976a, 1976b; Holland & Gottfredson, 1976; Hollinger, 1984; Lawler, 1979; Prediger, 1976a, 1976b, 1981a, 1982; Prediger & Hanson, 1976a, 1976b; Schaefer, 1976; T i t t l e & Zytowski, 1978). The many a r t i c l e s that t h i s controversy has generated have not r e a l l y overcome even the simple agreement on a d e f i n i t i o n of "sex bias". The problem seems so multi-faceted that no real conclusions can be reached (Crites, 1978). Holland, in his 1979 manual, maintains that t h i s area has had so many studies that have generally f a i l e d to conclusively demonstrate sex bias that t h i s would seem to suggest an u n f r u i t f u l line of inquiry. 3. The t h i r d type of study includes attempts to validate the SDS using various c r i t e r i a l i k e personality, values, s e l f - r a t i n g s , maturity scales, self-concept and the l i k e (Aranya, Barak, & Amernic, 1981; Bingham & Walsh, 1978; Byrne, 1980; Cairo, 1979; Page 31 Doty & Betz 1979; Fitzsimmons & Melnychuk, 1979; Hener & Meir, 1981; Holland & Nafziger, 1976; Holland, Gottfredson, & Nafziger, 1975; Laing, Swaney, & Prediger, 1984; Peraino & Willerman, 1983; Rachman, Amernic, & Aranya, 1981; Raphael & Gorman, 1986). Again, the findings are generally p o s i t i v e and support the SDS. However, as previously discussed, an examination of the assumptions of the c r i t e r i a would be paramount before any conclusive evidence could be reached. For example, because someone does better on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale after completing the SDS, does t h i s mean that the SDS has f a c i l i t a t e d career planning? Holland (1979) suggests that a better path for these studies would be to investigate how d i f f e r e n t types s e l e c t environments. 4. A fourth type of study examines the e f f e c t s or the influence of the SDS (Avallone, 1974; Byrne, 1977; Healy & Mourton, 1983; Krivatsy &(Magoon, 1976; Lawler, 1979; McGowan, 197.7; Nelson, 1976; Nicholson, 1975; Nolan, 1974; O'Neil, P r i c e , & Tracey, 1979; Power, Holland, Daiger, & Takai, 1979; Reardon & Kahnweiler, 1980; Reardon, Bonnell, & Huddleston, 1982; Redmond, 1973; Rhodes, 1973; Schaefer, 1976; Takai & Holland, 1979; Talbot & Birk, 1979, Zener & Schnuelle, 1976). Page 32 The majority of these studies follow the same type of design as Zener and Schnuelle (1976): 959 high school students were divided into an SDS group, a VPI group and a control group. The day a f t e r the experiment, and three weeks l a t e r , students evaluated the instruments. It was found that the SDS increases the number of vocational options a person i s considering, the s a t i s f a c t i o n with a vocational aspiration and self-understanding. Generally, subsequent studies, as l i s t e d above, confirmed these findings. These benefits do not seem to depend on the user's age (Gottfredson & Daiger, 1977; Schaefer, 1976) s o c i a l c l a s s , education and school aptitude (Zener & Schnuelle, 1976), gender (Boyd, 1976; Gottfredson, 1976; Gottfredson & Holland, 1975; Holland, 1976a; 1976b; Lawler, 1979; Schaefer, 1976), physical d i s a b i l i t i e s (Barker, 1978), l e v e l of occupation (Doty & Betz, 1979; Fishburne & Walsh, 1976; Salomone & Slaney, 1978), race (Kimball, Sedlacek, & Brooks, 1973; O'Brien & Walsh, 1976; Walsh, Bingham, Horton, & Spokane, 1979), or in t e l l i g e n c e (Holland, 1979; Schaefer, 1976; Zener & Schnuelle, 1976). 5. The f i f t h type of study concerns a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the typology. Three studies (Avallone, 1974; Krivatsy & Magoon, 1976; Nolan, 1974) compared Page 33 the SDS and group counselling on a wide variety of c r i t e r i a : information seeking, s a t i s f a c t i o n with choice, realism of choice, need to see a counsellor and number of vocational a l t e r n a t i v e s . Results did not conclusively favor one over the other. This might indicate that the SDS and the counsellor have an equal influence. However, much more must be done to state t h i s a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y . In business settings, at least nine studies lend support to the SDS and i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984; Doty & Betz, 1979; Matthews & Walsh, 1978; O'Brien & Walsh, 1976; Rachman et a l . , 1981; Salomone & Slaney, 1978; Spokane & Walsh, 1978; Utz & Hartman, 1978; Varca & Shaffer, 1982; Walsh et a l . , 1979). In educational settings, many studies have been undertaken to es t a b l i s h predictive v a l i d i t y of the SDS. (Geoffroy, 1985; Gottfredson & Holland, 1975; Nabors, 1981; O'Neil & Magoon, 1977; O'Neil, Magoon, & Tracey, 1978; O'Neil & Magoon, 1977; O'Neil, Price, & Tracey, 1979; Power et a l . , 1979; Villwock et a l . , 1976). Page 34 C r i t i c i s m s of the SDS C r i t i c i s m s of the SDS have m u l t i p l i e d , ranging from the sex b i a s c o n t r o v e r s y ( P r e d i g e r & Hanson, 1976) to simply being a t r a i t - f a c t o r type of i n t e r e s t s c a l e ( K l i n e , 1975). Two s t u d i e s ( C h r i s t e n s e n , Gelso, W i l l i a m s , & Sedlacek, 1975; Gelso, C o l l i n s , W i l l i a m s & Sedlacek, 1973) examined the s e l f - s c o r i n g of the SDS and found n e a r l y the same r e s u l t s : most of the c o l l e g e freshmen (489 and 229 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) made some type of e r r o r ; about h a l f made e r r o r s which a f f e c t e d t h e i r f i n a l three l e t t e r summary codes and f o r about one t h i r d , the e r r o r s a f f e c t e d the high p o i n t code. O'Shea and H a r r i n g t o n (1980) recommend t h a t manuals f o r s e l f - s c o r i n g instruments provide data e s t a b l i s h i n g s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y , t h a t s c o r i n g be s u p e r v i s e d and t h a t the APGA t e s t standards d e a l d i r e c t l y with s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y . In Buros (1978), s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s c r i t i c i z e the SDS f o r the psychometric b a s i s of i t s s c o r i n g and the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the s e l f - s c o r i n g . M i c h a l and Graumenz (1984), d e s c r i b e an assessment of the a c c u r a c y of s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t i n c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making i n v e n t o r i e s as u n r e a l i s t i c . They c a u t i o n about a p o t e n t i a l b i a s i n Page 35 s e l f - r a t i n g s . A r e c e n t a r t i c l e a l s o q u e s t i o n s the support f o r Holland's congruence-achievement hypothesis (Schwartz, Andiappan, & Nelson, 1986). I t must be noted however, t h a t t h i s was based on one p r o f e s s i o n with a 50% response r a t e to t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A number of these problems have been c o r r e c t e d . For example, the simpler d e s i g n f o r adding scores and d e r i v i n g the summary code encourages l e s s e r r o r s ( H o l l a n d , 1979) i n the 1977 e d i t i o n of the SDS. Needed Research G e n e r a l l y , the enormous amount of r e s e a r c h has been p o s i t i v e . The SDS a f f e c t s people i n b e n e f i c i a l ways: 1. pr o v i d e s more v o c a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s 2. r e a s s u r e s people about a c u r r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e 3. s t i m u l a t e s e x p l o r a t i o n 4. reduces i n d e c i s i o n 5. leads to g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n with c h o i c e However, knowing t h i s i s o n l y g e n e r a l l y h e l p f u l . We s t i l l do not know how these b e n e f i t s ( i f they are) are d e r i v e d . Is i t simply because 456 v o c a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s are presented t h a t the user's a l t e r n a t i v e s are expanded? Does t h i s expansion f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r Page 36 p l a n n i n g f o r everyone? For example, i n an i n t r i g u i n g study examining student e x p e c t a t i o n f o r t a k i n g an i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r y , 322 female and 203 male high s c h o o l students were asked to e v a l u a t e t h e i r SDS e x p e r i e n c e . I t seems t h a t most students seek reassurance about t h e i r c u r r e n t c h o i c e , want guidance about which c a r e e r to e n t e r , and want to f i n d out how to t r a i n f o r a s p e c i f i c job. As f o r narrowing or broadening the range of c h o i c e s , more students opted f o r narrowing r a t h e r than broadening. The SDS was r a t e d most p o s i t i v e l y by females, by students high on the i d e n t i t y s c a l e and by students with good decision-making s k i l l s (Power, Hol l a n d , Daiger, & T a k a i , 1979). Again, these are a l l averages and we s t i l l do not know which students want which b e n e f i t s . Because a m a j o r i t y of females r a t e d the SDS p o s i t i v e l y , does not i n d i c a t e t h a t a l l would r a t e i t p o s i t i v e l y , or f o r the same reasons. How e x a c t l y i t helps or hinders people with d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s and d e s i r e s i s l a r g e l y unknown. A number of r e s e a r c h e r s (Cooper, 1976; K r i v a t s y & Magoon, 1976; Redmond, 1973; T a l b o t & B i r k , 1979; Takai & H o l l a n d , 1979; Zener & S c h n u e l l e , 1976) r e p o r t t h a t the impact of c o u n s e l l o r - f r e e v o c a t i o n a l treatments i s l i m i t e d and the e f f e c t s of the d i f f e r e n t techniques are Page 37 more o f t e n s i m i l a r than d i s s i m i l a r . For example, Takai and Holland (1979) compared the V o c a t i o n a l Card Sort (VCS), the SDS and the V o c a t i o n a l E x p l o r a t i o n and  I n s i g h t K i t (VEIK). They concluded t h a t the d i v e r s e v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s have s i m i l a r r a t h e r than d i v e r g e n t e f f e c t s and t h a t these e f f e c t s are r a t h e r s m a l l . The VEIK even f a i l e d to surpass the i n f l u e n c e of i t s i n d i v i d u a l components (the SDS and the VCS). Takai and Holland s p e c u l a t e t h a t i t i s perhaps because a c e i l i n g e f f e c t i s reached and other subsequent i n t e r v e n t i o n s are not r e a l l y e f f e c t i v e . Another hypothesis might be t h a t , perhaps, the e v a l u a t i v e instruments are not f i n e enough to d e t e c t changes. The complexity and the number of v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d i n such an e v a l u a t i o n i s formidable. T h i s i l l u s t r a t e s the need f o r another type of e v a l u a t i v e instrument. Holland (1979) suggests a number of areas of needed r e s e a r c h : v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s of the l o n g i t u d i n a l type, person-environment i n t e r a c t i o n s t u d i e s , t e s t i n g and r e v i s i n g the d i a g n o s t i c scheme, thorough examination of the environmental h y p o t h e s i s , more a n a l y s i s of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s u s i n g two and three l e t t e r codes, code p o p u l a r i t y and c r o s s - c u l t u r a l comparisons. However, one area t h a t he c o n t i n u a l l y s t r e s s e s i s t o show how the e f f e c t s are achieved ( H o l l a n d , 1979). A number of other Page 38 authors (Brown, 1972; D o l l i v e r & Hansen, 1977; O'Neil e t a l . , 1979; Takai & H o l l a n d , 1979; T a l b o t & B i r k , 1979) a l l r e i t e r a t e t h a t while the SDS has d e s i r a b l e i n f l u e n c e , they do not know how or why these e f f e c t s are ac h i e v e d . In summary, while the evidence f o r each i n t e r v e n t i o n i s encouraging, i t does not y i e l d a c l e a r and d e t a i l e d enough p i c t u r e to inform judgments i n ca r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g . For example, s t i m u l a t i n g e x p l o r a t i o n i s extremely a b s t r a c t and gen e r a l as an outcome. More s p e c i f i c i t y would be needed to support the judgments r e q u i r e d i n c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . Both CHOICES and the SDS might s t i m u l a t e c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n , but e x p l o r a t i o n s of d i f f e r e n t kinds f o r d i f f e r e n t purposes i n r e l a t i o n t o d i f f e r e n t stages of c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . A d i f f e r e n t kind of study seems to be needed, one t h a t would c l a r i f y more comprehensively and s p e c i f i c a l l y how each i n t e r v e n t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Using the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s technique (Flannagan, 1954) to c a t e g o r i z e process events t h a t f a c i l i t a t e or hinder c a r e e r p l a n n i n g i n each i n t e r v e n t i o n , a study t h a t seems capable of p r o v i d i n g a more comprehensive and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of how each i n t e r v e n t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g w i l l be presented i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s . Page 39 CHAPTER 4 Methodology Su b j e c t s S u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from v o l u n t e e r students i n the Career P l a n n i n g Course a t Matthew McNair Senior High School i n Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s s c h o o l i s comprised of approximately 1000 grade 11 and 12 s t u d e n t s , mostly from middle t o upper-middle c l a s s f a m i l i e s . T h i s c a r e e r p l a n n i n g course was an o p t i o n a l mini-course l a s t i n g three weeks. The s u b j e c t s were a l l very f l u e n t i n E n g l i s h and were r e p r e s e n t i v e of the v a r i e d e t h n i c composition of the s c h o o l . In the f i r s t p a r t of t h i s study, an attempt was made to g a i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n from t h i r t y - f i v e grade e l e v e n and grade twelve students (approximately h a l f male, h a l f female) who had used CHOICES r e c e n t l y (but not the SDS) and who v a r i e d i n both socio-economic l e v e l and l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n (see Appendix D f o r the consent form). The second p a r t of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e d a s i m i l a r sampling of students from the same s c h o o l . However, they had used the SDS but not CHOICES. The nature of these samples was c o n s t r a i n e d somewhat by the v o l u n t e e r aspect of the study and by Page 40 other p r a c t i c a l r e s t r i c t i o n s . C r i t i c a l I n c i d e n t Technique The students were in t e r v i e w e d about t h e i r experience with CHOICES and the SDS us i n g the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique, pioneered by John Flanagan (1954). T h i s technique c o n s i s t s b a s i c a l l y of the i n t e r v i e w e r e l i c i t i n g r e p o r t s of concre t e and s p e c i f i c o b s e r v a t i o n s from people who are i n a p o s i t i o n to determine what helps or hinders the f u n c t i o n i n g of some pr o c e s s . The c e n t r a l task of the i n t e r v i e w e r i n v o l v e s e l i c i t i n g v e r y s p e c i f i c r e p o r t s on concre t e i n c i d e n t s t h a t were e i t h e r high p o i n t s or low p o i n t s i n the proc e s s . The interviewee must s p e c i f y e x a c t l y what helped or hindered. From these r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s , a c a t e g o r y system i s developed. T h i s technique has proved t o be ve r y f l e x i b l e and r e l i a b l e . For example, Flanagan (1954) r e p o r t s s e v e r a l methods f o r c o l l e c t i n g the da t a . These i n c l u d e the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w , the group i n t e r v i e w , mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and r e c o r d forms. In each case, the s p e c i f i c i t y and exactness of what happened i s r e q u i r e d . These v a r i o u s forms d i d not a l t e r the q u a l i t y of the i n c i d e n t s to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree as long as the Page 41 s u b j e c t s were motivated to read the i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y and answer c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y . Another dimension adding to the r e l i a b i l i t y of the technique i s t h a t d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v i e w e r s e l i c i t a common body of responses. Flanagan (1954) r e p o r t s a number of s t u d i e s u s i n g a v a r i e t y of t r a i n e d and u n t r a i n e d i n t e r v i e w e r s ranging from p s y c h o l o g i s t s to i n d u s t r i a l foremen with no i n t e r v i e w i n g e xperience. R e s u l t s obtained were not markedly d i f f e r e n t . Andersson and N i l s s o n (1964) a l s o u n d e r l i n e i t s r e l i a b i l i t y . They r e p o r t t h a t while there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of i n c i d e n t s produced between the i n t e r v i e w and the q u e s t i o n n a i r e method, the rank c o r r e l a t i o n between the s i z e s ( i . e . number of i n c i d e n t s per category) of the c a t e g o r i e s was .85. A l s o , there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the number of i n c i d e n t s e l i c i t e d by the v a r i o u s i n t e r v i e w e r s . The technique appears r e l i a b l e i n view of the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of i t s procedure e i t h e r through the v a r i o u s ways of c o l l e c t i n g the data or the e l i c i t i n g of i n c i d e n t s through d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v i e w e r s . R e l i a b i l i t y of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n seems, a t f i r s t g l a n c e , a r a t h e r s u b j e c t i v e procedure. However, by r e f e r r i n g to the source m a t e r i a l , the essence i s to Page 42 a s c e r t a i n a c a t e g o r y system t h a t i s obvious. Flanagan (1954) notes t h a t one r u l e i s to submit the c a t e g o r i e s to others f o r review. Andersson and N i l s s o n (1964) conducted an experiment to determine whether o t h e r s c o u l d produce s i m i l a r c a t e g o r i e s . Twenty-four s t u d e n t s , working i n p a i r s , independently developed c a t e g o r i e s . There was l a r g e agreement on the c a t e g o r i e s formed, i n d i c a t i n g a p l a u s i b l e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n t h a t was not too s u b j e c t i v e . However, more d i r e c t l y , a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme can be checked f o r r e l i a b i l i t y by t e s t i n g the extent to which others can use i t to c a t e g o r i z e i n c i d e n t s the same way. The v a l i d i t y of the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique was t e s t e d by Andersson and N i l s s o n (1964) by v e r i f y i n g whether the technique succeeds i n i n c l u d i n g a l l the important a s p e c t s of one p r o c e s s . They analyzed the contents of the t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e f o r the i n t e r n a l t r a i n i n g of managers over a number of y e a r s . In g e n e r a l , the data c o u l d be f i t t e d i n t o the c a t e g o r y system of a n a l y s i s and t h e r e f o r e was sound, from one p e r s p e c t i v e . Another aspect of v a l i d i t y s t u d i e d by Andersson and N i l s s o n (1964) was whether the i n c i d e n t s c o l l e c t e d were r e a l l y c r i t i c a l . That i s , do judges f i n d them important i n r e l a t i o n to the work? They designed r a t i n g forms i n which e i g h t y - s i x c a t e g o r i e s were r a t e d on a s i x p o i n t Page 4 3 s c a l e by three hundred people ( i n c l u d i n g s u p e r i o r s , s t o r e managers, a s s i s t a n t s , and psychology s t u d e n t s ) . They concluded t h a t the method r e v e a l e d behavior u n i t s t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d important to the o c c u p a t i o n of s t o r e manager as o n l y f i v e of the e i g h t y - s i x c a t e g o r i e s were r a t e d unimportant. T h e r e f o r e , i t appears t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d by the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique i s r e l i a b l e and there i s some warrant f o r b e l i e v i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n gathered to be v a l i d . However, i t must be noted t h a t v a l i d i t y i s a complicated c l a i m , r e q u i r i n g v a r i o u s answers to the q u e s t i o n : V a l i d f o r what? The aim of t h i s study i s to develop c a t e g o r i e s with a reasonable presumption of v a l i d i t y . Future s t u d i e s w i l l be r e q u i r e d to f u l l y demonstrate v a l i d i t y . I n t e r v i e w Procedures The i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s began by f a m i l i a r i z i n g the student with the nature of the study. The r i g h t to withdraw, c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the normal access to c o u n s e l l i n g and other s c h o o l s e r v i c e s was emphasized (Appendix D). General q u e s t i o n s about the student's c a r e e r plans and h i s or her experiences with CHOICES were asked. Then, each student was given these Page 44 i n s t r u c t i o n s : Think back to your experience with CHOICES: f i l l i n g out the T r a v e l Guide, working a t the computer t e r m i n a l , and s t u d y i n g the p r i n t o u t . Tr y to i d e n t i f y those p o s i t i v e h i g h - p o i n t s i n which something happened t h a t you f e l t was important f o r your c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Now, t a k i n g the f i r s t h igh p o i n t , t e l l me e x a c t l y what happened t h a t was so h e l p f u l a t t h a t time. Once the high p o i n t s were exhausted, the q u e s t i o n was a l t e r e d to e l i c i t n e g a tive low p o i n t s t h a t hindered c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . For each i n c i d e n t , the student s p e c i f i e d e x a c t l y what helped or hindered and t r i e d to s p e c i f y e x a c t l y how he or she was helped or hindered. With the student's p e r m i s s i o n , these i n t e r v i e w s , l a s t i n g approximately an hour, were tape recorded and/or notes were taken. E x a c t l y the same procedure was f o l l o w e d i n o b t a i n i n g i n c i d e n t s c o ncerning SDS as CHOICES. Below are the major que s t i o n s t h a t e i t h e r were asked or served as r e f e r e n c e c r i t e r i a f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the completeness of each r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t : Page 45 What e x a c t l y happened t h a t was so h e l p f u l f o r your c a r e e r planning? Why was t h i s so h e l p f u l to you? Data A n a l y s i s Once the i n t e r v i e w s were completed, these i n c i d e n t s were d i v i d e d i n t o items t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e the impact on car e e r p l a n n i n g . S i m i l a r t o L a z w e l l ' s a p o s t e r i o r i approach (Herzberg et a l . , 1966) whereby the c a t e g o r i e s of a n a l y s i s are e x t r a c t e d from the m a t e r i a l i t s e l f , i n c i d e n t s were d i v i d e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s based on item s i m i l a r i t y . To assure r e l i a b i l i t y of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , three judges placed one hundred and f i f t y i n c i d e n t s each under a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r i e s . With an agreement of a minimum of 80% of the i n c i d e n t s (Flanagan, 1954), the assumption t h a t i t i s r e l i a b l e can be made. I f agreement were below 80%, c a t e g o r i e s would have to be reframed u n t i l b e t t e r agreement was reached. Page 46 CHAPTER 5 R e s u l t s P r e v i o u s outcome r e s e a r c h has not provided an adequate d e s c r i p t i o n of how each i n t e r v e n t i o n f a c i l i t a t e s c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . In an attempt to provide a more comprehensive and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n , the present study has focused upon i n d i v i d u a l accounts of events t h a t helped or hindered c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . The seventy students generated a t o t a l of 776 usable i n c i d e n t s . The task of the chapter i s to present a r e l i a b l e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of these events t h a t r e s u l t i n a more adequate d e s c r i p t i v e map of how each i n t e r v e n t i o n f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . There are numerous ways i n which a c o l l e c t i o n of i n c i d e n t s may be c a t e g o r i z e d . U s u a l l y , the primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n forming c a t e g o r i e s are the purpose of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and the uses to be made of i t (Flanagan, 1954). In t h i s study, the frame of r e f e r e n c e f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was program e v a l u a t i o n , t h a t i s , to f i n d out how the programs f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . For example, i n the CHOICES T r a v e l Guide, students must s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , a p t i t u d e , temperament, e d u c a t i o n l e v e l and so on. Are Page 47 these s e l f - r a t i n g s merely a means of p r e p a r i n g f o r the computer t e r m i n a l or do they f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g as w e l l ? I t i s "What happens" when one c a r r i e s out an a c t i v i t y such as t h i s , t h a t i s the focus of t h i s study. From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , the types of c a t e g o r i e s sought would provide a map of each program so as to help c o u n s e l l o r s b e t t e r prepare students f o r CHOICES and the SDS. These c a t e g o r i e s , f i l t e r e d from s u b j e c t i v e l y construed b e n e f i t s and detriments of the i n t e r v e n t i o n s , would seem c r i t i c a l f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d treatment s e l e c t i o n , p r e p a r a t i o n and l a t e r c o u n s e l l i n g . T h i s map might a l s o guide the s e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n s through a q u a l i t a t i v e comparison of the programs. A major p a r t of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was the se a r c h f o r pro t o t y p e s . These are c l e a r examplars of a c a t e g o r y . These prototypes encompass the c r i t i c a l f e a t u r e s which serve to d e f i n e a category. The more f e a t u r e s a member shares with a prototype, the more i t f i t s w i t h i n the category. These n a t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s do not have r i g i d boundaries, but r a t h e r are more open, being h e l d together more by common f e a t u r e s or f a m i l y resemblance (Rosch, 1977). To i n i t i a t e the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n procedure and i n order to get a sense of the complexity of the dat a , a l l Page 48 i n c i d e n t s were read c a r e f u l l y . They were then d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n t o v a r i o u s p i l e s a c c o r d i n g to s i m i l a r i t y of content. A prototype was i d e n t i f i e d f o r each p i l e and the i n c i d e n t s were r e c l a s s i f i e d where necessary around each p r o t o t y p e . P r o v i s i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s were thus formed and problems i d e n t i f i e d . C o n s u l t a t i o n with other people and f u r t h e r adjustments were r e q u i r e d to s o l i d i f y the c a t e g o r i e s or r e s o l v e problems. S e v e r a l c y c l e s were necessary to achieve a s a t i s f a c t o r y s e t of c a t e g o r i e s . F i r s t the i n c i d e n t s from the CHOICES group were examined by p r o v i d i n g a prototype and by d e s c r i b i n g the range of i n c i d e n t s i n v o l v e d . The c a t e g o r i e s were then l i s t e d under three headings: f a c i l i t a t i v e , h i n d e r i n g and other. In the f a c i l i t a t i v e i n c i d e n t s , the students expressed how t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g was helped or f a c i l i t a t e d by the CHOICES program. Table 1 (on page 50) o u t l i n e s the f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . Included are the number of i n c i d e n t s per category, the number of students who expressed i n c i d e n t s subsumed by the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s and a l s o the percentage of students f o r each category. R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of these c a t e g o r i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 7. However, one can get a sense of t h e i r v a l i d i t y by n o t i n g ( i n Table 1) t h a t independent observers r e p o r t the same types of events. Page 49 In t h i s case, s u b j e c t s were the independent o b s e r v e r s . As can be observed i n Table 1, the t h i r t e e n b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s are grouped under three headings: O c c u p a t i o n a l awareness, self-awareness and match. T h i s i s s i m p l y one way to organize the t h i r t e e n c a t e g o r i e s t h a t seems p l a u s i b l e and r e f l e c t s the t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings of CHOICES' author. I t would be mistaken, however, t o a s s i g n undue importance to these s u p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s . The major t h r u s t of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s focused on the t h i r t e e n c a t e g o r i e s t h a t a c t u a l l y subsume the i n c i d e n t s . Appendix F o f f e r s a d e t a i l e d t a b u l a t i o n of the types of c a t e g o r i e s each student expressed, a l o n g with the sex, grade and age of each student. Appendix G o u t l i n e s the type of student (sex, grade, age) t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each c a t e g o r y . Page 50 Table 1 CHOICES F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s I n c i d e n t s *Students (%)** A. O c c u p a t i o n a l Awareness 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 24 16 (46%) 2. Expands g e n e r a l job op t i o n s 25 19 (54%) 3. Expands job op t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 23 17 (49%) 4. Narrows focus 16 14 (43%) 5. St i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s 35 24 (69%) 6. Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s 17 17 (49%) 7. Judges f u t u r e of jobs 16 14 (43%) 8. P r o v i d e s r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g 16 16 (46%) B. Self-Awareness 9. C l a r i f i e s l i k e s 14 11 (31%) 10. C l a r i f i e s c a p a b i l i t i e s and a p t i t u d e s 6 4 (11%) C. Match 11. Matches i n t e r e s t s and a p t i t u d e s to jobs 7 5 (14%) 12. C o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e 13. D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of choice 13 6 Page 51 11 (31%) 6 (17%) TOTAL 218 Number of students who expressed t h i s type of ca t e g o r y (maximum 35). Percentage i s based over 35. Page 52 Of the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r y d e s c r i p t i o n s , the m a j o r i t y are s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . For example, "Expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d " means e x a c t l y t h a t . Job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i e d area are enumerated f o r the student. F u r t h e r e x p l i c a t i o n seems redundant. T h e r e f o r e , each c a t e g o r y w i l l be presented, not so much by an e l a b o r a t e e x p l a n a t i o n but r a t h e r by p r o v i d i n g p r o t o t y p i c a l examples and by p o r t r a y i n g the range of these f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t s f o r CHOICES. CHOICES F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements: The e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l r e a l l y helped because i t shows you how much education you have to commit t o . I want to t r a i n f o r maybe 1 more year, then I want to s t a r t working. CHOICES l i s t e d what you needed to become a teacher.(Student #22) G e n e r a l l y , most of the i n c i d e n t s i n t h i s c a t e g o r y acknowledged t h a t knowing the l e v e l of t r a i n i n g or education f o r a job was h e l p f u l i n p l a n n i n g t h e i r c a r e e r . Some found i t h e l p f u l because they a l r e a d y had a preconceived idea of what c a r e e r they wanted and Page 53 t h e r e f o r e needed i n f o r m a t i o n on e x a c t l y how many years of e d u c a t i o n was r e q u i r e d . Others, l i k e the f i r s t example above, wanted to t r a i n or go to s c h o o l f o r no more than a s p e c i f i e d amount of time and then s t a r t working. I f t h e i r a s p i r e d c a r e e r took more t r a i n i n g , they were ready and w i l l i n g to reduce t h e i r i d e a l t o a more manageable, l e s s time-consuming t r a i n i n g . I t seemed t h a t f o r some the p r i o r i t y was the care e r i t s e l f ; f o r ot h e r s , the length of p r e p a r a t i o n was paramount. For both, the knowledge of the t r a i n i n g requirements was h e l p f u l i n t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . 2. Expands ge n e r a l job opt i o n s I t gave me a couple of ideas t h a t I never thought about b e f o r e , jobs l i k e stewardess, c r u i s e d i r e c t o r . There was a l o t of jobs t h a t I d i d n ' t want t o get i n t o , but a t l e a s t i t gave me the o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t i f I wanted, I c o u l d . I t was h e l p f u l because i t made me thin k of other t h i n g s t h a t I might do i f t h i n g s don't work out. (Student #32) T h i s c a t e g o r y was concerned with expanding job options i n a gen e r a l way as opposed to l i s t i n g jobs i n a Page 54 s p e c i f i c a r e a . Students f e l t t h a t t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g was f a c i l i t a t e d because they now had, through the p r i n t o u t , a wider range of o p t i o n s that they e i t h e r had ignored or had not c o n s i d e r e d beforehand. 3. Expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d S i m i l a r occupations was h e l p f u l because i t g i v e s you a chance to look i n t o other t h i n g s t h a t are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . T h i s i s h e l p f u l because you can look i n t o a l l kinds of s i m i l a r occupations l i k e d o c t o r s , p e d i a t r i c i a n s , surgeons - s i m i l a r jobs. So you can t h i n k of many others i n case you don't want to go a l l the way. (Student #27) Students gained l i s t s of jobs t h a t they had ignored or hadn't c o n s i d e r e d . However, d i f f e r i n g from the more gene r a l category, these occupations were conc e n t r a t e d i n one or two s p e c i f i c f i e l d s . T h i s expansion i n a s p e c i f i c area was found h e l p f u l t o t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g because they f e l t t h a t they were not l i m i t e d by o n l y one job, t h a t other s i m i l a r jobs would be p o s s i b l e . They would a l s o have something to f a l l back on i n case one c a r e e r was not a v a i l a b l e or p r a c t i c a l . T h i s c a t e g o r y was Page 55 p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l to those who a l r e a d y knew t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l f i e l d and would then access the COMPARE or RELATED r o u t e s . 4. Narrows focus CHOICES narrowed down the jobs. Th i s i s h e l p f u l because i t narrowed i t down to a few t o p i c s , i t p i c k s c e r t a i n f i e l d s t h a t you're i n t e r e s t e d i n . (Student #26) The e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of t h i s c a t e g o r y i s the pe r c e i v e d h e l p f u l n e s s of narrowing the range of occupations to c e r t a i n areas and t h e r e f o r e o b t a i n i n g a d i r e c t i o n towards a c a r e e r . Most of the i n c i d e n t s were l i k e the example above. However, another f e a t u r e mentioned was the case of ch o i c e when faced with fewer o p t i o n s . 5. S t i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s The i n s i d e / o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was h e l p f u l because i t made me look a t a job l i k e a l i b r a r i a n where you're i n s i d e a l l the time, i t made me look a t i t more c l o s e l y . (Student #20) Page 56 The r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number of i n c i d e n t s encompassed i n t h i s c a t e g o r y formed an e x t e n s i v e range. E a r n i n g s , hours of work i n c l u d i n g s h i f t work, t r a v e l (commuter and p l e a s u r e ) , l o c a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e , working i n s i d e or o u t s i d e , environmental c o n d i t i o n s , p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and demands, a l l of these e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s were r e p o r t e d as being important, p r a c t i c a l and h e l p f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n a job. For many, i t was the f i r s t time they had contemplated these e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s . The c o n s i d e r a t i o n most o f t e n mentioned was "ea r n i n g s " . Some mentioned t h a t i t was the most important while others s t a t e d , f o r example, t h a t " i f i t ' s a job you r e a l l y want, the money won't be t h a t important, but h e l p s " . These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were s t i m u l a t e d by a c t u a l l y doing the T r a v e l Guide and then s e e i n g how these c h o i c e s a f f e c t e d t h e i r p r i n t o u t . 6. Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s I t was h e l p f u l to be ab l e t o simply type i n the CCDO number and get a l o t of i n f o r m a t i o n on a s p e c i f i c j o b . (Student #21) T h i s c a t e g o r y i l l u s t r a t e d the speed and s p e c i f i c i t y of the CHOICES system. A f t e r completing the EXPLORE Page 57 r o u t e , the students would be armed with a l i s t of jobs with the accompanying CCDO number. Career p l a n n i n g was f a c i l i t a t e d because they c o u l d then access these through the SPECIFIC route and get f o u r t e e n types of i n f o r m a t i o n v a r y i n g from the earnings to what types of a t t i t u d e s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . 7. Judges f u t u r e of jobs Future outlook was h e l p f u l because I had never r e a l l y thought about i t and knowing whether i t was s t a b l e or i n c r e a s i n g was good, because you don't want to get i n t o something t h a t has no f u t u r e . (Student #10) Most of the i n c i d e n t s were s i m i l a r to the prototype above. Knowing the f u t u r e outlook of a c e r t a i n o c cupation was c o n s i d e r e d b e n e f i c i a l i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g because i t i s r e a s s u r i n g and i t permits s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g . Page 8. Pro v i d e s r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g Taking the p r i n t o u t home and being a b l e to read i t , to thin k about i t i s h e l p f u l because you don't have t o t h i n k about i t a l l a t once while the computer i s r a t t l i n g away. (Student #25) These i n c i d e n t s are mainly concerned with the b e n e f i t s of po s s e s s i n g the a c t u a l p r i n t o u t . T h i s p r i n t o u t p r o v i d e s a f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e i f t h e i r present p l a n f a i l s and a l s o f r e e s the student from memorizing the i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n by the computer. I t a l s o seems t s t i m u l a t e , as i n the case above, a more thorough d e l i b e r a t i o n . 9. C l a r i f i e s i n t e r e s t s The T r a v e l Guide was h e l p f u l because i t narrowed down my i n t e r e s t s by r e a l l y making you thin k about where you want to head. L i k e i t would ask you i f you co u l d work i n a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n or not. (Student #9) Page 59 The i n t e r e s t f a c t o r s i n the T r a v e l Guide helped c l a r i f y l i k e s and d i s l i k e s . A l s o , some mentioned the t e s t taken i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r CHOICES was b e n e f i c i a l i n h e l p i n g them g a i n self-awareness of t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . In d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h i s c a t e g o r y from the "Matches i n t e r e s t t o j o b s " category, i t i s important t o note t h a t t h i s c a t e g o r y does not l i n k i n t e r e s t s to an a c t u a l o c c u p a t i o n . 10. C l a r i f i e s c a p a b i l i t i e s and a p t i t u d e s Choices was h e l p f u l because i t showed what I can do and can't do.(Student #21) Lack of experience on the p a r t of most of these high s c h o o l students coupled with the power of t h i s f a c t o r i n e l i m i n a t i n g job p o s s i b i l i t i e s has r e q u i r e d that the c o u n s e l l o r s p r e p a r i n g the students f o r CHOICES, downplay the a p t i t u d e and temperament f a c t o r s i n the T r a v e l Guide. Consequently, o n l y 6 i n c i d e n t s were r e v e a l e d . These were concerned mostly with f i n d i n g out what one can a c t u a l l y do and can't do. S i m i l a r t o the pre v i o u s category, there was no job l i n k i n v o l v e d . Page 60 11. Matches i n t e r e s t s and a p t i t u d e s to jobs I t helped me to see the d i f f e r e n t areas t h a t I have to d e a l with. T h i s i s h e l p f u l because you have to choose a job t h a t s u i t s your i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s . (Student #18) There were s u r p r i s i n g l y few i n c i d e n t s i n t h i s c ategory, c o n s i d e r i n g i t s g e n e r a l importance to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . S i m i l a r to the example above, most i n c i d e n t s were g e n e r a l and not s h a r p l y framed. 12. C o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e I t worked r e a l l y w e l l as a c o n f i r m a t i o n of my ideas by l i s t i n g the t h i n g s I was i n t e r e s t e d i n . (Student #19) T h i s c a t e g o r y added weight to the student's p r i o r c h o i ce by c o n f i r m i n g i t . The machine-like, e r r o r l e s s p r i n t - o u t a l s o a f f i x e d a c e r t a i n p r e s t i g e and s a t i s f a c t i o n t o the agreed upon oc c u p a t i o n s . Page 61 13. D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e The computer was h e l p f u l because i t proved to me t h a t I wouldn't make a good nurse even though I've always wanted to be a nurse. I've changed my mind now, because o n l y one type of nurse came up and the r e s t of the jobs were t e a c h i n g j o b s . A l s o I'm not doing v e r y w e l l i n c h e m i s t r y and b i o l o g y . ( S t u d e n t #7) A p o s i t i v e outcome e i t h e r through r e a l i t y t e s t i n g or an expansion of o p t i o n s was produced by t h i s d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of the student's p r i o r c h o i c e . CHOICES Hi n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s As f o r the h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s i n CHOICES, a c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s necessary. Most students d i d not a c t u a l l y express a hindrance as such, but r a t h e r t h a t c e r t a i n aspects d i d n ' t help as much as o t h e r s . C e r t a i n areas i n the program were i n need of improvement and c l a r i f i c a t i o n , or were simply i r r e l e v a n t . For example, knowing the i n s i d e / o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of jobs was, to some s t u d e n t s , u s e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . I t r e a l l y d i d n ' t Page 62 " h i n d e r " t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g but i t d i d n ' t r e a l l y f a c i l i t a t e i t e i t h e r . Table 2 p o r t r a y s the f r e q u e n c i e s of the 9 h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s and Appendix F and G d e t a i l the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s . Page 63 Table 2 CHOICES H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s I n c i d e n t s *Students** (%) A. INFORMATION 1. l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n 11 8 (23%) 2. u s e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n 17 13 (37%) 3. u n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 3 3 (9%) B. OPTIONS 4. f a i l s t o c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e 7 6 (17%) 5. p u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job o p t i o n s 6 6 (17%) 6. q u e s t i o n a b l e b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs 9 8 (23%) 7. needs more opt i o n s 6 6 (17%) C. TERMINAL 8. rushed on t e r m i n a l 4 4 (11%) 9. machine m a l f u n c t i o n 1 1 ( 3%) TOTAL 65 * Number of students who expressed t h i s type of ca t e g o r y (Maximum 35) Page 64 ** Percentage is based over 35 In the same manner as the f a c i l i t a t i n g c a t e g o r i e s , the c a t e g o r i e s are presented as a p r o t o t y p i c a l example and a range of i n c i d e n t s . 1. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n Only the s t a r r e d occupations can be accessed. T h i s i s f r u s t r a t i n g because I c o u l d not get "teacher of the b l i n d " , I c o u l d not get a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n I wanted. (Student #8) T h i s c a t e g o r y y i e l d e d numerous gaps of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c o u l d have f a c i l i t a t e d c a r e e r p l a n n i n g , a c c o r d i n g to the s t u d e n t s . CHOICES co u l d have produced a l i s t of u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s with the corresponding f a c u l t i e s , the s u b j e c t s needed to be accepted i n t o u n i v e r s i t y , the courses necessary to graduate, a longer l i s t of jobs o b t a i n a b l e a f t e r high s c h o o l , the a c t u a l p l a c e s of employment, a Canada-wide bank of jobs ( i n s t e a d of having to choose a p r o v i n c e ) , and complete access to a l l the occupations not j u s t the s t a r r e d ones. Page 65 2. Us e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n The i n s i d e / o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were u s e l e s s . You a l r e a d y know i f you are going to work i n s i d e or o u t s i d e . (Student #14) These i n c i d e n t s are c o n t r a r y to the f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r y " s t i m u l a t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s " . Features such as i n s i d e / o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , temperament, a p t i t u d e s , i n t e r e s t , environment, t r a v e l , l o c a t i o n of employment, f u t u r e outlook, e a r n i n g s , p h y s i c a l demands and educ a t i o n d i d not seem important or f a c i l i t a t i v e to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g f o r these s t u d e n t s . 3. U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n The f u t u r e outlook was supposed to be s t a b l e f o r f o r e s t r y - and i t ' s not s t a b l e r i g h t now. How can they say t h a t ? (Student #24) T h i s c a t e g o r y c o n t a i n s i n c i d e n t s r e v o l v i n g around outdated and u n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e c o n c e r n i n g s a l a r y l e v e l s and employment outlook. For example, CHOICES l i s t s $5000. as Page 66 a l e v e l of s a l a r y . Who would choose a job which pays below the poverty l e v e l ? 4. F a i l s to c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e I f e e l i t ' s not t h a t h e l p f u l to me because I a l r e a d y know what I wanted to do. I t d i d n ' t come out as a p i l o t and t h a t was d e p r e s s i n g and I was d i s s a p p o i n t e d about t h a t . I t wasn't a c a r e e r f i n d i n g f o r me. (Student #34) Contr a r y t o the f a c i l i t a t i v e c ategory " D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of p r i o r c h o i c e " where the students viewed d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n as a f a i r r e a l i t y t e s t , most of these i n c i d e n t s s t r e s s e d the disappointment and n o n - f a c i l i t a t i v e aspect of the c o n f i r m a t i o n f a i l u r e . One student went as f a r as to fudge the data u n t i l he succeeded i n g e t t i n g h i s p r i o r c h o i c e . 5. P u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job options Some of the jobs I d i d n ' t f i n d a p p e a l i n g . T h i s wasn't r e a l l y h e l p f u l because i t d i d n ' t i n t e r e s t me. L i k e t h i n g s I know I Page 67 co u l d n ' t do. L i k e n u r s i n g . Not because of the e d u c a t i o n a l f a c t o r but because of the s i g h t of blood, I'd k e e l over. (Student #32) The puzzlement as expressed i n these i n c i d e n t s ranged from wondering what the connec t i o n was between seemingly d i v e r g e n t j o b s , to not wanting t o widen t h e i r o p t i o n s , to being confused as t o what to do next i f they d i d not l i k e t h e i r l i s t . I n a p proprlateness was a l s o a key i n g r e d i e n t as evidenced by the'prototype above and by having a l r e a d y t r i e d some of the l i s t e d jobs and not l i k i n g them. 6. Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs I found t h a t because the ques t i o n s are so d e f i n i t e , t h a t I cut out a l o t of jobs, t h a t maybe I would be i n t e r e s t e d i n . So i t should've been t o l d t o us t h a t i t was r e a l l y easy to c u t out a l o t of j o b s . (Student #25) The p r e v a l e n t theme i n these i n c i d e n t s was one of wondering how e x a c t l y the computer worked to narrow down Page 68 the j o b s . E i t h e r through misunderstanding of d i r e c t i o n s , u n c e r t a i n t y of how to answer, or a f e e l i n g t h a t e v e r y t h i n g was too g e n e r a l , the students f e l t hampered. They seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t with more knowledge of the computer f u n c t i o n s i t would be more f a c i l i t a t i v e . 7. Needed more opt i o n s But i t wasn't r e a l l y t h a t h e l p f u l because i t o n l y o f f e r e d me 2 types of j o b s . Because, say I don't want to teach music a f t e r awhile and I don't want to go i n t o s e c r e t a r i a l , what w i l l I do? I c o u l d have used more c h o i c e s . I t wasn't q u i t e complete. I t c o u l d have o f f e r e d me more types of occupations.(Student #4) T h i s c a t e g o r y i s t y p i f i e d by a demand f o r more job o p t i o n s . These students have no d e s i r e to be narrowed down. Rather they want a wider range of occupations or more r e l a t e d o c c u p a t i o n s . T h i s does not i n d i c a t e a r e a l hindrance to t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g but more a lack of f a c i l i t a t i o n . Page 69 8. Rushed on t e r m i n a l I d i d n ' t have enough time on the computer t e r m i n a l to r e a l l y get a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n on a l l the jobs I wanted. Should be allowed as much time as you need. (Student #2) The three i n c i d e n t s i n t h i s c a t e g o r y communicated a rushed f e e l i n g , implying t h a t i f they would have had more time on the t e r m i n a l i t would have been more f a c i l i t a t i v e to car e e r p l a n n i n g . 9. Machine m a l f u n c t i o n The computer p r i n t o u t got stuck t h e r e f o r e i t p r i n t e d over i t s e l f . Quite a hindrance! (Student #5) T h i s was the o n l y i n c i d e n t of a machine m a l f u n c t i o n . N a t u r a l l y i t was not conducive t o c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . SDS F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s Page 70 The SDS f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s w i l l be presented i n the same way as CHOICES. Table 3 o u t l i n e s the f r e q u e n c i e s of the 14 f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . Included are the number of i n c i d e n t s per category, the number of students who expressed i n c i d e n t s subsumed by the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s and a l s o the percentage of students f o r each c a t e g o r y . Appendix H o u t l i n e s the types of c a t e g o r i e s each student expressed and Appendix I, the type of student who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each c a t e g o r y . Page 71 Table 3 spg F a c u l t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s I n c i d e n t s *Students** (%) A. OCCUPATIONAL AWARENESS 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 15 2. Expands ge n e r a l job op t i o n s 57 3. Expands job opt i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 11 4. Narrows focus 42 5. Guides i n f o r m a t i o n search 2 B. SELF-AWARENESS 6. Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s and d i s l i k e s 28 7. Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s 31 8. St i m u l a t e s d e l i b e r a t i o n 14 9. Understanding o n e s e l f over time 8 10. F i n d out where t o improve 17 14 (40%) 29 (83%) 8 (23%) 21 (60%) 2 ( 6%) 19 (54%) 23 (66%) 12 (34%) 8 (23%) 12 (34%) MATCH 11. Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 12. Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs 13. Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 14. Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e TOTAL 25 17 (49%) 22 11 (31%) 8 6 (17%) 18 13 (37%) 298 Number of students who expressed t h i s type of c a t e g o r y . Percentage i s based over 35. Page 73 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements Having the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l by the occupation was h e l p f u l because i t helps you to p l a n f i n a n c i a l l y - whether you should work f i r s t to get enough money to get the e d u c a t i o n you need. I t helps you to p l a n f o r your s c h o o l i n g . (Student #47) T h i s c a t e g o r y conveys the importance of knowing the e d u c a t i o n a l or t r a i n i n g requirments f o r a job. Most of the i n c i d e n t s were s i m i l a r t o the example above ranging from c o r r e c t i n g misconceptions to a v o i d i n g s u r p r i s e s , a i d i n g f i n a n c i a l p l a n n i n g or h e l p i n g to choose courses at the high s c h o o l or c o l l e g e l e v e l . A l s o , s i m i l a r to the CHOICES category, some students valued l e n g t h of t r a i n i n g time as a p r i o r i t y i n choosing an occupation while others were prepared to t r a i n as long as necessary. 2. Expands g e n e r a l job o p t i o n s Occupations s e c t i o n : i t g i v e s me an idea of what might be a v a i l a b l e . T h i s i s h e l p f u l because i t g i v e s me a b e t t e r outlook, a Page 74 wider range of o p t i o n s . (Student #56) The daydream s e c t i o n made me l i s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s , i t gave me time to write them down on paper. T h i s was h e l p f u l because I don't r e a l l y know what I want to do a f t e r my t r a v e l l i n g - I can see t h i s i n black and white. I can't skate f o r e v e r . I need something to f a l l back on. (Student #48) Being a b l e to s w i t c h the l e t t e r s of the code and get new codes was h e l p f u l because I got the most i n t e r e s t i n g occupations (to me) when I d i d do t h a t . I a l s o got a l o t more oc c u p a t i o n s . (Student #47) The way the q u e s t i o n i s worded i n Occupations l i k e i t says an occupation t h a t you would f i n d i n t e r e s t i n g or would l i k e t o do, not something t h a t you would a c t u a l l y do. T h i s i s h e l p f u l because you don't r e a l l y t h i n k of i t i n terms of a l i f e l o n g c a r e e r , but r a t h e r of would you do t h i s . T h i s r e a l l y opens v a r i o u s f i e l d s up t h a t I hadn't thought of b e f o r e . (Student #47) T h i s category, with a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number of i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d , had q u i t e an e x t e n s i v e range. Page 75 S i m i l a r to the CHOICES c a t e g o r y of the same name, i t i m p l i e d an expansion of o p t i o n s as opposed to l i s t i n g jobs i n a s p e c i f i c o c c u p a t i o n a l f i e l d . As expected, the occupations s e c t i o n generated the most i n c i d e n t s . These tended to i n c l u d e , an a p p r e c i a t i o n of a wider range o£ o p t i o n s due to a b e t t e r o v e r a l l view, a f o r c e d look a t a v a r i e t y of jobs not thought of or ignored, and a f e e l i n g of having numerous a l t e r n a t i v e s . The daydream s e c t i o n r e v e a l e d s i m i l a r r e a c t i o n s but with a d i f f e r e n t t w i s t . Many expressed the value of having the time to w r i t e , to a c t u a l l y put down on paper options t h a t they had c o n s i d e r e d . T h i s a c t i o n seemed to l i b e r a t e and yet make more concre t e t h e i r wishes. The summary code and occupation f i n d e r a l s o produced a f a i r p r o p o r t i o n of i n c i d e n t s mostly r e v o l v i n g around job expansion. For example, i t was s t r e s s e d t h a t being a b l e to interchange the code was f a c i l i t a t i v e because i t opened up a g r e a t e r number of jobs with some of them being the more i n t e r e s t i n g ones. 3. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d Showing a l l the occupations g i v e s ideas of what you might go i n t o . The way i t was arranged i s h e l p f u l because i f you're Page 76 good In one f i e l d , you're probably good i n a l l the jobs l i s t e d i n t h a t f i e l d . A l s o you get to see what other jobs are l i s t e d i n t h a t f i e l d . (Student #43) T h i s c a t e g o r y i s v e r y s i m i l a r to the CHOICES category of the same name. The i n c i d e n t s c o n c e n t r a t e on a h e l p f u l n e s s of maximizing o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c a r e a . Most were generated through the occupations s e c t i o n s , the occupations booklet and summary code. 4. Narrows focus The summary code and occupations f i n d e r narrowed i t down to the medical f i e l d , so t h a t helped me r i g h t t h e r e . (Student #61) The occupations s e c t i o n narrowed i t down. I t s o r t of gave me the b a s i c occupations t h a t I c o u l d do. T h i s i s h e l p f u l because t h i s way I ' l l be l e d i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n . (Student #49) L i s t i n g the daydreams helped me to r e a l i z e t h a t there are r e a l l y two areas t h a t are i n t e r c o n n e c t e d . T h i s helps me to e l i m i n a t e some and conc e n t r a t e on these Page 77 two a r e a s . (Student #47) In the competencies s e c t i o n , s i m i l a r t o the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n , I r e a l l y n o t i c e d t h a t I leaned to one s i d e . T h i s i s h e l p f u l because i t shows an a p t i t u d e i n one d i r e c t i o n . ( S t u d e n t #58) B a s i c a l l y , the t h r u s t of t h i s populous c a t e g o r y (43 i n c i d e n t s ) i s again v e r y s i m i l a r to the same c a t e g o r y i n CHOICES. Narrowing the range of options and g e t t i n g a car e e r d i r e c t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d f a c i l i t a t i v e . The numerous examples above serve to i l l u s t r a t e the d i v e r s i t y of sources f o r t h i s f u n n e l l i n g f e a t u r e of the SDS. 5. Guides i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h Having the number of the CCDO i s h e l p f u l because you can get more i n f o r m a t i o n i n the books. The more i n f o r m a t i o n , the b e t t e r the d e c i s i o n . (Student #47) The few i n c i d e n t s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y s t r e s s the guidance provided f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n search through the CCDO. Even though there were o n l y 2 i n c i d e n t s , i t was f e l t t h a t they were d i f f e r e n t enough Page 78 yet l o g i c a l l y p l a u s i b l e to demand a c a t e g o r y of t h e i r own. 6. Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s and d i s l i k e s In the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n , I l i s t e d what I l i k e d and d i s l i k e d . T h i s was h e l p f u l because i t made me aware of what I l i k e d and d i s l i k e d . I t g i v e s you a b a s i c idea of where you s t a r r e d (where you f a r e d w e l l ) . (Student #42) Most of the i n c i d e n t s more or l e s s d u p l i c a t e d the example above and i n v o l v e d a c l a r i f i c a t i o n , a self-awareness, a d i s c o v e r y or a c o n f i r m a t i o n of the person's i n t e r e s t s . T h i s was achieved mostly through the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n and there was no job l i n k i n evidence. 7. Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s In the s e l f - e s t i m a t e s e c t i o n i t was h e l p f u l because you don't r e a l l y t h i n k of your a b i l i t i e s and t h i s i s h e l p f u l because you can f i n d out what ki n d of person you a r e , what you're Page 79 good a t , s t u f f l i k e t h a t . (Student #41) The competencies s e c t i o n makes you see what s o r t of rounded person you a r e . Things you can do and can't do. R e i n f o r c e what I a l r e a d y knew about myself. (Student #57) Throughout, what i s a t stake i s e i t h e r a c o n f i r m a t i o n or a d i s c o v e r y of the student's c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s with no job l i n k . Students p e r c e i v e d b e n e f i t s through the s e l f - e s t i m a t e s e c t i o n because i t rendered e x p l i c i t the a b i l i t i e s r e q u i r e d i n each s e c t i o n , f o r c e d them to be honest and r e a l i s t i c about themselves, gave them confidence i f they were s t r o n g i n a c e r t a i n a r e a , but most i m p o r t a n t l y , they s t r e s s e d t h a t i t gave them a chance to assess or c o n f i r m t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . Although fewer i n number, students a l s o c o n s i d e r e d i n c a p a b i l i t i e s i n the competency s e c t i o n and answered ques t i o n s t h a t they had never asked themselves b e f o r e . For example "Can I make p o t t e r y - yes or no." 8. S t i m u l a t e s d e l i b e r a t i o n P u t t i n g your daydreams down i n w r i t i n g was h e l p f u l because i t makes you t h i n k more s e r i o u s l y Page 80 about them and doesn't l e t you Ignore them. Sometimes you t h i n k i t ' s too r i d i c u l o u s but p u t t i n g i t i n w r i t i n g , i t ' s r i g h t there and you can't r e a l l y ignore i t . (Student #47) G e n e r a l l y , the whole t e s t and each catego r y s t i m u l a t e d d e l i b e r a t i o n of some s o r t . However, t h i s c a t e g o r y i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a c o l l e c t i o n of i n c i d e n t s focused more f u l l y on t h i s t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s . Most of the i n c i d e n t s stemmed from the daydream s e c t i o n and were s i m i l a r t o the example above. Some added t h a t the s i t u a t i o n caused them to "c o n s i d e r t h i n g s not normally c o n s i d e r e d about j o b s " , t h a t being made to s i t down and thi n k about t h e i r c a r e e r was f a c i l i t a t i v e , t h a t i t was important, t h a t i t helped t e s t the r e a l i t y of t h e i r ideas and t h a t t h i s d e l i b e r a t i o n was an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d process, not n e c e s s a r i l y what parents wanted. 9. Understanding o n e s e l f over time The SDS a l s o helped me get a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on how I'm changing. T h i s i s h e l p f u l because the more I see what's i n v o l v e d i n my c h o i c e s , the b e t t e r c h o i c e I ' l l make. (Student #37) Page 81 A l l of these i n c i d e n t s were generated by the daydream s e c t i o n and, i n each case, u n d e r l i n e d a s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g with an emphasis on the h i s t o r i c a l dimension. Most noted how i n t e r e s t i n g and h e l p f u l i t was to compare o l d and new a s p i r a t i o n s and to see the d i f f e r e n c e s or s i m i l a r i t i e s between occupations p i c k e d . 10. F i n d out where t o improve In the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n , you can see what s e c t i o n you do w e l l i n . I t ' s h e l p f u l because you know when they're i n c a t e g o r i e s l i k e t h a t , you can see what s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n s , you can see i t r i g h t there i n f r o n t of you, what s k i l l s you need t o develop. (Student #40) The s e l f - e s t i m a t e s showed me where I need to improve myself, where I'm l a c k i n g i n a b i l i t y . T h i s i s h e l p f u l because l i k e i n f o r e s t r y , you need to know s t u f f l i k e mechanical a b i l i t y . I might be stuck out i n the bush and need t o f i x the t r u c k . (Student #54) Competencies: t h i s i s h e l p f u l because i t g i v e s you enthusiasm t o l e a r n the t h i n g s Page 82 you don't know how to do.(Student #59) The s e l f - e s t i m a t e , a c t i v i t i e s and competencies s e c t i o n s e q u a l l y produced the i n c i d e n t s , with the Understanding Y o u r s e l f and Your Career c o n t r i b u t i n g a few. The above examples are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the others and c o n t a i n b a s i c a l l y the d i s c o v e r y of what s k i l l s t o improve. 11. Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s t o jobs S e l f - E s t i m a t e s : you can separate a l l your a b i l i t i e s i n t o these d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . You might not have thought of them b e f o r e . I t helps you f i n d which ones are open to you, might f i n d a new f i e l d . L i k e music, maybe t h i s f i e l d i s s t i l l open to me. (Student #45) Competencies: s e e i n g what t h i n g s I've done. T h i s was h e l p f u l because i t ' s e a s i e r to pl a n your c a r e e r i f you see which p a r t of the ca r e e r you're good a t . I f I'm good a t i t , I ' l l do i t . (Student #55) T h i s cat e g o r y was p r i m a r i l y focused on a self-awareness of c a p a b i l i t i e s which c o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d Page 83 i n t o some type of job. Most of the i n c i d e n t s o r i g i n a t e d from the s e l f - e s t i m a t e and competencies s e c t i o n s . These are t y p i f i e d by the examples above. A few s c a t t e r e d i n c i d e n t s were expressed from the summary code, the daydream and occupation s e c t i o n s . Most s t r e s s e d t h a t the c a p a b i l i t y f a c t o r was paramount i n choosing and a c q u i r i n g a c e r t a i n job. Being i n t e r e s t e d i n a c e r t a i n o ccupation was not as important. For example, some s a i d " I f you can do i t , you can always l e a r n to l i k e i t . " 12. Matches i n t e r e s t s to jobs The a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n l i s t s d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s a s k i n g you whether you l i k e or d i s l i k e i t . T h i s i s h e l p f u l because at the end you can add up a l l the "R l"s and "A"'s. The ones you do l i k e show up. I t shows what I*m i n t e r e s t e d i n , then i t shows what types of c a r e e r s are o f f e r e d i n these i n t e r e s t s . (Student #52) Most of the i n c i d e n t s stemmed from the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n with a p o r t i o n generated by the occupation and summary code s e c t i o n s . T h i s c a t e g o r y was concerned with a matching of i n t e r e s t s to jobs as opposed to matching Page 84 a b i l i t i e s to job s . C a p a b i l i t i e s were not taken i n t o account. The example above i s p r o t o t y p i c a l . Some i n c i d e n t s s t r e s s e d an a p p r e c i a t i o n of what they don't l i k e and t h e r e f o r e , knowledge of jobs to a v o i d . G e n e r a l l y , the a t t i t u d e seemed to be " I f I l i k e i t , I ' l l do i t " with job s a t i s f a c t i o n being paramount. 13. Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs The summary code takes i n t o account what s o r t of person you are and what s o r t of person i s s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s job. I t made me t h i n k of t h i n g s l i k e c o aching. I hadn't thought of t h a t - I d i d n ' t t h i n k i t would be s u i t a b l e f o r me. (Student #57) The primary emphasis of t h i s category with i n c i d e n t s o r i g i n a t i n g from a range of s e c t i o n s (competencies, s e l f - e s t i m a t e , a c t i v i t i e s , summary code) i s the combining of both i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s i n the s e a r c h f o r an occu p a t i o n . Not onl y do they note t h e i r i n t e r e s t s but a l s o they maintain a r e a l i s t i c check by determining t h e i r competence a r e a s . Some expressed the f a m i l i a r . " I f I'm good a t i t and I l i k e doing i t , I'11 go f o r t h a t j o b . " Page 85 14. Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e O c c u p a t i o n a l Booklet and summary code: Codes r e a l l y helped because i t r e a l l y confirmed what I thought about myself. I t gave me an assurance of my c a r e e r p l a n s . (Student #68) The booklet on Understanding Y o u r s e l f and Your Career was h e l p f u l because of the hexagon - the congruence - i t makes a l o t of sense, i t makes you f e e l t h a t what you're i n t o i s j u s t i f i a b l e . (Student #40) T h i s c a t e g o r y was dominated by i n c i d e n t s from the summary code and the Understanding Y o u r s e l f and Your  Career b o o k l e t . These i n c i d e n t s f a c i l i t a t e d c a r e e r p l a n n i n g by j u s t i f y i n g or c o n f i r m i n g the student's p r i o r c h o i c e as e x e m p l i f i e d i n the prototypes above. SDS H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s S i m i l a r to CHOICES h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s the SDS h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s are a l s o a b i t of a misnomer. They tend to f a c i l i t a t e l e s s , r a t h e r than a c t u a l l y h i n d e r . The 7 c a t e g o r i e s are o u t l i n e d i n t a b l e 4 and are Page 86 i l l u s t r a t e d i n the same manner as CHOICES. Appendix H and I o f f e r a more d e t a i l e d t a b u l a t i o n of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s . Page Table 4 SDS H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s I n c i d e n t s 1. Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 9 2. M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s 13 3. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items 9 4. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t i m a t e s 24 5. F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n 21 6. Need expansion of o p t i o n s i n f i n d e r 20 7. No new i n f o r m a t i o n 4 TOTAL 96 •Students** (%) 8 (23%) 10 (29%) 6 (17%) 13 (37%) 12 (34%) 15 (43%) 3 ( 8 % ) * Number of students who expressed t h i s type of cat e g o r y . ** Percentage i s based over 35. Page 88 1. Lack of (or misleading) o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n In the o c c u p a t i o n a l b o o k l e t , they c o u l d have gi v e n more i n f o r m a t i o n about money, need f o r the job, e t c . (Student #59) In the o c c u p a t i o n a l b o o k l e t , i t ' s m i s l e a d i n g because of the numbers. I t should be the number of years a f t e r high s c h o o l g r a d u a t i o n , not from the b e g i n n i n g . Because j u s t about everyone graduates. (Student #40) T h i s c a t e g o r y r e s u l t e d from the student's i n t e r a c t i o n with the o c c u p a t i o n a l b o o k l e t . Most of the i n c i d e n t s i m p l i e d a lack of i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the number of o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e , the v o c a b u l a r y l e v e l of the o c c u p a t i o n a l t i t l e s and simply, t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n was much too g e n e r a l , t h a t i t was v e r y s u p e r f i c i a l . S e v e r a l a t t a c k e d the c o n f u s i n g and m i s l e a d i n g way the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l was p o r t r a y e d . They would have p r e f e r r e d a c l e a r e r numerical system as demonstrated by the example above. 2. M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s Page 89 The summary code i s not h e l p f u l because I had a l e t t e r m i s s i n g f o r most of the jobs I r e a l l y l i k e to do. I t d i d not seem t o be as good an i n d i c a t o r of what jobs are good f o r you. (Student #45) Most of the i n c i d e n t s were e x t r a p o l a t e d from the student's summary code i n t e r v e n t i o n s . B a s i c a l l y , the category r e f l e c t s t h a t the i n t e r e s t s do not agree with the code r e c e i v e d and t h a t t h i s seemed to cause some c o n s t e r n a t i o n . A few other i n c i d e n t s were occasioned by the a c t i v i t i e s , occupation or competencies s e c t i o n . These were a l s o mainly concerned with a m i s d i r e c t i o n or a m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s but brought on by a lack of depth or scope t o the c h o i c e s a v a i l a b l e . For example, one person c r i t i c i z e d the lack of s p o r t s i n the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n and thought t h a t those types of jobs would not show up, even though they were of i n t e r e s t . 3. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items In the competencies s e c t i o n , musical instruments, poetry, a c t i n g i n a p l a y are a l l u s e l e s s to me. They a r e n ' t t h i n g s t h a t I ' l l be do i n g . (Student #69) Page 90 Pe r c e i v e d u s e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n forms the b a s i s of t h i s c a t e g o r y . I n c i d e n t s were drawn from the a c t i v i t i e s and competencies s e c t i o n s . They a l l s t r e s s e d the i r r e l e v a n c e of some items mostly due to the d i f f i c u l t v o c a b u l a r y (and t h e r e f o r e the incomprehensible q u e s t i o n s ) , the u n i n t e r e s t i n g t o p i c s , the unnecessary s k i l l s , and the a t t i t u d e " i f I'm not good a t i t , I'm not i n t e r e s t e d i n i t t h e r e f o r e i t ' s u s e l e s s . " 4. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t i m a t e s In the s e l f - e s t i m a t e s , maybe i f they c o u l d a t t a c h an example, l i k e the #7 here i n s c i e n t i f i c a b i l i t y , some people might not know what they mean by e x c e l l e n t , i s i t making a new chemical or what? No r e a l c r i t e r i a to base i t on. (Student #60) Th i s category, while concentrated h e a v i l y i n the s e l f - e s t i m a t e s e c t i o n , a l s o i n c l u d e s i n c i d e n t s from the other s e c t i o n s as w e l l . For example, i n the competencies s e c t i o n , a person d i d n ' t have the experie n c e , so she f e l t r e s t r i c t e d i n e s t i m a t i n g her l e v e l of competence. The u n r e l i a b i l i t y u n d e r l y i n g most of the i n c i d e n t s stems from a lack of c r i t e r i a , an e l e v a t e d v o c a b u l a r y l e v e l , a Page 91 r e s t r i c t i o n to "yes or no" type answers, a lack of understanding of how to i n t e r p r e t the q u e s t i o n s , and e s p e c i a l l y , the d i f f i c u l t y i n e v a l u a t i n g o n e s e l f . 5. F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n The occupations were too g e n e r a l . T h i s kind of was not h e l p f u l because i t j u s t leaves me i n the open, I don't have a r e a l d i r e c t i o n . (Student #48) The m a j o r i t y of i n c i d e n t s i n t h i s c a t e g o r y was formed by i n c i d e n t s d e r i v e d from the o c c u p a t i o n a l booklet and resembled the prototype above. The g e n e r a l t h r u s t of the category was a lack of s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n . I n c i d e n t s mentioned t h a t the book l e t was too g e n e r a l , had no r e a l order, had too much v a r i e t y , f o s t e r e d sexual s t e r e o t y p e s and d i d not r e a l l y take i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t o account. One person, who had f i v e out of s i x summary l e t t e r s i n h i s code, was d i r e c t e d towards 5/6 of the b o o k l e t . He wondered why he had not si m p l y read the whole booklet i n s t e a d of doing the t e s t . 6. Need expansion of o p t i o n s i n f i n d e r Page 92 There were not enough c h o i c e s i n the Occupations f i n d e r . T h i s was not h e l p f u l because they were o n l y remotely concerned with the t h i n g s I wanted to do. Plus you were never sure of the proper code f o r the exact occupation -because agai n , the c h o i c e s were so l i m i t i n g . (Student #45) In d i r e c t c o n t r a s t to the previous category, these i n c i d e n t s d w e l l mostly on a need f o r more o p t i o n s i n the o c c u p a t i o n a l f i n d e r . These expressed needs ranged from a d e s i r e f o r more jobs per code to simply having a t l e a s t one job per code. A l s o , students f e l t t h a t some jobs i n the f i n d e r were e x o t i c while the common types were l e f t out. For example, " t r e e surgeon" i s l i s t e d while " p o l i c e o f f i c e r " i s omitted. S e v e r a l i n c i d e n t s c o ncerning the daydream s e c t i o n were expressed. Many daydream occupations c o u l d not be coded because they were not i n c l u d e d i n the f i n d e r Page 93 7. No new i n f o r m a t i o n The competencies s e c t i o n , I found u s e l e s s because you a l r e a d y know what you can do. (Student #38) In the few i n c i d e n t s i n t h i s category, the key i n g r e d i e n t i s t h a t the person was not p a r t i c u l a r l y helped by the SDS because no new i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e because the person a l r e a d y knew what he/she wanted to do. The r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s chapter provide a more comprehensive and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i v e map of process events t h a t f a c i l i t a t e or hinder c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Previous outcome r e s e a r c h has provided i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s promising, but very g e n e r a l and incomplete, i l l - s u i t e d f o r the r e f i n e d judgments t h a t must be made i n c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . In c o n t r i b u t i n g to the r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , the ca t e g o r y systems i n c l u d e 13 f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s and nine h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s f o r CHOICES, 14 f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s and seven h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s f o r the SDS. These c a t e g o r y systems are intended to provide r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r , comprehensive, and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of how each i n t e r v e n t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e s to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . In Page 94 p a r t i c u l a r , CHOICES and the SDS have been used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y as i f each c o n t r i b u t e d to car e e r p l a n n i n g i n the same way. In the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , the cat e g o r y systems w i l l be used t o make a more r e f i n e d comparison of these i n t e r v e n t i o n s and to d i s t i n g u i s h them f o r c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . In a d d i t i o n , safeguards f o r u s ing these i n t e r v e n t i o n s and s u p p o r t i v e a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d . Page 95 CHAPTER 6 Comparison Upon the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s , the p r o b l e m a t i c use of these i n t e r v e n t i o n s can be c l a r i f i e d i n three d i f f e r e n t ways. F i r s t , the f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s f o r these i n t e r v e n t i o n s p rovide a more r e f i n e d b a s i s f o r comparing the c o n t r i b u t i o n of each i n t e r v e n t i o n to c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Given the comparison, a c o u n s e l l o r would have a more informed bases f o r choosing between these i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n d e s i g n i n g and sequencing programs and i n h e l p i n g p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t s . Second, the h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s p rovide a b a s i s f o r p r e p a r i n g c l i e n t s to b e n e f i t from each program and to a v o i d or minimize hindrances. T h i r d , each i n t e r v e n t i o n has l i m i t s t h a t c a l l f o r s u p p o r t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t h a t might improve e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t s . The t h i r d s e c t i o n i s based upon student answers to the q u e s t i o n of what e l s e c o u l d be done to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Comparison of CHOICES and the SDS In comparing CHOICES and the SDS, the procedure w i l l be to compare and c o n t r a s t the c a t e g o r i e s and t h e i r i n c i d e n t s as they are l i s t e d i n t a b l e s 1 and 3. The Page 96 percentage and the number of students who gave In c i d e n t s of each type i s presented i n these t a b l e s . The f i r s t t h i n g t h a t one i s s t r u c k with i s t h a t the su p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r i e s O c c u p a t i o n a l Awareness, Self-Awareness and Match are i d e n t i c a l f o r both i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Upon c l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n , however, d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s and v a r y i n g percentages of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are r e v e a l e d f o r each. O c c u p a t i o n a l Awareness r e c e i v e d a v e r y high p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e from each program, but CHOICES had e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s while the SDS had f i v e . SDS Self-Awareness compiled 86% p a r t i c i p a t i o n to CHOICES' 40%. A l s o SDS had f i v e c a t e g o r i e s to two f o r CHOICES. In the l a s t s u p e r o r d i n a t e category, SDS doubled CHOICES (91% to 46%) i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and had four c a t e g o r i e s to t h r e e . These i n i t i a l o b s e r v a t i o n s give a sense of what the two programs s t r e s s . Now, i n more d e t a i l the c a t e g o r i e s w i l l be examined i n s i x d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n i s comprised of c a t e g o r i e s one through four (Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements; Expands g e n e r a l job o p t i o n s ; Expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d ; Narrows focus) and are s i m i l a r f o r both CHOICES and SDS. A c l o s e r examination of the a c t u a l i n c i d e n t s , however, r e v e a l s d i f f e r e n c e s . Page 97 In the f i r s t c a t e g o r y (Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements) the percentages are q u i t e s i m i l a r but CHOICES i s much more s p e c i f i c . For example, one person s t a t e d t h a t she was able "to look a t the v a r i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s and see what I c o u l d earn depending on my e d u c a t i o n . " The student has 16 v a r i o u s l e v e l s of edu c a t i o n ranging from grade 8, to one year community c o l l e g e to a graduate degree. In comparison, SDS o f f e r s o n l y 6 l e v e l s of educ a t i o n producing i n c i d e n t s with much l e s s s p e c i f i c i t y . In the second categ o r y (Expands ge n e r a l job o p t i o n s ) , the types of i n c i d e n t s a g a i n v a r i e d i n focu s . The SDS group expressed the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of being f o r c e d to look through the Occupational F i n d e r , For example, one student s t a t e d t h a t " t h i s was kind of h e l p f u l because by going through the whole t h i n g , i t kind of f o r c e d you to look a t some occupations you hadn't thought of b e f o r e . " T h i s r e a l i z a t i o n of the sheer number of c a r e e r s a v a i l a b l e and the subsequent exposure to jobs they would have otherwise ignored, seemed b e n e f i c i a l to t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . CHOICES, on the other hand, d i d not generate t h i s type of i n c i d e n t . I t produced a l i s t of not more than 25 jobs a t the end but d i d not permit an overview of a l l jobs such as presented i n the Occupa t i o n a l F i n d e r . Page 98 S e v e r a l students generated i n c i d e n t s about the ease of r e a d i n g the job l i s t i n CHOICES mainly because of the d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t can be accessed. The SDS simply presents a l i s t . A few students had t r o u b l e with the v o c a b u l a r y l e v e l . One noted f o r example, t h a t the jobs looked i n t e r e s t i n g but he d i d n ' t know what they meant. The SDS d i d , however, generate 83% student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s c a t e g o r y as compared to 54% f o r CHOICES. CHOICES d i d have c l o s e to twice the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the t h i r d c a t e g o r y (Expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d ) , as compared to the SDS (49% vs 23%). D i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n c i d e n t s themselves r e v e a l e d that the SDS students expressed the h e l p f u l n e s s of having a wide v a r i e t y of c l u s t e r e d jobs l a i d out i n f r o n t of them. Th i s seemed to promote a b e t t e r understanding of o c c u p a t i o n a l f i e l d s . The CHOICES group s t r e s s e d the COMPARE or RELATED routes and the accompanying job d e s c r i p t i o n as being f a c i l i t a t i v e . For example, one student thought t h a t the comparison of two or three occupations was h e l p f u l because then "you can see which one i s b e t t e r , which one appeals to you." The s p e c i f i c i t y of CHOICES and the g e n e r a l i t y of the SDS seem to s u r f a c e a g a i n . Page 99 In the f o u r t h c a t e g o r y (Narrows f o c u s ) , both groups seem to be e x p r e s s i n g the need f o r c h a n n e l l i n g t h e i r e n e r g i e s towards a f i e l d and how both programs permit t h i s . The o n l y a p p r e c i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between the two, appears to be the source of t h i s f e a t u r e . CHOICES narrows by v i r t u e of e l i m i n a t i n g . The students o n l y know the number of jobs they have remaining. They cannot l i t e r a l l y see the o p e r a t i o n as i n the SDS. The SDS group can observe, a t every s e c t i o n , how the jobs are c l u s t e r e d and how they are choosing. For example, one student s t a t e d t h a t she l i k e d "the way they grouped the s e c t i o n s , now I can narrow i t down to d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s . " As can be seen i n t a b l e s 1 and 3, SDS garnered 60% p a r t i c i p a t i o n and CHOICES had 43%. The second s e c t i o n of t h i s more d e t a i l e d comparison i s concerned with CHOICES' s t r e s s on the e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s . T h i s f i f t h c a t e g o r y i s unique to CHOICES. The SDS d i d not generate any i n c i d e n t s comparable to i t . Yet t h i s c a t e g o r y garnered the h i g h e s t p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e (69%) of a l l the CHOICES c a t e g o r i e s . Numerous students s t a t e d t h a t they had never thought to c o n s i d e r the 12 e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s and now they r e a l i z e t h e i r importance. They d e s c r i b e d t h i s f e a t u r e as a r e a l i s t i c check on t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s and p e r c e i v e d i t as f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . T h i s seems to be one Page 100 of the major accomplishments of CHOICES along with one of the major d i f f e r e n c e s with the SDS. The t h i r d s e c t i o n addresses the s p e c i f i c i t y and amount of i n f o r m a t i o n produced by CHOICES as compared to SDS. Although the SDS had one ca t e g o r y (Guides Information search) concerned with i n f o r m a t i o n , o n l y 6% expressed the h e l p f u l n e s s of p r o v i d i n g the CCDO number f o r the 456 jobs i n the Ocupational F i n d e r . CHOICES went much beyond t h i s l i m i t e d f e a t u r e . Half of the students (49%) generated i n c i d e n t s s t r e s s i n g the ease of access to s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on s p e c i f i c o c c u p a t i o n s . They simply had to punch i n the s u p p l i e d CCDO number and t h i s would produce 12 v a r i o u s t o p i c s concerning the occupation i n q u e s t i o n . Future outlook was a l s o deemed important and h e l p f u l by 43% of the CHOICES group as i n d i c a t e d by the "Judges f u t u r e of jobs" c a t e g o r y . "Provides r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g " was another c a t e g o r y formed o n l y i n the CHOICES group. T h i s c a t e g o r y was concerned with the b e n e f i c i a l a spects of pos s e s s i n g the p r i n t o u t and keeping i t f o r f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e . The SDS group was a l s o able to s t o r e the program f o r f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e but t h i s was not mentioned by anyone. Yet, 46% p a r t i c i p a t i o n was achieved by the CHOICES group. Page 101 T h e r e f o r e , i n terms of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n f u t u r e outlook, s p e c i f i c t o p i c s and f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e , CHOICES c l e a r l y g i v e s more i n f o r m a t i o n than the SDS, with o n l y minor f a c i l i t a t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g some d i r e c t i o n i n s e a r c h i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . The f o u r t h s e c t i o n focuses on self-awareness c a t e g o r i e s . The SDS had 5 c a t e g o r i e s with 86% p a r t i c i p a t i o n and 88 i n c i d e n t s compared to 2 c a t e g o r i e s i n CHOICES with 40% p a r t i c i p a t i o n and 19 i n c i d e n t s . The SDS seems to be more concerned with self-awareness f e a t u r e s than CHOICES. The d i f f e r e n c e a l s o l i e s i n the nature of the i n c i d e n t s . CHOICES generated s u p e r f i c i a l types of self-awareness i n c i d e n t s . For example, a student r e l a t e d t h a t " i t made you aware of your i n t e r e s t s . " A l s o , students who d i d express a d i s c o v e r y of s e l f , focused p r i m a r i l y on the t e s t s p r i o r to going on CHOICES. Ap t i t u d e s and temperaments, as p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, d i d not p l a y a major r o l e i n the T r a v e l Guide p r e p a r a t i o n s . The SDS, however, seems to be much more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g s e l f - a w a r e n e s s . The f i v e c a t e g o r i e s a l l i n d i c a t e a concern over understanding o n e s e l f i n a s p e c i f i c way. For example, a g i r l s t a t e d t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n showed her " s t u f f t h a t I've never thought of before t h a t might be i n t e r e s t i n g , l i k e Page 102 b u i l d i n g t h i n g s with wood." Three of the c a t e g o r i e s are not mentioned by CHOICES (Stimulates d e l i b e r a t i o n , Understanding o n e s e l f over time, and F i n d out where to improve). These would seem q u i t e important to someone plan n i n g a c a r e e r . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the "Understanding o n e s e l f over time" c a t e g o r y which was generated mostly by the daydream s e c t i o n . CHOICES does not have t h i s f e a t u r e which a l s o s e r v e s as a c o n f i r m i n g instrument. That i s , i f the Daydream codes and the a c t u a l worked-through code correspond, the i n v e n t o r y v a l i d a t e s i t s e l f . T h i s i n t e r v a l check i s a p r i m i t i v e r e a l i t y t e s t i n g f e a t u r e . A l s o the "Find out where to improve" c a t e g o r y seems to be a needed c h e c k l i s t of s k i l l s t h a t CHOICES addresses i n d i r e c t l y through the GATB t e s t but which was not mentioned i n the i n c i d e n t s . Therefore the SDS evokes more self-awareness both i n q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of i n c i d e n t s . In the f i f t h s e c t i o n , the SDS seems to emphasize matching and the understanding of i t much more so than CHOICES. For example, the SDS produced 57 i n c i d e n t s i n 3 c a t e g o r i e s (Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs, Matches i n t e r e s t s t o jobs, and Matches i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs) f o r 74% p a r t i c i p a t i o n as compared to CHOICES' 7 i n c i d e n t s i n one category (Matches Page 103 i n t e r e s t s and a p t i t u d e s to jobs) f o r 14% p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A l s o the range of i n c i d e n t s i s much more v a r i e d i n the SDS, l i n k i n g jobs to i n t e r e s t s , c a p a b i l i t i e s or both. T h i s s i x t h and f i n a l s e c t i o n compares the c o n f i r m a t i o n c a p a b i l i t i e s of the two programs. Both the SDS ca t e g o r y "Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e s " and CHOICES' "Confirmation of c h o i c e s " c a t e g o r y seem to r e v o l v e e s s e n t i a l l y around the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of t h i s c o n f i r m a t i o n . While percentages are approximately the same (SDS = 37%, CHOICES = 31%), the t h r u s t of the i n c i d e n t s r e v e a l more of a d i f f e r e n c e . The machine-like accuracy of CHOICES seems to promote a d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t y of c o n f i r m a t i o n . For example, one g i r l s t r e s s e d t h a t she knew i t was c o r r e c t because " i t ' s not human, no e r r o r s " . The SDS, with i t s Understanding Y o u r s e l f and Your Career b o o k l e t , was apt to e x p l a i n the c o n f i r m a t i o n and j u s t i f y i t . One student, f o r example, noted t h a t the booklet was h e l p f u l "because of the hexagon, i t makes a l o t of sense, i t makes you f e e l t h a t what you're i n t o i s j u s t i f i a b l e . " CHOICES a l s o goes one ste p f u r t h e r as i t seems to be a b l e to d i s c o n f i r m more c l e a r l y than the SDS. No i n c i d e n t s of p o s i t i v e d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n were expressed by the SDS group; 17% of the CHOICES group d i d s t r e s s the r o l e of d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n played by the Page 104 computer. For example, a student mentioned t h a t he wouldn't do any of the jobs he had chosen p r i o r t o CHOICES because, with the d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n , he was abl e t o get a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e of the a c t u a l o c c u p a t i o n s . To conclude t h i s q u a l i t a t i v e comparison, the o v e r l a p between CHOICES and the SDS seems r a t h e r s u p e r f i c i a l . There i s a s i m i l a r i t y but i t tends to be minor. These are two d i s t i n c t programs with d i f f e r e n t advantages. CHOICES o f f e r s i n f o r m a t i o n on 12 t o p i c s s t r e s s i n g r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s , s p e c i f i c i t y and e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s . The SDS emphasizes understanding, self-awareness and understanding of the matching p r o c e s s . CHOICES seems more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p l a n n i n g and s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g options while the SDS seems more v a l u a b l e f o r g e n e r a l e x p l o r a t i o n , understanding and d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g f i e l d s . SDS i s more g e n e r a l , g l o b a l while CHOICES tends to be more s p e c i f i c (Appendix 0 ) . Safeguards; CHOICES F o l l o w i n g t h i s q u a l i t a t i v e comparison, safeguards on ways to prepare people f o r these two i n t e r v e n t i o n s w i l l be o u t l i n e d . T h i s w i l l be done by f o l l o w i n g what the students have s t a t e d hindered them i n t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, no i n c i d e n t s Page 105 emphasized d i r e c t l y the h i n d e r i n g or the p r e v e n t i o n of ca r e e r p l a n n i n g . I t was more a case of being l e s s h e l p f u l , l e s s f a c i l i t a t i v e . Table 2 (p. 59) p o r t r a y s the percentages of students who gave h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s f o r each c a t e g o r y i n CHOICES, Table 4 (p. 82) i n the SDS. Looking a t CHOICES f i r s t , the most popular h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t , "Useless i n f o r m a t i o n " with 37% p a r t i c i p a t i o n , suggests t h a t the i n s t r u c t o r u n d e r l i n e s the importance of r e a d i n g and f i l l i n g out a c l a u s e i n the T r a v e l Guide e n t i t l e d "This doesn't matter t o me". The student can then choose to ignore any or a l l f e a t u r e s with t h i s simple c l a u s e . CHOICES w i l l then not take t h a t f e a t u r e i n t o account. The c a t e g o r y "Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing j o b s " r a i s e s problems of a lack of understanding of how the system f u n c t i o n s . In the i n s t r u c t i o n s p r i o r to a c c e s s i n g CHOICES, students c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d how the computer deducts and e l i m i n a t e s a l l but 25 jobs, how t h e i r answers a f f e c t the narrowed down o p t i o n s . A c l e a r example of t h i s process i s apt to promote an understanding of the process to f a c i l i t a t e and encourage a f l e x i b i l i t y of o p t i o n s . The "Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n " c a t e g o r y suggests warning students of mi s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n such as: no l i s t of c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s , the courses necessary to Page 106 graduate, the a c t u a l p l a c e s of employment, a p r o v i n c i a l c h o i c e only, not Canada wide, d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n on o n l y the s t a r r e d occupations (the others can be researched with the g i v e n CCDO number). CHOICES does now have a l i s t of u n i v e r s i t i e s , the courses necessary to graduate e t c . Seventeen percent of the students expressed t h e i r disappointment i n the c a t e g o r y " F a i l s to c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e . " To combat the shock of d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n , the i n s t r u c t o r c o u l d w e l l a d v i s e the student to backtrack and f i n d out how he or she answered the T r a v e l Guide. Another way would be to access the p r e f e r r e d c h o i c e to d i s c o v e r what he or she i s m i s s i n g f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r o c c u p a t i o n . In the c a t e g o r y " P u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job o p t i o n s " , the i n s t r u c t o r c o u l d prevent problems, that 17% expressed, by s t r e s s i n g the "garbage i n , garbage out" computer syndrome. A l s o he or she c o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t the 12 t o p i c s do not cover every s i t u a t i o n and a l l a r e a s . For example, queasiness over the s i g h t of blood i s not a t o p i c t h e r e f o r e a person might be saddled with a non-viable o p t i o n such as surgeon. A safeguard to e l i m i n a t e hindrances such as those expressed i n "Needed more o p t i o n s " and "Rushed on t e r m i n a l " i s to promote an a t t i t u d e of experimentation Page 107 with the computer. That i s , t r y the other r o u t e s , not o n l y EXPLORE. Time i s a f a c t o r so i t would be necessary to encourage them to schedule an hour a f t e r t h e i r i n i t i a l time to generate more options and not be rushed. The c a t e g o r y of " U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n " , h i g h l i g h t s some problems t h a t c o u l d be c o r r e c t e d i f the system was c o n t i n u a l l y updated. I t i s important, even though o n l y 9% produced t h i s type of i n c i d e n t , to maintain c r e d i b i l i t y . The i n s t r u c t o r c o u l d forewarn the students p a r t i c u l a r l y i n regards to the s a l a r y l e v e l and the employment outlook. Since there was o n l y one i n c i d e n t i n "Machine m a l f u n c t i o n " , i t does not seem to be a major problem. Safeguards; sps In a s i m i l a r way to CHOICES, safeguards f o r the SDS w i l l be presented f o l l o w i n g the h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s as d i s p l a y e d i n Table 4 (p. 87). T h i s t a b l e a l s o o u t l i n e s the percentages of students who gave h i n d e r i n g i n n c i d e n t s i n the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s . Looking a t the c a t e g o r y with the most i n c i d e n t s "Need expansion of options i n f i n d e r " with 43% p a r t i c i p a t i o n , one safeguard c o u l d be a s t r e s s i n the Page 108 i n s t r u c t i o n s about the l i m i t e d number of occupations i n the f i n d e r and about ways of expanding these o p t i o n s . For example the person c o u l d use an interchangeable two l e t t e r code i n s t e a d of the normal t h r e e , or he or she c o u l d generate o p t i o n s by r e f e r r i n g to the CCDO number thus g a i n i n g a c l u s t e r of r e l a t e d jobs. The c a t e g o r y " U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t i m a t e s " produced a p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e of 37%. T h i s t o t a l i s apt to be lower i f the c r i t e r i a f o r the s e l f - e s t i m a t e s are f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d and emphasized. A l s o , i f Holland's (1974) recommendations are followed such as showing the booklet t o f r i e n d s and f a m i l y f o r t h e i r i n p u t . The " F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n " c a t e g o r y a l s o had a high p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e (34%). One safeguard t h a t c o u l d be implemented e a s i l y would be to s t r e s s Holland's (1979) comment to the stu d e n t s : The SDS i s o n l y intended to f a c i l i t a t e a person's o c c u p a t i o n a l s e a r c h . At best, i t can o n l y i n d i c a t e a c l a s s of occupations a person p r e f e r s : i t cannot e f f i c i e n t l y p r e d i c t a s i n g l e c h o i c e f o r a person, (p.14) This knowledge would h o p e f u l l y lower e x p e c t a t i o n s . With 29% p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the next c a t e g o r y " M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s " a l s o seemed q u i t e popular. The safeguards, as o u t l i n e d by Page 109 Holland (1979), appear to be s t r o n g enough i f p r o p e r l y emphasized and understood, to co u n t e r a c t t h i s c a t e g o r y : 1. A person's resemblance to each of the 6 types i n the pe r s o n a l assessment i s determined 5 times, not once. 2. A person searches f o r a l l permutations of the 3 l e t t e r summary code, not one permutation. 3. A person compares the summary code with the codes of h i s / h e r o c c u p a t i o n a l daydreams. 4. The user i s r e f e r r e d to a c o u n s e l l o r f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n or f o r other kinds of help. S l i g h t l y more than a qu a r t e r of the students (23%) were i n v o l v e d i n the ca t e g o r y "Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n " . The major safeguard would be to s t r e s s the numerical system of the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s . Another s o l u t i o n would be to change t h i s c o n f u s i n g system to a simpl e r one. The next two c a t e g o r i e s , " I r r e l e v a n c e of some items" and "No new i n f o r m a t i o n " d i d not garner as much p a r t i c i p a t i o n as the others (17% and 9% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . However, i t i s important to s t r e s s the range of Page 110 a c t i v i t i e s and competencies i n c l u d e d i n the SDS to safeguard a g a i n s t not t r y i n g the item i f they are not i n t e r e s t e d i n i t . F o s t e r i n g an open a t t i t u d e i s apt to promote b e t t e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . other Coupled with the f a c i l i t a t i v e and h i n d e r i n g q u e s t i o n s , the students were a l s o asked what e l s e c o u l d be done to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . One must note, however, t h a t these c a t e g o r i e s are d i f f e r e n t than the preceding c a t e g o r i e s . They are based on o p i n i o n s and not on s p e c i f i c o b s e r v a t i o n s . Both the CHOICES and the SDS groups generated s i m i l a r c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l as s i m i l a r p a r t i c i p a t i o n p a t t e r n s (Table 5). The types of c a t e g o r i e s each student p a r t i c i p a t e d i n are o u t l i n e d i n Appendix F and H. Appendix J l i s t s the type of student who expressed an i n c i d e n t f o r each category. F o l l o w i n g Table 5, p r o t o t y p i c a l examples of each categor y are presented with a b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n of the range and r i c h n e s s of the c a t e g o r y . Page 111 Table 5 What E l s e Could be H e l p f u l i n Career P l a n n i n g CATEGORIES NUMBER OF INCIDENTS CHOICES SDS TOTAL *STUDENTS**(%) 1. More r e a l i s t i c o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 16 9 25 20 (29%) 2. R e a l i t y t e s t i n g 7 7 14 14 (20%) 3. S t a r t p l a n n i n g e a r l i e r and a l s o l a t e r 6 15 21 17 (24%) 4. Job hunting s k i l l s 10 3 13 12 (17%) 5. More i n f o r m a t i o n on e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s 8 5 13 13 (19%) 6. Nothing e l s e . I t ' s a pe r s o n a l d i r e c t i o n 5 4 9 9 (13%) 7. More t e s t s to measure i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s 2 1 3 3 ( 4 % ) 8. Teacher involvement 2 0 2 2 ( 3 % ) TOTAL 56 4 4 * Number of students who expressed t h i s type of cat e g o r y . ** Percentage i s based over 70. Page 112 1. More r e a l i s t i c o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n I t would be h e l p f u l t o t a l k t o someone i n my f i e l d . They can g i v e you the " t r u t h " . I t ' s not l i k e r e a d i n g a book. They can r e a l l y help because they've been through i t and they can t e l l you the pros and cons - so you know the r e a l i t y of i t . (Student #40) S i m i l a r to the example above, t h i s c a t e g o r y c o n t a i n s i n c i d e n t s s u g g e s t i n g ways of o b t a i n i n g more r e a l i s t i c o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . These range from guest speakers d u r i n g c a r e e r days, to going and meeting people a t the job s i t e , to s e e i n g videos of the job, to o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n v i a a pe r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w with the c o u n s e l l o r , to having b e t t e r pamphlets and books on i n d i v i d u a l o c c u p a t i o n s . 2. R e a l i t y T e s t i n g The job experience program would be good because then you c o u l d r e a l l y see i f you're f i t f o r the job. (Student #9) Page 113 The suggestions i n v o l v e d i n these i n c i d e n t s r e v o l v e around g e t t i n g hands-on experience e i t h e r through a work experience program or a work without pay e x p e r i e n c e . Most of the i n c i d e n t s are s i m i l a r t o the p r o t o t y p e . 3. S t a r t p l a n n i n g sooner and a l s o l a t e r In grade 8, have a c a r e e r p l a n n i n g course with a l i s t of jobs a v a i l a b l e with what's i n v o l v e d i n these jobs, courses necessary e t c e t e r a . Because i n Grade 12, i t ' s l i k e a shock! What am I going to do? I was confused. (Student #37) The g e n e r a l g i s t of t h i s c a t e g o r y i s to urge a u t h o r i t i e s to i n s t i t u t e programs t h a t w i l l encourage p l a n n i n g . Most of the i n c i d e n t s were concerned with p l a n n i n g e a r l i e r i n the s c h o o l . Grade 8 seemed to be the f a v o r i t e s t a r t i n g o f f p o i n t . Career p l a n n i n g c o u r s e s , CHOICES, the SDS and the a b i l i t y to take a v a r i e t y of courses were c i t e d as important t o o l s f o r i n s t i t u t i n g e a r l i e r p l a n n i n g . Only two i n c i d e n t s mentioned t h a t communities should a l s o o f f e r programs f o r s e n i o r s and drop-outs. 4. Job hunting s k i l l s Page 114 Lea r n i n g how to do a job search would be h e l p f u l . (Student #59) T h i s cat e g o r y has i n c i d e n t s concerned mainly with ways of o b t a i n i n g a job. Students would l i k e to know how to get a job, how to w r i t e resumes, how to conduct o n e s e l f i n an i n t e r v i e w , how to wr i t e a p p l i c a t i o n s c o r r e c t l y and would l i k e p r a c t i c e i n doing these s k i l l s . 5. More i n f o r m a t i o n on e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s I do l i k e t o be able t o pl a n what courses I ' l l need so I can determine how to get t h e r e . I'd l i k e t o be able to s i t down with someone to determine those courses I need f o r s p e c i a l ed. a t UBC. (Student #20) As the t i t l e and example i n d i c a t e , t h i s c a t e g o r y c o n c e n t r a t e s on academic i n f o r m a t i o n . Other types of i n c i d e n t s u n d e r l i n e the need f o r s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n , f o r requirements a t c e r t a i n s m a l l e r u n i v e r s i t i e s , f o r knowledge on how to a c q u i r e a loan and on how to a p p l y Page 115 to the u n i v e r s i t i e s . 6. Nothing e l s e , i t ' s a p e r s o n a l d e c i s i o n School i s doing e v e r y t h i n g p o s s i b l e to help us. I t ' s r e a l l y up to you. (Student #68) Most students i n t h i s group expressed a c e r t a i n s a t i s f a c t i o n with the ca r e e r p l a n n i n g e f f e c t s of the s c h o o l and simply b e l i e v e d t h a t i t was now "up to them." 7. More t e s t s t o measure i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s Should have d i f f e r e n t t e s t s to measure your a b i l i t i e s i n s t e a d of the very few we have now. (Student #66) Included i n t h i s c a t e g o r y are i n c i d e n t s e x p r e s s i n g a need f o r more o b j e c t i v e measures of t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s . 8. Teacher involvement Teachers should take more i n t e r e s t . Some o n l y get you through the course. Page 116 They don't g i v e you an o v e r a l l view. (Student #32) T h i s c a t e g o r y i s comprised of only 2 i n c i d e n t s . However, i t was f e l t t h a t i t s t i l l d i d merit c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a f u l l f l e d g e d c a t e g o r y because of the importance of the i d e a . I t does seem p l a u s i b l e t h a t a t e a c h e r ' s i n f l u e n c e would i n s t i g a t e b e t t e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . To conclude t h i s s e c t i o n , these v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s are important to people wishing to implement a c a r e e r p l a n n i n g program i n a s c h o o l . Knowing other f a c i l i t a t i v e a c t i o n s p o s s i b l e to students seems i n h e r e n t l y h e l p f u l . With t h i s knowledge of how the instruments work, t h a t i s how they help or hinder c a r e e r p l a n n i n g , c o u n s e l l o r s are i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to enable students to maximize b e n e f i t s and minimize p o t e n t i a l d e t r i m e n t s . CHAPTER 7 Page 117 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y The c a t e g o r y systems examined i n the preceding chapter were generated from the v a r i o u s i n c i d e n t s expressed by the s u b j e c t s . T h i s study was not designed to e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r c u t v a l i d a t i o n of these c a t e g o r y systems, but r a t h e r to develop a s e t of c a t e g o r i e s which map what each program does t o f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . However, a range of prominent kinds of doubt both i n terms of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y w i l l be co n s i d e r e d i n t h i s c h a p ter. I f these can be s u c c e s s f u l l y r e s o l v e d , then a reasonable warrant might be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the c a t e g o r y systems. R e l i a b i l i t y of C a t e g o r i z a t i o n One source of evidence f o r i n c r e a s i n g c o n f i d e n c e i n these c a t e g o r i e s i s the r e l i a b i l i t y with which they are used. R e l i a b l e c a t e g o r i e s are c a t e g o r i e s t h a t can be used i n a t r u s t w o r t h y manner by independent judges. T h i s form of r e l i a b i l i t y i s d i f f e r e n t than o t h e r s . For i n s t a n c e , i s the method of c o l l e c t i n g the data r e l i a b l e ? Page 118 Andersson and N i l s s o n (1964) demonstrate t h a t both the number of i n c i d e n t s and the subsequent d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s are independent from the method of c o l l e c t i o n or from the i n t e r v i e w e r s . Flanagan (1954) a l s o p r o v i d e s evidence t h a t s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t s can be c o l l e c t e d from a v a r i e t y of formats i n c l u d i n g i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s , group i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and r e c o r d forms. Along with a r e l i a b l e way of c o l l e c t i n g the data, c a t e g o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a l s o of concern. T h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n does not purport to be the o n l y system p o s s i b l e . Others are p o s s i b l e depending on the purpose of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . However, c a t e g o r i e s must r e f l e c t the i n c i d e n t s . T h i s can be determined l a r g e l y by whether independent judges can use the c a t e g o r i e s to r e l i a b l y c a t e g o r i z e the i n c i d e n t s . Three female graduate students acted as judges. The i n c i d e n t s were r e w r i t t e n ( s t r i p p e d of a l l i d e n t i f y i n g data) on 3x5 cards f o r the judges' use. A s t r a t i f i e d random sample of 150 i n c i d e n t s was drawn to i n s u r e t h a t each catego r y was represented a t a r a t i o of one i n c i d e n t to f i v e . A p r e l i m i n a r y run through was a d m i n i s t e r e d to determine the c l a r i t y of the i n s t r u c t i o n s . I t was found t h a t simply p r o v i d i n g the t i t l e of the c a t e g o r y on 3x5 cards and then a s k i n g the judge to match the i n c i d e n t s was not c l e a r enough. Word Page 119 a m b i g u i t i e s coupled with the sheer number of c a t e g o r i e s produced r e l i a b i l i t y r a t i n g s of 90% f o r CHOICES and onl y 72% f o r SDS. Subsequently, the categor y t i t l e s were supplemented with a b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n . For example, "Narrows fo c u s " was f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d by s t a t i n g t h a t " i t g i v e s d i r e c t i o n by narrowing and i t helps to reduce down to one or two a r e a s . " The three judges were in t e r v i e w e d twice f o r a t o t a l of approximately an hour and a h a l f each. The i n t e r v i e w s were conducted a t the u n i v e r s i t y and the s t u d e n t s ' homes. A f t e r a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the study, the c a t e g o r i e s , w r i t t e n on 3x5 c a r d s , were d e s c r i b e d . The judges were given the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : Place these i n c i d e n t s under c a t e g o r i e s t h a t you f e e l encompass the i n c i d e n t s . Please ask any qu e s t i o n s you wish. I f the i n c i d e n t doesn't f i t any of the c a t e g o r i e s d i s p l a y e d , please d i s c a r d i t . T h i s procedure was repeated four times over two d i f f e r e n t days. On the f i r s t day, on l y the f a c i l i t a t i v e i n c i d e n t s f o r both CHOICES and SDS were c a t e g o r i z e d . On the second day, the h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s were c a t e g o r i z e d Page 120 i n the same way. The high r e l i a b i l i t y of over 80% agreement, as d e p i c t e d i n Table 6, seems to warrant the c l a i m t h a t the cat e g o r y systems are t r u s t w o r t h y . That i s , independent judges can d i f f e r e n t i a t e and i n t e g r a t e i n c i d e n t s i n about the same way us i n g these s e t s of c a t e g o r i e s . Table 6 Percentage of Agreement between Judges and E s t a b l i s h e d  Category Systems CHOICES SDS F a c i l i t a t i v e H i n d e r i n g F a c i l i t a t i v e H i n d e r i n g Judge #1 100% 100% 96% 94% Judge #2 90% 100% 85% 94% Judge #3 9 5% 100% 90% 88% Page 121 Another means of support, although i n d i r e c t , i s p r ovided by an i n q u i r y i n t o the nature of the judges' e r r o r s . These e r r o r s appear to have been due l a r g e l y to haste and were t r i g g e r e d by key words. For example, one judge p l a c e d an i n c i d e n t with the i n t e r r o g a t i v e words "How much" i n the "Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s c a t e g o r y . " However, t h i s category was concerned more with s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s about occupations and not s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l i k e s a l a r y or s h i f t work. Upon r e a d i n g the whole i n c i d e n t and not j u s t a few t r i g g e r words, one r e a l i z e s t h a t the i n c i d e n t i n v o l v e s a d e l i b e r a t i o n about g e n e r a l s a l a r y i s s u e s and should be placed i n the "Stimulated c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s " c a t e g o r y . As was expected, there were a few b o r d e r l i n e cases, but most were q u i t e c l e a r c u t . In summary, the independent judges demonstrated t h a t the c a t e g o r y systems have high r e l i a b i l i t y because of the l i m i t e d number of e r r o r s , most of which were c o r r e c t a b l e and not s u b s t a n t i v e i n nature. Page 122 R e l i a b i l i t y as V a l i d i t y V a l i d i t y r e f l e c t s the extent to which the c a t e g o r i e s are sound or well-founded. That i s , do the c a t e g o r i e s r e f l e c t the e l i c i t e d i n c i d e n t s or are they s i m p l y made up to perpetuate one's e x i s t i n g t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s ? In the r e l i a b i l i t y s e c t i o n , i t was noted t h a t a l l i n c i d e n t s were subsumed by the c a t e g o r y system and were subsequently confirmed by the independent judges. One c o u l d conclude t h a t the c a t e g o r y system i s not s u b j e c t i v e but r a t h e r a t t a i n s o b j e c t i v i t y through the c o n f i r m a t i o n of the judges. R e l i a b l e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e g i v e s c a t e g o r i e s an o b j e c t i v e s t a t u s . Comprehens iveness Another f e a t u r e of v a l i d i t y i s to determine whether the c a t e g o r i e s are comprehensive. That i s , would more students have generated more c a t e g o r i e s ? T h i s was t e s t e d by c a t e g o r i z i n g o n l y the f i r s t 25 (out of 35) s t u d e n t s ' i n c i d e n t s from each of the two groups. Responses by the remaining ten students were c a t e g o r i z e d o n l y afterwards and a l l t h e i r i n c i d e n t s f i t t e d i n t o the e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r y system. That i s , no new c a t e g o r i e s had to be Page 123 formed to accommodate these new i n c i d e n t s . T h i s check p r o v i d e s reasonable evidence f o r the comprehensiveness of the c a t e g o r y system. T h i s c l a i m i s p r o v i s i o n a l because there i s always a p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s c o v e r i n g new c a t e g o r i e s . For example, p r i o r to the study, a h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t thought to be common among computer users i s the s o - c a l l e d computer phobia or cyberphobia. The s t u d e n t s 1 f e a r of the machine would hinder them so much th a t they would be unable to d e r i v e anything from i t . No one mentioned t h i s , except f o r a few comments along the l i n e s of being confused a t f i r s t but t h a t the a i d e put them at ease and they q u i c k l y learned what to do. I t seems j u s t i f i a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , to conclude t h a t the category system i s r e a s o n a b l y comprehensive. L e v e l of A b s t r a c t i o n To achieve the r i g h t l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n , i t i s necessary to use the prototypes as guides r a t h e r than a b s t r a c t i n g f e a t u r e s from whole i n c i d e n t s . In t h i s way, one i s f o r c e d to examine thoroughly a l l i n c i d e n t s , comparing them to v a r i o u s p r o t o t y p e s . The language and s t r u c t u r e of r e p o r t s were untouched to conserve a l l the r i c h n e s s t h a t they might c o n t a i n . Uncontaminated by a t h e o r e t i c a l o v e r l a y t h a t may or may not undermine the Page 124 a c t u a l message, the prototype procedure i n s u r e s t h a t the m a t e r i a l i s conserved. As f o r the a c t u a l l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n , the s e t of c a t e g o r i e s i s v a l i d i f they s t r i v e f o r a l e v e l t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s order but y e t c l e a r l y subsumes the i n c i d e n t s . Too low a l e v e l would produce a m u l t i t u d e of c a t e g o r i e s too numerous to handle e f f e c t i v e l y . Too high a l e v e l generates a type of a r t i f i c a l s i m p l i c i t y . For example, the s u p e r o r d i n a t e f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s do not r e a l l y g i v e us d i r e c t i o n because they are not s p e c i f i c enough. N a t u r a l l y , the p o s s i b i l i t y of a lower l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n always e x i s t s . For example, " C o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s " c o u l d s t i l l generate many c a t e g o r i e s . Earnings and t r a v e l are o n l y two f e a t u r e s t h a t c o u l d evolve i n t o new c a t e g o r i e s . B a s i s of C a t e g o r i e s Inherent i n the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique i s the advantage t h a t c a t e g o r i e s are formed by s i m i l a r i t i e s of a group of i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d by independent people. When s e v e r a l people r e p o r t the same type of i n c i d e n t , i t seems reasonable t h a t the c a t e g o r y i s well-founded. As can be viewed from the t a b l e s on p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s (Tables 1-2-3-4), most of the c a t e g o r i e s have Page 125 c o n s i d e r a b l e support, both i n terms of number of i n c i d e n t s and percentage of s t u d e n t s . Independent people r e p o r t the same kind of f a c i l i t a t i o n or hindrance with CHOICES and the SDS. The exceptions can r e a d i l y be supported through a common-sensical viewpoint. For example, the "Guides i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h " c a t e g o r y had o n l y two i n c i d e n t s . However, both i n c i d e n t s were c l e a r l y s t a t e d and were powerful yet d i f f e r e n t enough to form t h e i r own category. And i t seems q u i t e s e n s i b l e t h a t a guided i n f o r m a t i o n search would be b e n e f i c i a l to someone pl a n n i n g a c a r e e r . The face v a l i d i t y of the c a t e g o r i e s i s another important source of con f i d e n c e to support the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme. There i s nothing shocking or s u r p r i s i n g about these c a t e g o r i e s . In f a c t , one co u l d c o n c e i v a b l y come up with s i m i l a r c a t e g o r i e s by a c a r e f u l examination of each i n t e r v e n t i o n . I t seems e v i d e n t , f o r example, t h a t a catego r y such as "Narrows f o c u s " makes sense f o r both CHOICES and SDS. CHOICES reduces 1114 occupations to 25 occupations while the SDS, through the l e t t e r code, a l s o narrows the focu s . Page 126 P o s i t i o n of Reporters to Report V a l i d I n c i d e n t s One c l a i m to v a l i d i t y noted by Flanagan (1954) stems from the people r e p o r t i n g i n c i d e n t s . Are they i n a p o s i t i o n t o make f i r s t hand r e p o r t s ? The seventy students i n t e r v i e w e d were e n r o l l e d i n a c a r e e r p l a n n i n g course p r i o r t o the study. T h i s presupposes t h a t they have some i n t e r e s t s , and d e s i r e some help i n p l a n n i n g t h e i r c a r e e r . T h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y t o problems of p l a n n i n g a c a r e e r would seem to be sharpened because of t h e i r involvement. In c o n c e r t with t h i s q u e s t i o n , i s the t r a d i t i o n a l i n v a l i d a t i o n of s e l f - r e p o r t s . There i s growing evidence, however, t h a t s e l f - r e p o r t s can indeed be a c c u r a t e and t h a t , i n some cases, more a c c u r a t e than o b j e c t i v e measures. Holland (1978) has shown t h a t s e l f - r e p o r t e d i n t e r e s t s are about twice as a c c u r a t e i n p r e d i c t i n g f u t u r e v o c a t i o n s as o b j e c t i v e l y measured i n t e r e s t s . S c o t t and Johnson (1972) concluded t h a t d i r e c t s e l f - r e p o r t s were c o n s i s t e n t l y s u p e r i o r to i n d i r e c t o b j e c t i v e measures when the c r i t e r i a f o r p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were s u p p l i e d by f r i e n d s . Agreement with Research Page 127 Another aspect of v a l i d i t y i s to determine the e x t e n t of c o r r o b o r a t i o n with past r e s e a r c h . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l examine r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h f o r support, f i r s t from CHOICES then from the SDS. CHOICES, as noted i n the review of l i t e r a t u r e c h apter, has not been adequately i n v e s t i g a t e d . However, the s t u d i e s tend to g e n e r a l l y support the c a t e g o r i e s e l i c i t e d from t h i s r e s e a r c h . For example, the content of the c a t e g o r y "Considered e d u c a t i o n a l requirements" was r e p o r t e d by Donovan (1981), Guerette (1981), Sloan (1980), and Wright (1981) i n t h e i r s t u d i e s with CHOICES. Turgeon (1979) focused on r e a l i t y t e s t i n g , one of the prime f u n c t i o n s of the CHOICES system. The "Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s " c a t e g o r y resembles Turgeon's r e a l i t y t e s t i n g emphasis. He s t r e s s e d CHOICES a b i l i t y to respond to s p e c i f i c q uestions about occupations without having to a c t u a l l y experience them. The cat e g o r y "Expands ge n e r a l job o p t i o n s " was r e p o r t e d i n v a r i o u s forms by e i g h t s t u d i e s (Donovan, 1980; Guerette, 1981; Gosse, 1980; J a r v i s , 1978; L a i r d , 1982; Sloan, 1982; S t a h l , 1984; Van Zoost, 1982; Wright, 1981). A s i m i l a r category, "Expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d , " was mentioned i n three of these s t u d i e s Page 128 (Guerette, 1981; J a r v i s , 1978; Sloan, 1980). Only one study was found to f o r m a l l y s t a t e the narrowing r e f l e c t e d i n the "Narrows f o c u s " c a t e g o r y (Guerette, 1981). The c a t e g o r y t h a t r e p o r t e d the most i n c i d e n t s , "Stimulated c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s , " was, s u r p r i s i n g l y , o n l y noted i n three a r t i c l e s (Donovan, 1980; Guerette, 1981; J a r v i s , 1978). S i m i l a r l y , most of the other c a t e g o r i e s had a s c a t t e r i n g of support from the l i t e r a t u r e . The o n l y two l a c k i n g support were "Judged f u t u r e of j o b s " and "Matches i n t e r e s t s to j o b s . " ^ The h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s had fewer mentions i n the l i t e r a t u r e . F i v e of the nine c a t e g o r i e s e n l i s t e d support: Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n (Guerette, 1980; L a i r d , 1982; Stedham, 1982), U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n (Stedham, 1982), Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs (West 1981), Rushed on t e r m i n a l (Guerette, 1980), and Machine m a l f u n c t i o n (Guerette, 1980; Sloan, 1980; Stedham, 1982). T h i s s u p p l i e s independent support f o r the v a l i d i t y of these categor i e s . The SDS c a t e g o r i e s are a l s o supported by many r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , most s t u d i e s have focused on v a l i d a t i n g Holland's t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions r a t h e r than i n v e s t i g a t i n g the o v e r a l l e f f e c t s of the Page 129 i n v e n t o r y . Of the over 200 s t u d i e s , there are o n l y approximately 10 t h a t a c t u a l l y s t r e s s the e f f e c t s of the SDS on c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . These however, serve to i l l u s t r a t e and add weight to the c a t e g o r i e s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . The two f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s "Expands g e n e r a l job o p t i o n s and expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d " were supported by A v a l l o n e (1974), Cole and Hanson (1975) , Holland (1974, 1976a), P r e d i g e r (1972), Takai (1979), T a l b o t and B i r k (1979), and Zener and Schnuelle (1976) . Provoking thought about ca r e e r p l a n n i n g was u n d e r l i n e d by a number of s t u d i e s ( A v a l l o n e , 1974; Cole & Hanson, 1975; Holland 1973, 1976a; P r e d i g e r , 1972; Reardon e t a l . , 1982; T a l b o t & B i r k , 1979.) T h i s o f f e r s another measure of c r e d i b i l i t y t o the "Stimulates c a r e e r d e l i b e r a t i o n " c a tegory. The "Narrows f o c u s " c a t e g o r y drew support from many of the same s t u d i e s which s t r e s s e d the need to g i v e the s e a r c h f o r a c a r e e r a c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n by narrowing the focus (Cole & Hanson, 1975; H o l l a n d , 1974, 1976a; P r e d i g e r , 1972; T a l b o t & B i r k , 1979). They found t h a t the SDS, s i m i l a r to other types of i n t e r e s t measures, a l s o measured c u r r e n t c h o i c e . The c a t e g o r y "Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e " f a l l s i n t o t h i s domain of Page 130 reassurance. Other s t u d i e s a l s o r e a f f i r m t h i s (Cole & Hanson, 1975; H o l l a n d , 1974; 1976a; P r e d i g e r , 1972; Reardon, e t a l . , 1982; Zener & S c h n u e l l e , 1982). Holland's view of c a r e e r d e c i s i o n which stands behind the SDS, seems to be r e f l e c t e d i n the f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s uncovered by the students i n t e r v i e w e d . The three matching c a t e g o r i e s (Matching c a p a b i l i t i e s t o j o b s , Matches i n t e r e s t s to jobs and Matches i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs) p a r a l l e l Holland's s t r e s s on matching p e r s o n a l i t y and o c c u p a t i o n . The seven h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s were not r e p o r t e d as such i n the s t u d i e s surveyed. The l i t e r a t u r e p o i n t s to s e x - r e l a t e d b i a s e s and lack of s c o r i n g r e l i a b i l i t y as the two main c r i t i c i s m s of the SDS. G e n e r a l l y , however, the l i t e r a t u r e seems to support the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s i n both CHOICES and the SDS thereby l e n d i n g independent support to v a l i d a t e these categor i e s . V a l i d i t y as Usefulness Another aspect of v a l i d i t y i s u s e f u l n e s s . T h i s was i n s p e c t e d by two means; by p e r s o n a l l y i n t e r v i e w i n g three c o u n s e l l o r s with e x t e n s i v e experience with CHOICES and the SDS, and by sending a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix Page 131 N), based on the c a t e g o r i e s found i n t h i s study, to 126 s c h o o l s . Three c o u n s e l l o r s , experienced with CHOICES and the SDS, were interv i e w e d e x t e n s i v e l y and were presented with the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n the form of maps and safeguards (Appendix K, L, and M). They were asked whether the c a t e g o r i e s would be u s e f u l i n a n t i c i p a t i n g what each program does and what c o u l d be done to b e t t e r prepare p r o s p e c t i v e s t u d e n t s . The c o u n s e l l o r s expressed t h e i r reassurance that the students a p p r e c i a t e d the worthwhileness of CHOICES. More i m p o r t a n t l y , not o n l y were students c o n c e n t r a t i n g t h e i r e n e r g i e s on p l a n n i n g a c a r e e r , but they were a l s o l e a r n i n g the c a r e e r p l a n n i n g process as evidenced by these maps. While acknowledging the v a l i d i t y of most of the c a t e g o r i e s , they d i d u n d e r l i n e the weakness of the "Future of j o b s " category. They f e l t t h a t the students were not g i v e n enough up-to-date or c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to p r o p e r l y v a l i d a t e f u t u r e job p r o s p e c t s . The Safeguards s e c t i o n , however, was emphasized f o r i t s u s e f u l n e s s i n implementing the program. Two CHOICES t r a i n i n g i n s t r u c t o r s a l s o s t r e s s e d the u t i l i t y of the Safeguards s e c t i o n i n t r a i n i n g p r o s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l l o r s . T h i s independent c o n f i r m a t i o n as to what CHOICES Page 132 a c t u a l l y does balances and adds weight to the t h e o r e t i c a l aspects of the c o u n s e l l o r p r e p a r a t i o n . As f o r the SDS, the c o u n s e l l o r s a l s o g e n e r a l l y agreed with the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s found. They s t r e s s e d the c l a r i t y and s p e c i f i c i t y t h a t each s e c t i o n of the t e s t e l i c i t s from s t u d e n t s . Having a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e of what the t e s t does helps them i n p r e p a r i n g students f o r the i n t e r v e n t i o n . They were not s u r p r i s e d by any of the SDS c a t e g o r i e s . The SAFEGUARDS s e c t i o n was e s p e c i a l l y a p p r e c i a t e d as i t would be a p p l i c a b l e to forewarning students to the f u z z i e r a s p e c t s of the SDS. Co u n s e l l o r r e a c t i o n to the OTHER s e c t i o n , t h a t i s , what e l s e c o u l d be done to help students plan t h e i r c a r e e r , was e n t h u s i a s t i c . They p l a n to use the l i s t to implement or safeguard e x i s t i n g programs. They were e s p e c i a l l y g r a t i f i e d to see the " S t a r t p l a n n i n g sooner" ca t e g o r y . A second means of i n s p e c t i n g the u s e f u l n e s s of the c a t e g o r i e s of CHOICES and the SDS was through a q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent t o 126 s c h o o l s , l i s t e d as having CHOICES, from the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e attempted to e l i c i t from experienced p r a c t i t i o n e r s (see t a b l e 7) whether they agreed, d i s a g r e e d or were undecided about the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s d i s t i l l e d from t h i s study. That i s , they were asked Page 133 whether they thought t h a t t h e i r students would generate s i m i l a r c a t e g o r i e s (Appendix E ) . As can be observed from Tables 8 and 9 (pp.136-138), the c o u n s e l l o r s g e n e r a l l y agreed with the ca t e g o r y system f o r both programs. T h e i r r e a c t i o n was q u i t e s i m i l a r to the three c o u n s e l l o r s i n t e r v i e w e d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , they had s t r o n g agreement with the CHOICES f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s (Table 8, p.136) except f o r the "Judges f u t u r e of jo b s " c a t egory. The three c o u n s e l l o r s i n t e r v i e w e d a l s o expressed t h e i r r e s e r v a t i o n concerning t h i s c a t e g o r y . T h i s f i n d i n g might be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a v a r i e t y of ways. I t would seem t h a t , a c c o r d i n g to the c o u n s e l l o r s , t h i s c a t e g o r y does not f i t i n the CHOICES program. However, t h i s i s p r e c i s e l y where the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n c e technique o f f e r s i t s r i c h n e s s . R e f e r r i n g to the source of the category, the a c t u a l i n c i d e n t s , one can d e t e c t the s o l i d foundation of the 14 i n c i d e n t s (Table 1, p.50) t h a t comprise the category. The students emphasized t h a t i t was co m f o r t i n g and f a c i l i t a t i v e to t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g knowing i f an occupation w i l l be i n demand. P a r a d o x i c a l l y , some students a l s o expressed d i s b e l i e f concerning the f u t u r e of some occupations and d e s c r i b e d t h i s as l e s s h e l p f u l to t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g , as evidenced by the h i n d e r i n g category " U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . " Page 134 T h i s problem i s s t r e s s e d i n the Safeguards s e c t i o n . T h i s i s a n i c e i l l u s t r a t i o n of the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t t e c h nique. I t doesn't average out d i f f e r e n c e s , but r a t h e r u n d e r l i n e s them and one gets a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e of a c t u a l l y what happened and why. Turning to the remaining h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s f o r CHOICES, the o n l y agreement o f f e r e d by the c o u n s e l l o r s was f o r the "Needing more o p t i o n s " category. T h i s c l o s e to unanimous support f o r CHOICES seems to suggest t h a t the c o u n s e l l o r s do not r e a l l y f i n d t h a t much t h a t h i n d e r s or i s not h e l p f u l with CHOICES. In the f a c i l i t a t i v e and h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s f o r the SDS, the c o u n s e l l o r s a g a i n expressed t h e i r g e n e r a l agreement. Page 135 Table 7 Years of experience of c o u n s e l l o r s responding to q u e s t i o n n a i r e Years of exper ience: Experience with CHOICES o n l y : Experience with SDS o n l y : Experience with both CHOICES: SDS 2 1 0 4 3 4 5 6 7 not TOTAL i n d i c a t e d 7 5 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 8 5 2 4 3 4 5 3 7 1 1 32 28 (28) Number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s answered : 61 Number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d unanswered: 3 TOTAL ret u r n e d : 64 TOTAL sent : 126 Percentage of ret u r n e d :50.8% Average years experience :4.2yrs Page 136 T a b l e 8 Summary of c o u n s e l l o r s r e a c t i o n to the CHOICES C a t e g o r i e s C H O I C E S F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s Agree D isagree Undecided 1. Expands g e n e r a l o p t i o n s 54 1 5 2. Expands job o p t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 45 6 9 3. Narrows focus 44 11 5 4. Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s 46 9 5 5. Judges f u t u r e of jobs 17 28 15 6. P r o v i d e s r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g 50 4 6 7. C o n s i d e r s o c c u p a t i o n a l requ i rements 50 2 8 8. S t i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s ( s a l a r y , h o u r s , e t c . ) 51 4 5 9 . C l a r i f i e s l i k e s 51 3 6 10. C l a r i f i e s c a p a b i l i t i e s and a p t i t u d e s 31 14 15 11. Matches i n t e r e s t and a p t i t u d e s 38 10 12 12. Conf i rms c h o i c e s 36 4 20 Page 137 13. D i s c o n f i r m s c h o i c e s 19 15 26 H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s 1. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n 17 33 10 2. U s e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n 9 42 9 3. U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 13 33 14 4. F a i l s to c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e 10 27 18 5. P u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job o p t i o n s 20 30 10 6. Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs 19 27 14 7. Needs more options 39 11 10 8. Rushed on t e r m i n a l 9 49 2 9. Machine m a l f u n c t i o n 16 41 3 Any other c a t e g o r y you would l i k e t o add none  Page 138 Table 9 Summary of c o u n s e l l o r s r e a c t i o n to the SDS c a t e g o r i e s S E L F D I R E C T E D S E A R C H F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s Agree Disagree Undecided 1. Expands g e n e r a l job o p t i o n 27 1 1 2. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 17 8 4 3. Narrows focus 19 4 6 4. Guides i n f o r m a t i o n search 27 1 1 5. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirement 14 14 1 6. Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s and d i s l i k e s 25 3 1 7. Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s 9 14 6 8. S t i m u l a t e s d e l i b e r a t i o n 26 2 1 9. Understanding o n e s e l f over time 19 4 6 10. F i n d out where to improve 9 11 9 11. Matches c a p a b i l i t e s to jobs 12 12 5 12. Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs 27 2 0 13. Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 15 9 5 Page 139 14. Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e 20 4 7 H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s 1. Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 15 8 5 2. Mis i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s 6 13 10 3. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items 12 6 10 4. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t i m a t e s 21 11 3 5. F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n 12 11 4 6. Need expansion of op t i o n s f i n d e r 26 2 0 7. No new i n f o r m a t i o n 15 4 8 Any other category you would l i k e t o add Page 140 In summary, a number of i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y and the v a l i d i t y of the c a t e g o r i e s have been examined ranging from the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s by independent judges, the comprehensiveness of the c a t e g o r i e s , the l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n , the b a s i s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , the p o s i t i o n of the r e p o r t e r s , the agreement with r e s e a r c h , and the u s e f u l n e s s f o r c o u n s e l l o r s . G e n e r a l l y , these have been s u c c e s s f u l l y r e s o l v e d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s some warrant f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of these c a t e g o r i e s . Page 141 CHAPTER 8 D i s c u s s i o n The purpose of t h i s study was to improve the p r a c t i c e of c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g and i n p a r t i c u l a r to a m e l i o r a t e the use of two prominent i n t e r v e n t i o n s . T h i s was accomplished through the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of process events t h a t take place w i t h i n CHOICES and the SDS. T h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n enables p r a c t i t i o n e r s to a n t i c i p a t e what the outcomes w i l l be and to b u i l d i n s a feguards. A c r i t i c a l assessment of the c o n t r i b u t i o n i s o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g pages i n c l u d i n g l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p r a c t i t i o n e r s and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . S p e c i f i c a l l y , f o r CHOICES, c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t i n t e r v i e w s r e s u l t e d i n 218 r e p o r t e d events t h a t f a c i l i t a t e and 64 events t h a t hinder (or do not help) c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . For SDS, there were 298 t h a t f a c i l i t a t e and 96 t h a t hinder c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . The i n c i d e n t s f o r CHOICES were reduced to t h i r t e e n f a c i l i t a t i v e and nine h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s , while the SDS i n c i d e n t s were reduced to f o u r t e e n f a c i l i t a t i v e and seven h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s . Independent judges were ab l e to r e l i a b l y use Page 142 these c a t e g o r i e s to place i n c i d e n t s . T h i s would i n d i c a t e t h a t the c a t e g o r i e s were a reasonable r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of events. That i s , the c a t e g o r i e s f o r each program provide a map of what each program does to help or not h e l p c a r e e r p l a n n i n g (Appendix K, L and M). A q u a l i t a t i v e comparison between the two categor y systems r e v e a l s some o v e r l a p , but l a r g e l y the i n t e r v e n t i o n s seem to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g i n d i s t i n c t i v e ways. CHOICES seems to s t r e s s r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s , s p e c i f i c i t y and e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s . SDS, i n c o n t r a s t , seems to s t r e s s self-awareness and understanding of the matching pro c e s s . L i m i t a t i o n s There are s e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s t o c o n s i d e r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s . F i r s t , the students who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s experiment were v o l u n t e e r s . Each had e n r o l l e d i n a c a r e e r guidance course. While there i s no s a l i e n t reason f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s cannot be made to students of a s i m i l a r s o c i o - c u l t u r a l background, g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are premature and would be b e t t e r made on the b a s i s of other kinds of r e s e a r c h . Second, a person can onl y r e p o r t as f a c i l i t a t i v e or h i n d e r i n g those events t h a t he or she i s aware of or r e c o g n i z e s as important. The events r e p o r t e d were Page 143 l i m i t e d by s t u d e n t s 1 awareness and by t h e i r c a p a b i l i t y f o r r e c o g n i z i n g s i g n i f i c a n t events. Both programs might f a c i l i t a t e or hinder c a r e e r p l a n n i n g i n ways t h a t were beyond the students* c a p a c i t y to r e p o r t . T h i r d , there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between a c a t e g o r y system and the p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n a system. The present study i n v o l v e s an attempt to e s t a b l i s h a r e a s o n a b l y c l e a r and comprehensive c a t e g o r y system f o r each c a r e e r i n t e r v e n t i o n . The v a r i o u s procedures used to assess r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y were a l s o concerned with the c a t e g o r i e s as a whole. What t h i s means i s t h a t the v a l i d i t y and s i g n i f i c a n c e of each categ o r y has y e t to be demonstrated. For example, the c a t e g o r y of "understanding o n e s e l f over time" f o r the SDS may or may not be important i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Two types of s t u d i e s would have to be done to determine i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . F i r s t , i t would have to be shown t h a t an improved understanding of s e l f over time was r e l a t e d to improvements i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Second, i t would have to be shown t h a t the SDS produced understanding f r e q u e n t l y enough or i n s u f f i c i e n t depth to a f f e c t c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . At present, the evidence p r o v i d e s i n d i c a t i o n s of the s t r e n g t h of p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r i e s , but much more would have to be done to assess t h e i r r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t y or s i g n i f i c a n c e i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Page 144 I m p l i c a t i o n s T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the r e s u l t s tend to c o n f i r m a number of g e n e r a l concepts i n the f i e l d of c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g . For example, the c a t e g o r i e s concerned with matching such as "Matches i n t e r e s t s and a t t i t u d e s to jobs" support t r a i t - f a c t o r t h e o r i s t s who emphasize matching a person's t r a i t s to job c o n d i t i o n s (Parson, 1909; Williamson & Bordin, 1941). Other c a t e g o r i e s such as "Understand one s e l f over time", "Find out where to improve" and c o n f i r m a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s support developmental t h e o r i s t s such as Super (1957) and Ginzberg (1972). The " s t i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s " c a t e g o r y supported the n o t i o n t h a t i t i s important i n h e l p i n g people t h i n k about t h e i r c a r e e r s (Wooler & Wisudhua, 1985). In g e n e r a l , what people r e p o r t as f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t s tend to support a broad range of f a c t o r s which c o u n s e l l i n g p s y c h o l o g i s t s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y claimed to be b e n e f i c i a l . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , the use of the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique f o r program e v a l u a t i o n i s r a t h e r n o v e l . S t u d i e s of c a r e e r programs have tended to be a r b i t r a r y and d i s j o i n t e d . Researchers have t r a d i t i o n a l l y focused on a number of v a r i a b l e s to d i s c o v e r i f any change oc c u r s . The t y p i c a l r e s e a r c h d e s i g n of p r e - t e s t , Page 145 i n t e r v e n t i o n and p o s t - t e s t has not tended to add up i n a coherent f a s h i o n . B a l l a n t i n e (1986) concludes t h a t i t would be a p p r o p r i a t e to e v a l u a t e CACGS as value a n a l y s i s . T h i s c o u l d be done with a q u a l i t a t i v e type of e v a l u a t i o n s i m i l a r to t h i s c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t based study. G e n e r a l l y , p r a c t i t i o n e r s lack a map of what the i n t e r v e n t i o n a c t u a l l y does to help people i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . In t h i s context, the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique o f f e r s three advantages. F i r s t , as the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e , i t o f f e r s a r e a s o n a b l y broad map of f a c i l i t a t i v e events t h a t occur i n a program. Second, i t p r o v i d e s grounds f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g programs. For example, CHOICES, SDS and other programs are o f t e n t r e a t e d as r i v a l s , as i f they were designed f o r the same purpose. A recent comparison of CHOICES and SDS does not r e v e a l d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e s on a p p r e c i a t i o n , on narrowing and other v a r i a b l e s (Reardon e t a l . , 1982). However, a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the c a t e g o r i e s f o r each i n t e r v e n t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t these programs are q u i t e d i s t i n c t . The c a t e g o r i e s g i v e the advantage of s e e i n g the i n t e r v e n t i o n as i t i s , r a t h e r than how i t performs a g a i n s t an a r t i f i c i a l c r i t e r i a . In t h i s way, a q u a l i t a t i v e comparison can be made. The two s e t s of c a t e g o r i e s can be f r e e l y compared on t h e i r own m e r i t . I f the two s e t s of c a t e g o r i e s are Page 146 s i m i l a r , then a q u a n t i t a t i v e comparison can be made. T h i r d , the s t r u c t u r e of the c a t e g o r i e s seems to m i r r o r the l o g i c of the programs. Each program has a p l o t or a p l a n . For example, SDS c l a r i f i e s an o c c u p a t i o n a l code and then uses t h a t code to narrow o c c u p a t i o n a l f i e l d s and expand options i n one or more f i e l d s . The major steps i n a program tend to be viewed as important events t h a t , a f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , one c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y a n t i c i p a t e what people would r e p o r t as f a c i l i t a t i v e . As another example, the developer of CHOICES decided upon an i n t e r a c t i v e r a t h e r than a batch system to a l l o w people to ask s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s and r e c e i v e an immediate response. And, as might have been a n t i c i p a t e d , people r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e events i n being a b l e to get s p e c i f i c answers to t h e i r q u e s t i o n s . What t h i s suggests, i s t h a t a number of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s tend to go a s t r a y by t e s t i n g v a r i a b l e s t h a t the program was not designed to f a c i l i t a t e . For example, why should the worth of SDS r e s t s upon whether or not i t promotes i n f o r m a t i o n search? Or t h a t the e v a l u a t i o n of CHOICES depends upon an in c r e a s e i n ca r e e r m a t u r i t y , however t h a t i s d e f i n e d ? While i t might be i n t e r e s t i n g to know how these v a r i a b l e s r a t e i n each program, these q u e s t i o n s tend to overlook what a program does do and was intended to do. There seems to be a Page 147 m i s l e a d i n g emphasis upon v a r i a b l e s t h a t are l e s s r e l e v a n t t o each program. In c o n t r a s t , the c a t e g o r i c a l maps are ve r y common-sensical. They ground program e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n what i s most obvious and rea s o n a b l e . T h i s s e r v e s perhaps as a reminder t h a t i t can be r a t h e r i r r e l e v a n t to base e f f e c t i v e n e s s upon t h e o r e t i c a l v a r i a b l e s t h a t were not b u i l t i n t o the program d e s i g n . P r a c t i c a l l y , there are two major i m p l i c a t i o n s . F i r s t CHOICES and SDS emerge from t h i s study as q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n s as i l l u s t r a t e d i n chapter s i x . Some of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l u d e t h a t CHOICES s t r e s s e s ease of access to s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n while the SDS g e n e r a l i z e s , t h a t the SDS seems much more concerned and e f f e c t i v e i n c u l t i v a t i n g self-awareness than CHOICES, and t h a t CHOICES seems to be a b l e to c o n f i r m or d i s c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e with more c r e d i b i l i t y than the SDS (see Appendix 0 f o r a g r a p h i c comparison). T h e r e f o r e , CHOICES seems more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r pl a n n i n g and s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g o p t i o n s while the SDS seems more v a l u a b l e f o r general e x p l o r a t i o n , understanding and d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g f i e l d s . One tends to move from the gen e r a l t o the s p e c i f i c i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . I t f o l l o w s t h a t i t would be advantageous to complete the SDS p r i o r to CHOICES. Second, the ca t e g o r y systems provide maps of each Page 148 i n t e r v e n t i o n t h a t a l l o w a c o u n s e l l o r to a n t i c i p a t e how each i s apt to f a c i l i t a t e or hinder a c l i e n t ' s p r o g r e s s . One p r a c t i c a l advantage of maps such as these, i s a more informed b a s i s f o r p l a c i n g each program w i t h i n a l a r g e r c a r e e r program. A c o u n s e l l o r would be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o c o o r d i n a t e other i n t e r v e n t i o n s to su p p l y l a c k s or f i l l gaps. Another advantage to these maps i s a more informed b a s i s f o r program s e l e c t i o n to meet a c l i e n t ' s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . For example, i f s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n was a prominent need, CHOICES would be an a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n . I f g e n e r a l e x p l o r a t i o n was r e q u i r e d , the SDS would be convenient. A t h i r d p r a c t i c a l advantage of maps i s t h a t a c o u n s e l l o r can s t r i v e to maximize program b e n e f i t s and minimize d e t r i m e n t s . To f a c i l i t a t e f u l l use of a program, one can prepare c l i e n t s more a p p r o p r i a t e l y . For example, a summary of safeguards f o r CHOICES i s t o : 1. u n d e r l i n e the importance of the T r a v e l Guide, e s p e c i a l l y the c l a u s e "This doesn't matter to me" which enables the c l i e n t to bypass the f e a t u r e . 2. gi v e a c l e a r example of how the computer reduces i t s bank of 1114 occupations t o 25, s t r e s s i n g a b a r g a i n i n g m e n t a l i t y . 3. inform c l i e n t s of the meaning of the s t a r r e d o c c u p a t i o n s , how to r e s e a r c h an occupation u s i n g the Page 149 CCDO number and the lack of c o l l e g e i n f o r m a t i o n . 4. teach c l i e n t s how to backtrack, to d i s c o v e r how one answered the q u e s t i o n s and why the p r i o r c h o i c e i s confirmed or d i s c o n f i r m e d . T h i s a l s o emphasizes Herr's (1985) c o n c l u s i o n t h a t people can n e g o t i a t e t h e i r own f u t u r e . 5. s t r e s s the o l d computer adage "garbage i n , garbage out." 6. encourage an a t t i t u d e of experimentation, of b a r g a i n i n g , of a c c e s s i n g other routes and r e s c h e d u l i n g more time. 7. forewarn c l i e n t s of the lack of updating and to overlook d i s c r e p e n c i e s i n s a l a r y l e v e l and i n employment outlook. 8. warn c l i e n t s t h a t j u s t because a computer has suggested c e r t a i n o c c u p a t i o n s , i t doesn't mean they can o n l y r e s e a r c h those. T h i s i s to counter-balance the popular view t h a t i f i t ' s from a computer, i t must be more l e g i t i m a t e (Herr & Best, 1984; Loesch, 1986; Sampson & P y l e , 1983). 9. use o n l y i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a q u a l i f i e d c o u n s e l l o r (Engels, Caulum, & Sampson, 1984). Corresponding safeguards f o r the SDS are t o : 1. d e l i n e a t e ways of m u l t i p l y i n g o p t i o n s i n the f i n d e r such as l e t t e r code rearrangement and u t i l i z a t i o n Page 150 of the CCDO number. 2. s t r e s s the need to show s e l f - e s t i m a t e s to f a m i l y and f r i e n d s . 3. lower e x p e c t a t i o n s by i n s i s t i n g on the g e n e r a l i t y of the instrument, t h a t i t i s not designed to p r e d i c t the s p e c i f i c job, o n l y the d i r e c t i o n . 4. read Holland's four safeguards to the c l i e n t ( H olland, 1979, p. 4-5). 5. d e s c r i b e the numerical system of the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future Research There are s e v e r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a . F i r s t , f u t u r e s t u d i e s would be d e s i r a b l e to v a l i d a t e and r e f i n e the c a t e g o r i e s . A l s o , the comprehensiveness of each c a t e g o r i c a l map r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Second, assuming the c a t e g o r i e s are sound and reas o n a b l y comprehensive, i t would be p o s s i b l e to develop norms f o r each i n t e r v e n t i o n . That i s , norms might i l l u s t r a t e , f o r example, the percentage of people who have had t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g f a c i l i t a t e d by the "Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s " c a t e g o r y i n CHOICES. Or norms might d i f f e r e n t i a t e the percentages of v a r i o u s age Page 151 groups t h a t were helped by p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r i e s . In t h i s way, one can determine what i s most probable and l e a s t p robable. T h i r d , the c a t e g o r i e s can serve as s c a l e s to e v a l u a t e program e f f e c t i v e n e s s . One method, adapted from Flanagan's (1978) work on the q u a l i t y of l i f e , i s a p r e - t e s t , p o s t - t e s t e v a l u a t i o n . Before the a c t u a l i n t e r v e n t i o n , c l i e n t s can r a t e the importance of each c a t e g o r y f o r t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . A f t e r the i n t e r v e n t i o n , c l i e n t s can r a t e t h e i r degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the help they r e c e i v e d i n each category. For example, the c l i e n t , before a c c e s s i n g CHOICES, answers the q u e s t i o n , How important i s the c a t e g o r y " C l a r i f i e s i n t e r e s t " to you? Then, a f t e r CHOICES, How s a t i s f i e d are you with the help you r e c e i v e d i n c l a r i f y i n g your i n t e r e s t s ? I t would seem th a t t h i s would generate a d i r e c t e v a l u a t i o n of the program. Fourth, i s the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of each i n t e r v e n t i o n enhanced when people are p r o p e r l y prepared to maximize b e n e f i t s and minimize detriments? Can c o u n s e l l o r s enhance e f f e c t i v e n e s s by the way people are prepared for them? L a s t , i f enough programs or even l i f e h i s t o r i e s , ( f o r example Passages by Sheehy, 1976), were Page 152 i n v e s t i g a t e d , a very comprehensive l i s t of what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders c a r e e r p l a n n i n g could be e s t a b l i s h e d . C o n c e i v a b l y , such a l i s t would help to organize the f i e l d of c a r e e r development more b r o a d l y and more c o h e r e n t l y . There would be a broader p o s s i b i l i t y f o r an o r d e r l y , c o o r d i n a t e d development and/or use of programs to f a c i l i t a t e c a r e e r p l a n n i n g and a broader base f o r t h e o r i e s of ca r e e r development. Summary The purpose of t h i s study was t w o f o l d . F i r s t , the CHOICES c a r e e r p l a n n i n g computer program was ev a l u a t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g 35 grade 11 and 12 students u s i n g the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique, r e p o r t s were e l i c i t e d of what f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . These c o l l e c t e d i n c i d e n t s were c a t e g o r i z e d by s i m i l a r i t y to provide a map of what the program does to help or hinder c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . T h i s map p o t e n t i a l l y enables c o u n s e l l o r s to c a p i t a l i z e on b e n e f i t s and to minimize p o s s i b l e d e t r i m e n t s . Secondly, t h i s map was q u a l i t a t i v e l y compared to a s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i o n of the SDS. O v e r a l l , i t was found t h a t the two i n t e r v e n t i o n s have d i f f e r i n g advantages and disadvantages. CHOICES s t r e s s e s r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s , Page 1 s p e c i f i c i t y and e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s . The SDS u n d e r l i n e s self-awareness and an understanding of the matching pr o c e s s . I t seems t h a t CHOICES i s more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r pl a n n i n g and s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g o p t i o n s while the SDS tends to focus on ge n e r a l e x p l o r a t i o n and d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g f i e l d s . References Page 154 Andersson, B., & N i l s s o n , S. (1964). S t u d i e s i n the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 48, 398-403. Aranya, N., Barak, A., & Amernic, J . (1981). A t e s t of Holland's theory i n a p o p u l a t i o n of accountants. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 19., 15-24. Aubin, S. (1983). Etude d i f f e r e n t i e l l e et e v o l u t i v e des v a l e u r s de t r a v a i l dans l e contexte d'une v e r i f i c a t i o n de l a t h e o r i e de H o l l a n d . C o n s e i l l e r Canadien, 18, 13-20. A v a l l o n e , V. L. (1974). A comparative study of the e f f e c t s of 2 v o c a t i o n a l guidance systems: the SDS and a t r a d i t i o n a l v o c a t i o n a l guidance model. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Northern Colorado, 1974). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 35, 2670A. B a l l a n t i n e , M. (1986). Computer-Assisted c a r e e r s guidance systems as d e c i s i o n support systems. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Guidance and C o u n s e l l i n g UL, 21-32. Page 155 Barker, S. B. (1978). An e v a l u a t i o n of the development of the SDS f o r use by v i s u a l l y d i s a b l e d i n d i v i d u a l s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , the F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1978). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 3_9_, 3361-A. B e l l o t t o , B. (Ed.) (1985). Guidance and c o u n s e l l i n g d i r e c t o r y of micro-computer software. San Jose, CA: Department of C a r e e r / V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n and Guidance P u b l i c a t i o n s . In J . Hansen, (1986) computers and beyond i n the c a r e e r decision-making p r o c e s s . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n C o u n s e l l i n g and Development. UL, 48-52. Betz, E. L. (1977). V o c a t i o n a l behavior and c a r e e r development, 1976: A Review. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, i l , 129-152. Bingham, R., & Walsh, B. (1978) Concurrent v a l i d i t y of Holland's theory f o r c o l l e g e - d e g r e e d black women. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 12, 242-250. Bo l t o n , B. (1985). D i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s of Holland's o c c u p a t i o n a l types u s i n g the s i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l  Behaviour f 21, 210-217. Page 156 Boyd, V. (1976). N e u t r a l i z i n g s e x i s t t i t l e s i n Holland's SDS: What d i f f e r e n c e does i t make? J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 2 ( 2 ) , 191-199. Brown, F. (1972). Test review of the SDS. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 5_, 315-319. Brusch, M., & Krleshok, T. (1981). I n v e s t i g a t i v e versus r e a l i s t i c H olland types and adjustment i n t h e o r e t i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g majors. J o u r n a l of  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, i i , 162-173. Buros, 0. (Ed.) (1978). The E i g h t h Mental Measurements -Yearbooks. Highland Park, N. J . : Gryshon P r e s s , 1606-1614. B u t l e r , A. M., & Dowsey, M. W. (1978). Using a computer with a c a r e e r s e d u c a t i o n model of guidance: The I n t e r a c t i v e Careers Guidance System. J o u r n a l of  O c c u p a t i o n a l Psychology. 51, 22-30. Byrne, T. (1980). Self-Esteem and s a t i s f a c t i o n with Holland's SDS. Canadian C o u n s e l l o r . 14, 160-162. C a i r n s , P. (1978). CHOICES e v a l u a t i o n . Edmonton, A l b e r t a : Advanced Educa t i o n and Manpower. Page 157 C a i r o , P. (1979). The v a l i d i t y of the Holland and b a s i c i n t e r e s t s c a l e s of the Strong V o c a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Blank: L e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s versus o c c u p a t i o n a l membership as c r i t e r i a . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 15_, 68-77 . C a i r o , P. (1983). E v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t s of computer-assisted c o u n s e l l i n g systems: A s e l e c t i v e review. The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t . 11(4), 55-60. Campbell, D. D., & Ho l l a n d , J . C. (1972). A merger i n v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t r e s e a r c h : A p p l y i n g Holland's theory f o r Strong's d a t a . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 2., 353-376. Canadian C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and D i c t i o n a r y of Occupations. (1974). Ottawa: Information Canada. C a s s e r l y , C. (1977). CHOICES f i e l d t r i a l r e p o r t : May 30-June 3, 1977. Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada. C a s s e r l y , C. (1978). Summary e v a l u a t i o n of the f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n of CHOICES i n a f i e l d s e t t i n g . Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada. C a s s e r l y , C. (1980). E v a l u a t i o n of c o u n s e l l i n g programs i n a f i e l d s e t t i n g . In G. Ross (Ed.), Workshop  p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the world seminar on employment c o u n s e l l i n g (pp. 492-514). Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada. Page 158 C a s s i e , S., Ragsdale, R., & Robinson, M. (1979). A. comparative a n a l y s i s of CHOICES and S.G.I.S.; S e l e c t e d aspects of o n - l i n e and batch d e l i v e r y systems f o r computer-assisted guidance. Toronto: M i n i s t r y of Education C h o d z i n s k i , R. T. (1983). V a l i d i t y concerns f o r c o u n s e l l o r s u sing the 1978 e d i t i o n of the Career M a t u r i t y Inventory. Canadian C o u n s e l l o r . !§., 5-12. CHOICES, B. C. (1981) a c o u n s e l l o r ' s resource guide. Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia: O c c u p a t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Counci1. C h r i s t e n s e n , K., Gelso, C , W i l l i a m s , R., & S e l l a c e k , W. (1975). V a r i a t i o n s i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the SDS s c o r i n g accuracy and s a t i s f a c t i o n with r e s u l t s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 22.(1), 12-16. C l o s s , S. J . (1978). Computers i n c a r e e r guidance: Promises and p i t f a l l s . J o u r n a l of O c c u p a t i o n a l Psychology, 51, 41-47. C l o s s , S.J. (1986). Current and f u t u r e developments of the JIIG-CAL system. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Guidance and C o u n s e l l i n g . 14., 53-65. Cochran, L. (1987). Framing Career D e c i s i o n s : An i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Career G r i d . In R. Neimeyer & G. Neimeyer (Eds.), A casebook i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t therapy. New York: S p r i n g e r . Page 159 C o l o z z i , E. A., & Haehnlen, F. P., (1982). The impact of a computerized c a r e e r i n f o r m a t i o n system on a community c o l l e g e i n an i s l a n d s t a t e . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l f o r the Advancement of Counselling,. 5_, 273-282. Coglon, D. (1987). E x p l o r i n g c a r e e r s v i a computers. Grade: The Canadian Education News Magazine. 1 ( 6 ) , 17. Cooper, J . F. (1976). Comparative impact of the SCII and the V o c a t i o n a l Card Sort on ca r e e r s a l i e n c e and caree r e x p l o r a t i o n of women. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 23, 348-352. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R., & Hol l a n d , J.C. (1984). P e r s o n a l i t y and v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n an a d u l t sample. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 69., 390-400. C r i t e s , J . (1978). The S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search. In 0. Buros (Ed.), The e i g h t h mental measurements yearbooks, (pp. 1606-1612). Highland Park, N.J.: Gryshon Press . C u t t s , C. (1977). The S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search. Measurement  and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. UL, 117-120. D a n i e l s , H., Mines, R., & Gressard, C. (1981). A meta-model f o r e v a l u a t i n g c o u n s e l l i n g programs. Per s o n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 59, 578-583. Page 160 Diamond, E. (Ed. (1975). Issues of sex b i a s and sex f a i r n e s s i n ca r e e r i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . D o l l i v e r , R., & Hansen, R. (1977). Review of the SDS. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance, I Q . , 120-123. Donovan, T. (1980). Career e d u c a t i o n - post experiences and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n . School Guidance Worker. 3_5_(5), 36-77. Doty, M., & Betz, N. (1979). Comparison of the concurrent v a l i d i t y of Holland's t h e o r y f o r men and women i n an e n t e r p r i s i n g o c c u p a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  V o c a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r r 15. 207-216. Dowsey, M. (1978). An o n - l i n e i n t e r a c t i v e c r e a t i o n and updating t o o l f o r c o u n s e l l o r s . J o u r n a l of  Oc c u p a t i o n a l Psychology. 51, 97-104. E b e r l y , C , & Cech, E. (1986). I n t e r g r a t i n g computer a s s i s t e d t e s t i n g and assessment i n t o the c o u n s e l l i n g process. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n  i n C o u n s e l l i n g and Development. 19. 19-26. Edwards, K., & Whitney, D. (1972). S t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s of Holland's p e r s o n a l i t y types using f a c t o r and c o n f i g u r a l a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g  Psychology. 19, 136-145. Page 161 E i l b e r t , L. (1953). A study of emotional immaturity u t i l i z i n g the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique. U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h B u l l e t i n . 41, 199-204. Engels, D. W., Caulum, D., & Sampson, D. E. (1984). Computers i n c o u n s e l l o r e d u c a t i o n : An e t h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . C o u n s e l l o r E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 2_4, 193-203. Fishburne, F., & Walsh, B. (1976). Concurrent v a l i d i t y of Holland's t h e o r y f o r non-college degreed workers. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 8_, 77-84. Fitzsimmons, G., & Melnychuk, D. (1979). The concurrent v a l i d i t y of the Canadian O c c u p a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Inventory and the SDS. Canadian C o u n s e l l o r , 13., 219-224. Flanagan, J . (1954). The c r i t i c a l Incidence technique. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 51, 327-358. Flanagan, J . (1978). A r e s e a r c h approach to improving our q u a l i t y of l i f e . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 33, 138-148. F r e t z , B. R. (1981). E v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c a r e e r i n v e n t o r i e s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 23., 77-90. Page 162 Gelso, C , C o l l i n s , A., W i l l i a m s , R., & Sedlacec, W. (1973). The accuracy of s e l f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s c o r i n g on Holland's SDS. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, £, 375-382. G e o f f r o y , K. (1985). Congruence, locus of c o n t r o l , and readings of E n g l i s h c o l l e g e students - An a p p l i c a t i o n of John Holland's theory of v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l f o r the Advancement of C o u n s e l l i n g . 8, 157-164. Ginzberg, E. (1972). Toward a theory of o c c u p a t i o n a l CHOICE: A restatement. V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 10.(3), 169-176. Goldman, L. (1978). Research methods for c o u n s e l l o r s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Gosse, A. (1980). Student's and parents' r e a c t i o n to CHOICES. Vancouver: P o l i c y Development, M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . G o t t f r e d s o n , G. (1976). A note on s e x i s t wording i n i n t e r e s t measurement. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 8.(4), 221-223. G o t t f r e d s o n , G. (1978). E v a l u a t i n g v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 12, 252-254. Page 163 G o t t f r e d s o n , G. (1982). The sex f a i r n e s s of unnormed i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s . The V o c a t i o n a l Guidance  Q u a r t e r l y . 31. 123-127. G o t t f r e d s o n , G., & H o l l a n d , J . L. (1975). V o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s of men and women: A comparison of p r e d i c t o r s from the SDS. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g psychology, 22, 28-34. G o t t f r e d s o n , G., & Daiger, D. (1977). Using a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of occupations to d e s c r i b e age, sex and time d i f f e r e n c e s i n employment p a t t e r n s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. LQ_, 121-138. Gray, K. (1986). I m p l i c a t i o n s of micro-computers f o r c o u n s e l l o r s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Guidance and C o u n s e l l i n g , 1_4, 12-20. Greehnaus, J . , Hawkins, B., & Brenner, 0. (1983). The impact of c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n on the c a r e e r decision-making pr o c e s s . J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student Personnel, 21, 495-502. G r i e s t , J . H. (1984). C o n s e r v a t i v e r a d i c a l i s m : An approach to computers i n mental h e a l t h . In M. D. S c h i v a r t s (Ed.), Using computers i n c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e : Psychotherapy and mental h e a l t h a p p l i c a t i o n s (pp.191-194). New York: Hawarth P r e s s . Page 164 Guerette, J . (1980). E f f e c t s of a computerized guidance i n f o r m a t i o n system on c a r e e r development of s e n i o r high s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m I n t e r n a t i o n a l 8115332). Hansen, J . (1977). Coding SCII items a c c o r d i n g to Holland's v o c a t i o n a l theory. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 10_, 75-83. Hansen, J . (1986). Computers and beyond i n the c a r e e r decision-making p r o c e s s . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n  i n C o u n s e l l i n g and Development, 19_, 48-52. Hansen, J . (1987). C r o s s - c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h on v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n  C o u n s e l l i n g and Development. 19_,163-176. Haring-Hidore, M. (1984). In p u r s u i t of students who do not use computers f o r c a r e e r guidance. J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l l i n g and Development. 63, 139-140. Harmon, L., & Zytowski, D. (1980). R e l i a b i l i t y of Holland's codes a c r o s s i n t e r e s t measures f o r a d u l t females. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 27(5). 478-483 . H a r r i s , J . (1968). The c o m p u t e r i s a t i o n of v o c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y . 17., 12-20. Page 165 H a r r i s , J . (1974). The computer: Guidance t o o l of the f u t u r e . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 21, 331-339 . Harris-Bowlsbey, J . (1983a). The computer and the d e c i d e r . The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 11.(4), 9-14. Harris-Bowlsbey, J . (1983b). A h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . In C. Johnson (Ed.), Microcomputers and the s c h o o l c o u n s e l l o r (pp. 1-16). A l e x a n d r i a , VA: American School C o u n s e l l o r A s s o c i a t i o n . Harris-Bowlsbey, J . (1984). The computer and c a r e e r development. J o u r n a l Qf C o u n s e l l i n g and Development, 6_3_, 145-148. Hayes, S. C. (1981). S i n g l e case experimental d e s i g n and e m p i r i c a l c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 49, 193-211. Healy, C. (1982). Career Development. Toronto: A l l y n and Beacon. Healy, C , & Mourton, D. (1983). D e r i v a t i v e s of the S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search: P o t e n t i a l c l i n i c a l & e v a l u a t i v e uses. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 22 , 318-328. Healy, C , & Mourton, D. L. (1984a). The SDS P e r s o n a l i t y S c a l e s & Career M a t u r i t y . Measurement & E v a l u a t i o n i n guidance, 11, 20-29. Page 166 Healy, c , & Mourton, D. (1984b). The e f f e c t s of an a b b r e v i a t e d S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search on the c a r e e r d e c i s i o n compentencies of community c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . The V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 33, 55-62. Heginbotham, H. (1978). Computer a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the c a r e e r s s e r v i c e of a l a r g e c i t y . J o u r n a l of Occupational Psychology, 51, 85-9 3. Hener, T., & Meir, E. (1981). Congruency, c o n s i s t e n c y and d i f f e r e n t a t i o n as p r e d i c t o r s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h i n the n u r s i n g o c c u p a t i o n . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 18., 304-309. Herr, E. L. (1985). The r o l e of p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n e f f e c t i n g the use of technology i n c a r e e r development. J o u r n a l of Career Development, 11, 176-186. Herr, E., & Best, P. (1984). Computer technology and c o u n s e l l i n g : The r o l e of the p r o f e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l l i n g and Development, 63, 192-195. Herzberg, F., Mausuer, B., & Snyderman, B. (1966). The  M o t i v a t i o n to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons. H i l l , C. E. (1982). C o u n s e l l i n g process r e s e a r c h : P h i l o s o p h i c a l and methodical dilemnas. The  C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t . 1£L( 4), 7-19. Page 167 Himler, M. (1982). An e v a l u a t i o n of computerized c a r e e r i n f o r m a t i o n d e l i v e r y systems i n New York C i t v . Unpublished manuscript: Department of Labor, State of H o l l a n d , J . L. (1973). Making V o c a t i o n a l C h o i c e s : a theory of c a r e e r s . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . New York. Hol l a n d , J . L. (1974). The S e l f D i r e c t e d Search: P r o f e s s i o n a l Manual. Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t P r e s s . H o l l a n d , J . L. (1976a). The v i r t u e s of the SDS and i t s a s s o c i a t e d t y p o l o g y : A second r e p l y to P r e d i g e r and Hanson. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 8_, 349-358. Holl a n d , J . L. (1976b). C o n s i s t e n c y and raw s c o r e s s u r v i v e another t e s t : A l a s t response to P r e d i g e r and h i s c o l l e a g u e s . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance, £, 132-135. Holl a n d , J . L. (1977a). The S e l f D i r e c t e d Search. Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s . H o l l a n d , J . L. (1977b). Understanding y o u r s e l f and your c a r e e r . Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . H o l l a n d , J . L. (1978a). Manual f o r the V o c a t i o n a l P r e f e r e n c e Inventory. Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . Page 168 Ho l l a n d , J . L. (1978b). The Occupations F i n d e r . Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . H o l l a n d , J . L. (1979). A c o u n s e l l o r ' s guide f o r the SDS. Canadian E d i t i o n , Toronto: Guidance Centre, F a c u l t y of Education, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. H o l l a n d , J . L., & G o t t f r e d s o n , G. (1976). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s , items r e v i s i o n s v a l i d i t y and the SDS. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance, 8_( 4), 224-228 . Hol l a n d , J . L., & N a f z i g e r , D. H. (1976). A note on the v a l i d i t y of the SDS. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance, 7_, 259-262. Holland, J . L., G o t t f r e d s o n , G., & N a f z i g e r , D. (1975). T e s t i n g the v a l i d i t y of t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n s of v o c a t i o n a l decision-making a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 22, 411-422. H o l l i n g e r , C. L. (1984). The impact of gender schematic p r o c e s s i n g on the S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search responses of g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d female a d o l e s c e n t s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 24, 15-27. Iachan, R. (1984). A means of agreement f o r use with the Holland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l behavior. 24., 13 3-141. Page 169 J a r v i s , P. (1976a). A p r o p o s a l f o r a computerized o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n system f o r c a r e e r and employment c o u n s e l l i n g . Ottawa: O c c u p a t i o n a l and c a r e e r a n a l y s i s and development Branch, Department of Manpower and Immigration, May. J a r v i s , P. (1976b). A g r a p h i c comparison of system f u n c t i o n s and access p a t t e r n s - BISP/SGIS/CHOICES. Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada. J a r v i s , P. (1978). CHOICES: The system and i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o s c h o o l c o u n s e l l i n g . School Guidance Worker, 2 2(3), 5-12. J a r v i s , P. (1982a). CHOICES c o u n s e l l o r ' s manual 82 /93 . Ottawa: CSG CHOICES. J a r v i s , P. (1982b). CHOICES t r a v e l guide. Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada. Johnson, C. S. (1983). Computer-based guidance i n American higher e d u c a t i o n . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l f o r the Advancement of C o u n s e l l i n g , 6_, 135-141. Johnson, C , & Sampson, J . P. (1985). T r a i n i n g c o u n s e l l o r s to use computers. J o u r n a l of Career Development. 11. 118-128. Katz, M. R., & Shatkin, L. (1983). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of computer a s s i s t e d guidance. The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , l i ( 4 ) , 15-31. Page 170 K i m b a l l , R., Sedlacek, N., & Brooks, W. (1973). Black and white v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n Holland's SDS. J o u r n a l of Negro Education, 42, 1-4. K l i n e , P. (1975). Psychology of V o c a t i o n a l Guidance. London: B. T. Basford L t d . K r i v a t s y , S. E., & Magoon, T. M. (1976). D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of three v o c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g treatments. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 23, 112-118. Krumboltz, J . (1966). B e h a v i o r a l goals f o r c o u n s e l l i n g . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 13, 153-159. Krumboltz, J . , Becker-Haven, J . , & Burnett, K. (1979). C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. Annual review of Psychology. 556-602. La i n g , J . , Swaney, K., & P r e d i g e r , D. (1984). I n t e g r a t i n g v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r y r e s u l t s and expressed c h o i c e s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 25, 304-315. L a i r d , D. (1982). CHOICES q u e s t i o n n a i r e j u n i o r secondary p i l o t program. Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia: Richmond School Board. Lawler, A. C. (1979). Career e x p l o r a t i o n with women usi n g the n o n - s e x i s t V o c a t i o n a l Card Sort and the SDS . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 12. (a ) , 87-97. Page 171 Lecompte, C , Dumont, F., & Z i n g l e , H. (1981). Research i n C o u n s e l l i n g - P s y c h o l o g y : Changing emphasis i n a Canadian p e r s p e c t i v e . Canadian C o u n s e l l o r , l l L d ) , 9-20. Loesch, L. C. (1986). Computer-assisted assessment: A r e a c t i o n to Meir and G e i g e r . Measurement and  E v a l u a t i o n i n C o u n s e l l i n g and Development,. 19, 35-37. Long, J . P. (1984). Ad a p t a t i o n of a c a r e e r p l a n n i n g system f o r use with micro-computers. J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l l i n g and Development. £ 2 , 168-171. Maola, J . , & Kane, G. (1976). Comparison of computer based versus c o u n s e l l o r based o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n systems with disadvantaged v o c a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 22 , 163-165. Mar-Brennan, C. (1981). The e f f e c t s of a computer-based c a r e e r guidance system on the development of s e l f - c o n c e p t and c a r e e r m a t u r i t y of community c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 12(1), 88-A. Page 172 Matthews, D., & Walsh, B. (1978). Concurrent v a l i d i t y of Holland's theory of non-college degreed working women. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 12 , 371-379. Maze, M., & Cummings, R. (1982). How to s e l e c t a computer a s s i s t e d c a r e e r guidance system. Richmond, C a l i f o r n i a : EUREKA. McGowan, A. (1977). V o c a t i o n a l m a t u r i t y and a n x i e t y among v o c a t i o n a l l y undecided and i n d e c i s i v e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. JLO., 196-204. McKee Gelesko, B., & C h i a v a r o l i S c h r o e d l , K. (1984). Computer-assisted c a r e e r guidance with hearing-impaired c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l l i n g and Development. 6_1, 162-167. McKinlay, B. (1984). Standards of q u a l i t y i n systems of ca r e e r i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g and  Development. 63., 149-152. Melhus, G., Hershenson, D., & V e r m i l l i o n , M. (1973). Computer a s s i s t e d versus t r a d i t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g with high and low r e a d i n e s s c l i e n t s . J o u r n a l of  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 2 , 137-144. M i c h a l , W. L., & Graumenz, J . C. (1984). An assessment of the accuracy of sel f - a s s e s s m e n t f o r c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 25 , 245-253. Page 173 Minor, F. J . , Meyers, R., & Super, D. (1969). An experimental computer-based e d u c a t i o n a l c a r e e r e x p l o r a t o r y system. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 47., 564-569. Morgan Management Systems (1978). F i n a l r e p o r t on computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n and c a r e e r guidance  system survey; A c o n s u l t a n t ' s study. Washington: United S t a t e s Department of Labor. Mount, M., & Muchinsky, P. (1978a). Person-Environment congruence and employee job s a t i s f a c t i o n : a t e s t of Holland's theory. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 12, 84-100. Mount, M., & Muchinsky, P. (1978b). Concurrent v a l i d a t i o n of Holland's hexagonal model with o c c u p a t i o n a l workers. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 12, 348-354. Muchinsky, P. M. (1983). V o c a t i o n a l behavior & c a r e e r development, 1982: A review. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l  Behavior. 23, 123-178. Myers, R. (1971). Research on e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g . In A. E. B e r g i n and S. L. G a r f i e l d (Eds.) Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s . New York: Wiley. Page 174 Myers, R. A., & C a i r o , P. C. ( E d s . ) . (1983). Computer-assisted c o u n s e l l i n g ( s p e c i a l i s s u e ) . The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t . i i ( 4 ) , 7. Nabors, J . (1981). V o c a t i o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n Holland's t h e o r y of c a r e e r s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas, 1980). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41.(12). N a f z i g e r , D., H olland, J . L., H e l r u s , S., & McPartland, J . (1974). A p p l y i n g an o c c u p a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to the work h i s t o r i e s of young women. J o u r n a l of  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 5_, 331-345. Nelson, R. (1976). A comparison of the e f f e c t s of three group c o u n s e l l i n g techniques on measures of s e l f i n f o r m a t i o n c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n f o r m a t i o n seeking behaviour and group process f a c t o r s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i , 1975). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 36, 6560-A. N i c h o l s e n , J . A. (1975). A comparison of the e f f e c t s of three ca r e e r development group techniques on measures of s e l f - i n f o r m a t i o n and process v a r i a b l e s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i , 1974). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 35. 4659-B. Page 175 Nolan, J . (1974). The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the SDS compared with group c o u n s e l l i n g i n promoting i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g behavior and r e a l i s m of v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Maryland, C o l l e g e Park, 1973). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 25_, 195A. O'Brien, W., & Walsh, B. (1976). Concurrent v a l i d i t y of Holland's theory f o r non-college degreed black working men. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 8_, 239-246. O l i v i e r , L. (1979). Outcome measurement i n c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g  Psychology, 26.(3), 217-226. O' N e i l , J . (1977). Holland's t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n s of c o n s i s t e n c y and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to academic p o t e n t i a l and achievement. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 11, 166-173. O' N e i l , J . , & Magoon, T. (1977). The p r e d i c t i v e powers of Holland's i n v e s t i g a t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y type and c o n s i s t e n c y l e v e l s u s i n g the SDS. J o u r n a l s of  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 10., 39-46. O' N e i l , J . , Magoon, T., & Tracey, J . (1978). Status of Holland's i n v e s t i g a t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y types and t h e i r c o n s i s t e n c y l e v e l s seven years l a t e r . J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 2JL, 530-535. Page 176 O ' N e i l , J . , P r i c e , G., & Tracy, T. (1979). The s t i m u l u s v a l u e , treatment e f f e c t s and sex d i f f e r e n c e s when completing the SDS and SCII. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g  Psychology. 26, 45-50. O'Shea, A., & H a r r i n g t o n , T. (1980). The s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - s c o r e d i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance, 12.( 4), 229-232. Osipow, S. (1976). V o c a t i o n a l behavior and c a r e e r development 1975: A review. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l  Behavior, 9_, 129-145. Osipow, S. (1983). T h e o r i e s of c a r e e r development (3rd e d . ) . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a v o c a t i o n . Boston: Houghton M i f f i n . Payne, M. A., & Sabarouche, H. F. (1985). P e r s o n a l i t y type and o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e : t e s t i n g Holland's theory i n the Caribbean. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l  f o r the Advancement of C o u n s e l l i n g , 8_, 147-156. Pecku, N. (1982). Adapting the c a r e e r m a t u r i t y i n v e n t o r y a t t i t u d e s c a l e f o r measuring career m a t u r i t y of students i n Ghana: A r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y study. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana U n i v e r s i t y , 1982). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 43(4). 1049A. Page 177 Per a i n o , J . , & Willerman, L. (1983). P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s a c c o r d i n g t o Holland types. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 22, 268-277. P i l a t o , G., & Meyers, R. (1973). E f f e c t s of computer-meditated v o c a t i o n a l guidance procedures: Accuracy of self-knowledge. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l  Behavior, 2, 167-194. Pinder, F. A.. & F i t z g e r a l d , P. (1984). The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a computerized guidance system i n promoting c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 21, 123-131. Power, P., Holland, J . L., Daiger, D., & T a k a i , R. (1979). The r e l a t i o n of student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to the i n f l u e n c e of the SDS. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 12(2), 98-107. Pound, A. (1981). C o u n s e l l o r p e r c e p t i o n s of c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g before and a f t e r CHOICES t r a i n i n g . Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. P r e d i g e r , D. (1976a). Do raw sc o r e s deserve a D minus? A r e p l y to H o l l a n d . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance, 2(3), 136-138. Page 178 P r e d i g e r , D. (1976b). The v i a b i l i t y of Holland's c o n s i s t e n c y c o n s t r u c t and raw score assessments of p e r s o n a l i t y . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n of  Guidance, 1 ( 3 ) , 124-131. P r e d i g e r , D. (1981a). A note on S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search v a l i d i t y f o r females. V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 3JL, 117-119. P r e d i g e r , D. (1981b). Mapping occupations and i n t e r e s t s : A g r a p h i c g r i d f o r v o c a t i o n a l guidance and r e s e a r c h . V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 30, 21-36. P r e d i g e r , D. J . (1982). Are raw i n t e r e s t s c o r e s v a l i d and s e x - f a i r ? A r e p l y t o G o t t f r e d s o n . The  V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 31, 13 3-136. P r e d i g e r , D., & Hanson, G. (1976a). Holland's t h e o r y of c a r e e r s a p p l i e d to women and men: A n a l y s i s of i m p l i c i t assumptions. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l  Behavior, 8_, 167-184. P r e d i g e r , D., & Hanson, G. (1976b). A theory of c a r e e r s encounters sex: Reply to Ho l l a n d . J o u r n a l of  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 8_, 350-366. P r i c e , G. (1974). Computerized course e x p l o r a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n : A computer based system with a c o u n s e l l o r based system. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , (1974). D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 35, 3038-A. Page 179 P y l e , K., & S h i p l i n g , R. (1976). The c o u n s e l l o r , the computer and ca r e e r development. V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 25, 71-75. P y l e , K. R. (1984). Career c o u n s e l l i n g and computers: Where i s the c r e a t i v i t y ? J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g and Development, 63, 141-144. Rachman, D., Amernic, J . , & Aranya, N. (1981). A f a c t o r a n a l y t i c study of the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of Holland's SDS. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 41, 425-437. Raphael, K., & Gorman, B. (1986). C o l l e g e women's Holland-Theme congruence: E f f e c t s of self-knowledge and s u b j e c t i v e o c c u p a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 33, 143-147. Rayman, J . , & Harris-Bowlsbey, J . (1977). DISCOVER: A model f o r a s y s t e m a t i c c a r e e r guidance program. V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 24.(3), 123-134. Reardon, R., B o n n e l l , R., & Huddleston, M. (1982). S e l f - d i r e c t e d c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n : A comparison of CHOICES and the SDS. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 2J1, 22-30. Reardon, R., & Kahnweiler, W. (1980). Comparison of p e n c i l and paper and t a c t i l e - b o a r d forms of the SDS. J o u r n a l ; of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 2214), 328-331. Page 180 Redmond, R. (1973). I n c r e a s i n g v o c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s eeking behaviors of high s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Maryland, C o l l e g e Park, (1972). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 3_i, 2311A-2312A. Rhodes, C. (1973). An e v a l u a t i o n of the SDS and the e f f e c t of group or independent use i n f a c i l i t a t i n g c a r e e r development of secondary sc h o o l s t u d e n t s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , West V i r g i n i a U n i v e r s i t y , 19 73). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 34, 1628-A. Roberts, C , & Witherspoon, J . (1978). The L e i c e s t e r s h i r e c a r e e r s a d v i s o r y s e r v i c e computer a i d : CASCAID. J o u r n a l of Occupa t i o n a l Psychology. 51, 69-77. Robinson, C. (1982). A study of C r i t e s Three Dimensional system of d i a g n o s i s . ( D o c t o r a l D i s s t e r a t i o n , V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c I n s t i t u t e and State U n i v e r s i t y , 1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42., 4304-A Rosch, E. (1978). P r i n c i p l e s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . In E. Rosch and B. B. L l o y d (Eds.), C o g n i t i o n and  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n (pp.27-48), H i l l s d a l e , NJ : Erlbaum. Page 181 Rose, R. (1984). The use of c o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n a p p l i c a t i o n s of Holland's theory. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 25. 284-289. Rounds, J . , Davison, M., & Davis R. (1979). The f i t between SCII g e n e r a l o c c u p a t i o n a l themes and Holland's hexagonal model. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 15, 303-315. Salomone, P., & Slaney, R. (1978). The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Holland's theory to n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l workers. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 12, 63-74. Sampson, J . (1983). An i n t e g r a t e d approach to computer a p p l i c a t i o n s i n c o u n s e l l i n g psychology. C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , H ( 4 ) , 65-74. Sampson, J . (1986a). Computer technology and c o u n s e l l i n g psychology: Regression toward the machine? The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 14, 567-583. Sampson, J . P. (1986b). Computer a p p l i c a t i o n s i n t e s t i n g and assessment: An overview. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n C o u n s e l l i n g and Development, 12, 5. Sampson, J . , & P y l e , K. (1983). E t h i c a l i s s u e s i n v o l v e d with the use of computer-assisted c o u n s e l l i n g , t e s t i n g , and guidance systems. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 61, 283-287. Page 182 Sampson, J . , & S t r i p l i n g , R. (1979). S t r a t e g i e s f o r c o u n s e l l o r i n t e r v e n t i o n with a computer-assisted c a r e e r guidance system. V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 22, 230-238. Sankey, G. (1977). Using a computer to a s s i s t i n o c c u p a t i o n a l e x p l o r a t i o n . School Guidance Worker, 12, 5-13. Schaefer, B. (1976). Holland's SDS: i s i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s c o n t i n g e n t upon s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s ? J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 8_, 113-123. S c h e l l e n b e r g , A. K. (1981). F i e l d - t e s t e v a l u a t i o n of CHOICES. Vancouver, B. C.: Occupa t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Counci1. Schenk, G., Murphy, P., & Shelton , R. (1980). Computerized ca r e e r i n f o r m a t i o n systems on the c o l l e g e campus: A l o w - c o s t - d o - i t - y o u r s e l f approach. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l . 58, 516-520. Schwartz, R., Andiappan, P., & Nelson, M. (1986). R e c o n s i d e r i n g the support f o r Holland's congruence-achievement h y p o t h e s i s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 33. 425-428. Seligman, R. (1974). Review of the SDS. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 7.(2), 138-140. r Page 183 Sharf, R. S. (1984). The e f f e c t of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on a Computerized V o c a t i o n a l C o u n s e l l i n g System. The V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y . 33. 130-137. Sheeny, G. (1976). Passages. Toronto: Bantam Books. Sloan, B. (1980). An e v a l u a t i o n of CHOICES. Richmond, B. C.: O c c u p a t i o n a l T r a i n i n g C o u n c i l . Smart, J . (1978). D i s t i n c t i v e c a r e e r o r i e n t a t i o n s of Holland p e r s o n a l i t y t y pes. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 8_, 515-519. Smith, M (1978). Computer-produced v o c a t i o n a l guidance r e p o r t s . J o u r n a l of O c c u p a t i o n a l Psychology, 51, 109-115. Spencer, H. (1979). A comparison of CHOICES and SGIS- a d i r e c t i o n f o r B r i t i s h Columbia. M i n i s t r y of Education, Science and Technology, V i c t o r i a , B C. Spokane, A., & Walsh, B. (1978). O c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l and Holland's t h e o r y f o r employed men and women. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 12, 145-154. S t a h l , L. (1984). Kids and c a r e e r s i n the e i g h t i e s . Canadian V o c a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , 19_(4), 35-38. Stedham, S. (1982). The advantages and disadvantages of CHOICES. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B. C , Vancouver, B. C. Page 184 Sugarman, L. (1986). C o u n s e l l i n g and computers: I n t r o d u c t i o n and overview. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Guidance and Counselling,. 14, 1-11. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of c a r e e r s . New York: Harper and Row. Super, D. E. (Ed.) (1970). Computer-assisted c o u n s e l l i n g . New York: Teachers' C o l l e g e Press, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y . Super, D. E. (1978). From i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l through matching to c o u n s e l l i n g and to career development: Some lessons from the U.S.A. J o u r n a l of Occ u p a t i o n a l Psychology, 51. 19-28. Super, D. E., & H a l l , D. T. (1978). Career development: E x p l o r a t i o n and p l a n n i n g . In M. R. Rosenzwerg & L. W. P o r t e r (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology. Palo A l t o : Annual Reviews. T a k a i , R. T., & Holland, J . L. (1979). Comparison of the V o c a t i o n a l Card S o r t , the SDS and the V o c a t i o n a l E x p l o r a t i o n and I n s i g h t K i t . V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 27, 312-319. T a l b o t , D., & B i r k , J . (1979). Does the V o c a t i o n a l E x p l o r a t i o n and I n s i g h t K i t equal the sum of i t s p a r t s ? : A comparison study. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 26(4), 359-362. Page 185 T a y l o r , L. (1978). The K e l s t e r t o n C o l l e g e computer-aided c a r e e r and v o c a t i o n a l guidance system. J o u r n a l of  Oc c u p a t i o n a l Psychology,. 51, 79-8 3. Tiedeman, D. V. (1983). F l e x i b l e f i l i n g , computers and growing. The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 11(4), 33-47. T i n s l e y , H., & Heesacker, M. (1984). V o c a t i o n a l behavior and car e e r development, 1983: A review. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 25, 139-140 . T i t t l e , C. K., & Zytowski, D. (Eds.) (1978). S e x - f a i r i n t e r e s t measurement: Research and i m p l i c a t i o n . Washington, D. C : N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n . T o l b e r t , E. L. (1980). C o u n s e l l i n g i n car e e r development. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company. T y l e r , L. (1969). The work of the c o u n s e l l o r New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , Inc. Turgeon, P. (1979). Some v o c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g underpinnings w i t h i n the CHOICES system. Canadian C o u n s e l l o r . 12, 157-162. Utz, P., & Hartman, B. (1978). An a n a l y s i s of the d i s c r i m i n a t o r y power of Holland's types f o r business majors i n three c o n c e n t r a t i o n a r e a s . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Guidance. 11, 175-182. Page 186 v a n z o o s t , j . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The v a l u e Q£ CHOICES to g r a d e twelve s t u d e n t s who have a l r e a d y made a c a r e e r d e c i s i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r ' s t h e s i s . A c a d i a U n i v e r s i t y , W o l f v i l l e , N. S . V a r c a , P. E . , & S h a f f e r , G . S . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . H o l l a n d ' s t h e o r y : S t a b i l i t y of a v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r . 2 1 , 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 . V i l l w o c k , J . , S c h n i t z e n , J . , & C a r b o n a i r , J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . H o l l a n d ' s p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t s as p r e d i c t o r s of s t a b i l i t y of c h o i c e . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r . 9_, 7 7 - 8 5 . Wagman, M ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Use of computer i n e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l g u i d a n c e . The d i lemna and the computer . New York : Prager P u b l i s h e r s . W a l l i s , D. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Some p r e s s i n g problems f o r r e s e a r c h i n v o c a t i o n a l g u i d a n c e . J o u r n a l of O c c u p a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5 1 . 7 - 1 8 . Walsh , W. B. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . V o c a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r and c a r e e r development 1978: A r e v i e w . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r . 1 5 , 1 1 9 - 1 5 4 . Walsh , B . , H i l d e b r a n d , J . , Ward, C , & Mathews, D . , ( 1 9 8 3 ) . H o l l a n d ' s t h e o r y and n o n - c o l l e g e - d e g r e e d working b l a c k and white women. J o u r n a l of v o c a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r . 2 2 , 1 8 2 - 1 9 0 . Page 187 Walsh, W. B., Bingham, R., Horton, J . , & Spokane, A. (1979). Holland's t h e o r y and c o l l e g e - d e g r e e d working black and white women. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 15, 217-223. Walz, G., & Bleuer, J . (1985). P u t t i n g the byte i n t o c a r e e r development. J o u r n a l of Career Development, i i , 187-198. Ward, C , & Walsh, B. (1981). Concurrent v a l i d i t y of Holland's theory f o r non-college-degreed black women. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 18, 356-361. Warren, G., Winer, J . , & D a i l e y , K. (1981). Extending Holland's theory to the l a t e r y e a r s . J o u r n a l of  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 18., 104-114. Watts, A. G. (1978). Using computers i n c a r e e r s guidance i n s c h o o l s . J o u r n a l of Occ u p a t i o n a l Psychology, 51, 29-40. Watts, A., & B a l l a n t i n e , M. (1983). Computers i n caree r guidance: the B r i t i s h experience. The  C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 11(4), 49-59. West, L. (1981). A l b e r t a CHOICES e v a l u a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l g a r y (Unpublished manuscript). Wiggington, J . H. (1983). The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Holland's t y p o l o g y to c l i e n t s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 23, 286-293. Page 188 Williamson, E., & Bordin, F. S. (1941). The e v a l u a t i o n of v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g : A c r i t i q u e of methodology and experiments. E d u c a t i o n a l and  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurements, J_, 5-24. Wilson, D. (1979). Want to know what car e e r may be r i g h t f o r you? J u s t ask CHOICES. Onta r i o E d u c a t i o n , 11(5) 10-12. Winer, J . C , Wilson, D. 0., & P i e r c e , R. A. (1983). Using the S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search - form E with high s c h o o l remedial r e a d i n g s t u d e n t s . The V o c a t i o n a l  Guidance Q u a r t e r l y . 32., 130-135. Wooler, S., & Wisudhua, A. (1985). An e d u c a t i o n a l approach to d e s i g n i n g computer-based c a r e e r guidance systems. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l technology, 1£, 135-144. Woolsey, L. K (1986). The c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique: An i n n o v a t i v e q u a l i t a t i v e method of r e s e a r c h . Canadian J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g , 20, 242-253. Worthen, B., & Sanders, J . (1973). E d u c a t i o n a l  e v a l u a t i o n : Theory and p r a c t i c e . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadworth P u b l i s h i n g Company. Wright, A. (1981). B r i t i s h Columbia has a c h o i c e :  D i s c u s s i o n paper. V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia: M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . Page 189 Zener, T. B., & Sc h n u e l l e , L. (1976). E f f e c t s of the SDS on high s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 23, 353-359. Zytowski, D. (1978). V o c a t i o n a l behavior and c a r e e r development, 1977: A review. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 13, 141-163. Zytowski, D. (1986). Comparison of Roe's and Holland's o c c u p a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : Diverse ways of k n o w i n g . j o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 22, 479-481. Appendix A Page 190 COMPUTER-BASED GUIDANCE SYSTEMS 1. Computer-Assisted Career E x p l o r a t i o n System (CACE). 2. E d u c a t i o n a l and Career E x p l o r a t i o n System (ECES) 3. Computerized V o c a t i o n a l Information System (CVIS) 4. Oregon Career Information System (CIS) 5. System of I n t e r a c t i v e Guidance and Information (SIGI) 6. Information System f o r V o c a t i o n a l D e c i s i o n (ISVD) 7. Guidance Information System ((GIS) 8. Computer-Based Career Development System (DISCOVER) 9. Computer-Assisted Career Guidance Program (CVIS technology) 10. Wisconsin O c c u p a t i o n a l Information System (WOIS) 11. Michigan O c c u p a t i o n a l Information System (MOIS) 12. Student Guidance Information S e r v i c e s (SGIS) 13. Computerized Career Information System (CCIS) 14. E d u c a t i o n and Career E x p l o r a t i o n systems (ECES 111) 15. Alabama O c c u p a t i o n a l Information System (AOIS) 16. Oregon O c c u p a t i o n a l Information A c c e s s i n g System (OIAS) 17. V o c a t i o n a l Information through Computer Systems (VICS) Page 191 18. V o c a t i o n a l Information S e r v i c e f o r A l b e r t a (VISA) 19. Computer A s s i s t e d Career C o u n s e l l i n g System (CAGCS) 20. Automated C l i e n t Information System (ACIS) (Guerette, 1980; J a r v i s , 1976) Page 192 Appendix B ROUTES TO INFORMATION 1. INTEREST: People who work i n the same occupation often, share b a s i c a l l y the same types of i n t e r e s t . T h i s route makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r c l i e n t s to compare t h e i r i n t e r e s t s to those t y p i c a l of workers i n each o c c u p a t i o n . 2. APTITUDES: Each occupation r e q u i r e s a unique s e t of a b i l i t i e s of a p t i t u d e s . Using t h i s r o u te, c l i e n t s compare s e v e r a l of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s with those t y p i c a l of each CHOICES oc c u p a t i o n . 3. TEMPERAMENTS: The temperament f a c t o r s used i n CHOICES are r e a l l y d e s c r i p t i o n s of widely d i f f e r e n t types of work s i t u a t i o n s . By using t h i s r o u t e , c l i e n t s can see how t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s s u i t them f o r v a r i o u s occupations. 4. EDUCATION LEVEL: T h i s route p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n about the minimum a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l of formal e d u c a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r entrance i n t o an oc c u p a t i o n . 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: Many occupations r e q u i r e people to work under p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s t h a t some people would c o n s i d e r unpleasant. T h i s route a l l o w s c l i e n t s to i d e n t i f y occupations t h a t s u i t t h e i r Page 193 needs i n t h i s r e s p e c t . 6. FUTURE OUTLOOK: The requirement f o r workers i n some occupations i s d e c l i n i n g while others there i s a p r e s s i n g need. C l i e n t s use t h i s route to d i s c o v e r the supply/demand s i t u a t i o n s i n any of the CHOICES occupa t i o n s . 7. EARNINGS: For some people, the amount of money they expect to earn i s an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h i s route allows c l i e n t s to d i s c o v e r the average y e a r l y earnings i n each CHOICES oc c u p a t i o n . 8. HOURS OF WORK/TRAVEL: C l i e n t s use t h i s route to determine the work schedule c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an occupation. 9. PHYSICAL NEEDS: The l e v e l s of p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n vary g r e a t l y among oc c u p a t i o n s . T h i s route a l l o w s c l i e n t s to i d e n t i f y how much s t r e n g t h they are prepared to use i n an oc c u p a t i o n . 10. PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES: Some people are e i t h e r u n w i l l i n g or unable to perform some types of p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . Through t h i s r o u te, c l i e n t s are provided with i n f o r m a t i o n about those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t form a r e g u l a r p a r t of the work. 11. INDOOR/OUTDOOR CONSIDERATIONS: T h i s route enables c l i e n t s to see how occupations s a t i s f y t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r working i n s i d e , o u t s i d e or both. Page 194 OCCUPATIONAL FIELDS: A l l the occupations i n CHOICES have been grouped i n 22 g e n e r a l o c c u p a t i o n a l f i e l d s . I f c l i e n t s have c l e a r ideas about the f i e l d s f o r which they are best (or l e a s t ) s u i t e d , t h i s route should be u s e f u l . Page 195 Appendix C ROUTES A. TOPICS ALL FOUR ROUTES HAVE (Explore, s p e c i f i c , compare, r e l a t e d ) 1. I n t e r e s t s 5. Future outlook 2. Ap t i t u d e s 6. Earnings 3. Temperaments 7. P h y s i c a l demands 4 . Educati o n l e v e l 8. I n s i d e / o u t s i d e B. TOPICS FOR EXPLORE, SPECIFIC, COMPARE 9. Environmental 10. Hours of work/ c o n d i t i o n s t r a v e l 11. P h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s C. TOPICS FOR SPECIFIC AND COMPARE 12. T r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d 13. Summary of work 14. S i m i l a r occupations TOPICS FOR EXPLORE 12. Occupational f i e l d s TOPICS FOR RELATED 9. Occupa t i o n a l f i e l d s Appendix D Page 197 CONSENT FORM Th i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was designed by Dr. L a r r y Cochran and Chuck Provost from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia to f i n d out more s p e c i f i c a l l y how CHOICES and the S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search help i n career p l a n n i n g . The r e s u l t s might be used by c o u n s e l l o r s to prepare students more to take advantage of b e n e f i t s and to safeguard a g a i n s t d e t r i m e n t s . In t h i s study, you w i l l be asked how your involvement i n CHOICES or i n The S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search b e n e f i t t e d you i n your c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . You may withdraw from the study a t any time without p r e j u d i c e . You may a l s o r e f u s e to answer any q u e s t i o n . The i n t e r v i e w w i l l be tape recorded unless you p r e f e r otherwise. The tape w i l l a l l o w us to study your comments and to e x t r a c t a summary of the experiences you d e s c r i b e . When e x t r a c t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n have been made, the tape w i l l be e r a s e d . A l l i n f o r m a t i o n you provide w i l l be t r e a t e d with c o n f i d e n c e and w i l l be used anonymously f o r r e s e a r c h purposes. Refusing w i l l , i n no way, j e o p a r d i z e your s c h o o l s t a n d i n g or access to sc h o o l c o u n s e l l i n g s e r v i c e s . F i n a l r e s u l t s of t h i s study w i l l be made Page 198 a v a i l a b l e to the c o u n s e l l o r s a t McNair to enable them to b e n e f i t from the study. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . Please s i g n below and check the a p p r o p r i a t e l i n e . Thank you. I consent I do not consent (parent's s i g n a t u r e ) (student's s i g n a t u r e ) Appendix E Page 199 CATEGORIES CHOICES ( F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s ) 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 2. Expands g e n e r a l job op t i o n s 3. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 4. Narrows focus 5. S t i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s 6. Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s 7. Judges f u t u r e of jobs 8. Pr o v i d e s r e f e r e n c e s f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g 9. C l a r i f i e s i n t e r e s t s 10. C l a r i f i e s c a p a b i l i t i e s and a p t i t u d e s 11. Matches i n t e r e s t s to jobs 12. C o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e 13. D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e Page 200 CHOICES (Hi n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s ) 1. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n 2. F a i l s to c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e 3. Us e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n 4. U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l Information 5. P u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job options 6. Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs 7. Needed more options 8. Rushed on t e r m i n a l 9. Machine m a l f u n c t i o n Page 201 SDS ( F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s ) 1. Considers E d u c a t i o n a l requirements 2. Expands job options 3. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 4. Narrows focus 5. Guides i n f o r m a t i o n search 6. Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s or d i s l i k e s 7. Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s 8. S t i m u l a t e s d e l i b e r a t i o n 9. Understands o n e s e l f over time 10. F i n d out where to improve 11. Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 12. Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs 13. Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 14. Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e Page 202 SDS (Hindering c a t e g o r i e s ) 1. Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 2. M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s 3. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items 4. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t i m a t e s 5. F a l l s to provide a s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n 6 . Need expansion of op t i o n s 7. No new i n f o r m a t i o n Page 203 Appendix F TYPES OF CATEGORIES EACH STUDENT EXPRESSED - CHOICES Student Sex -Grade- Age F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s 1 M - 12 - 17 2-2-3-5-6- -13 2 F - 12 - 17 3-5-6- 9 3 F - 12 - 17 4- 7- *9_-10-12 4 F - 12 - 17 1-2 5-7-8- 12 5 F - 11 - 16 -2 5-7-8 6 F - 11 - 18 1-1-3-3-4-5-5-6-7-7-7-9 7 F - 12 - 17 1- 6-7- 12- * i l 8 F - 12 - 16 2-2- 5-5-7 11 9 F - 12 - 17 3-4- 8-9 10 F - 12 - 17 2- 5-5- *2-8-9-12-13 11 F - 11 - 16 1-2-3 8-9-9-12-12 12 F - 12 - 17 3-4-4 13 F - 11 - 16 1 - 5 - 8 14 F - 11 - 16 1-1-1-1 -6 15 F - 12 - 17 2-2-3-4-5-6-8-9 16 F - 11 - 16 3-5-5-9-9-13-13 17 F - 12 - 17 2-2-3- 7-8 18 F - 11 - 16 2 5-5-5-6-8-10- *H-11-19 M - 12 - 17 1-1-1-3-3-3-5-6-7-8-11-20 F - 12 - 17 1-1-1-2- *5_-5-5- 12 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page 204 F — 11 — 16 1-2-3-3-4-5- *£-7-7- *U1-F - 11 - 17 * l - 2 -5-6-8- 13 F - 12 - 17 3-4-5-5-6-8 F - 12 - 17 1-3-6 -12 F - 12 - 17 1-3-3-5- *8_-9 F - 12 - 17 1_3_ * £ _ 5 _ 6 _ 7 _ 1 2 M - 11 - 16 1-1- *3_-3-5-5-5-7 F - 11 - 16 2-4-4-5 -8 -12 F - 11 - 16 4-5-6 -9 F - 11 - 16 2-2-4 7-8-9-9-10-10 F - 12 - 17 2 5-5-6 F - 12 - 19 1- *2 -4-5-7 F - 11 - 16 2-3 M - 11 - 16 2-2- 4- 6 F 11 16 1-2- 4- 6 Sex-Grade-Age H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s ** Other** M - 12 - 17 4-5-6 2-4 F - 12 - 17 *8_ 2 F - 12 - 17 5-7 3-4 F - 12 - 17 2- 6- * 1 4 F - 11 - 16 6- *9 F - 11 - 18 8 Page 205 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 F F F F F F F F F F F F M F F F F F F F M F F F F 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 12 17 16 17 17 16 17 16 16 17 16 17 16 17 17 16 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 17 *1 7 2-4- 6-6 1- 2 2- 3 1-2-2-6-7 *2_ 4 2-6 2-5 7 1-1 5--6-2-2-3-4 1-1- 1- *2 *6_ 2- 4 1- 1-2-2 2- 2 8 5 -8 1-2 1- *1 4-5 5 2 1-5-6 4-4-5 1 -7 6 4- *5_ 1-1 -6 4 1-1-2 2 1- 6-7 1-3-3 1-4-5 1-1-1-1 4 Page 206 32 F - 12 - 19 1- *5. *8_ 33 F - 11 - 16 3- 6 34 M - 11 - 16 * i -4 8 35 F - 11 - 16 2 1-3-3 * Prototype ** See Appendix E f o r the c a t e g o r i e s Page 207 Appendix G TYPE OF STUDENT WHO PARTICIPATED IN EACH CATEGORY (CHOICES) C a t e g p r y ft Qf i n c i d e n t s # of students 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 24 16 (46%) 2. Expands ge n e r a l job o p tions 25 19 (54%) 3. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 23 17 (49%) 4. Narrows focus 16 14 (43%) 5. S t i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s 35 24 (69%) 6. Answers s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s 17 17 (49%) 7. Judges f u t u r e of jobs 16 14 (43%) 8. Pro v i d e s r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g 16 16 (46%) 9. C l a r i f i e s i n t e r e s t 14 11 (31%) 10. C l a r i f i e s c a p a b i l i t i e s Page 208 and a p t i t u d e s 6 4 (11%) 11. Matches i n t e r e s t s and a p t i t u d e s to jobs 7 5 (14%) 12. C o n f i r m a t i o n of ch o i c e 13 11 (31%) 13. D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of ch o i c e 6 6 (17%) Category Sex-Grade-Aae # of More than Students 1 i n c i d e n t Considers F — 11 - 16 5 #14 had 4 e d u c a t i o n a l F - 11 - 17 1 requirements F - 11 - 18 1 #6 had 2 F - 12 - 17 6 #20 had 3 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 1 #27 had 2 M - 12 - 17 1 Expands ge n e r a l F - 11 - 16 8 #30 had 2 job o p t i o n s F - 11 - 17 1 F - 12 - 16 1 # 8 had 2 F 12 - 17 6 #15, #17 had 2 F - 12 - 19 1 M 11 - 16 1 #34 had 2 Page 209 M - 12 - 17 1 #1 had 2 3. Expands job F - 11 - 16 4 #21 had 2 o p t i o n s i n a F - 11 - 18 1 #6 had 2 s p e c i f i c f i e l d F - 12 - 17 9 #25 had 2 M - 11 - 16 1 #27 had 2 M 12 -• 17 2 #19 had 3 4. Narrows focus F - 11 - 16 6 #28 had 2 F - 11 - 18 1 F - 12 - 17 6 #12 had 2 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 1 5. S t i m u l a t e s F - 11 - 16 8 #18 had 3 c o n s i d e r a t i o n of #16 had 2 e x t r i n s i c work F - 11 - 17 1 f e a t u r e s F - 11 - 18 1 #6 had 2 F - 12 - 16 1 #8 had 2 F 12 - 17 9 #20 had 3 #10, #31, #23 had 2 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 1 #27 had 3 M - 12-- 17 2 6. Answers s p e c i f i c F - 11 - 16 5 qu e s t i o n s F - 11 - 17 1 F — 11 - 18 1 Page 210 F — 12 — 17 7 M - 11 - 16 1 M - 12 - 17 2 7. Judges f u t u r e of F - 11 - 16 3 #21 had 2 jobs F - 11 - 18 1 #6 had 2 F - 12 - 16 1 F - 12 - 17 6 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 1 M - 17 - 17 1 8. Pr o v i d e s F - 11 - 16 6 r e f e r e n c e f o r F - 11 - 17 1 f u t u r e p l a n n i n g F - 11 - 18 1 F - 12 - 17 7 M - 12 - 17 1 9. C l a r i f i e s F - 11 - 16 4 #11, #16 i n t e r e s t #30 had 2 F - 11 - 18 1 F - 12 - 17 6 1 0 . C l a r i f i e s F - 11 - 16 3 #30 had 2 c a p a b i l i t i e s F - 12 - 17 1 and a p t i t u d e s 11.Matches i n t e r e s t s F - 11 - 16 2 #18 had 3 and a p t i t u d e s F - 12 - 16 1 to jobs F - 12 - 17 1 Page 211 12. C o n f i r m a t i o n of ch o i c e 13. D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e CHOICES H i n d e r i n g C a t e g o r y M - 12 - 17 1 F - 11 - 16 4 F - 12 - 17 6 M - 12 - 17 1 F - 11 - 16 1 F - 11 - 17 1 F - 12 - 17 2 M - 12 - 17 1 # of i n c i d e n t s 1. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n 11 2. Use l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n 17 3. U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 3 4. F a i l s to c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i ce 7 5. P u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job o p t i o n s 6 6. Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs 9 7. Needs more op t i o n s 6 #11 had 2 #10 had 2 #16 had 2 # of students 8 (23%) 13 (37%) 3 ( 9%) 6 (17%) 6 (17%) 8 (23%) 6 (17%) Page 212 8. Rushed on t e r m i n a l 4 4 (11%) 9. Machine m a l f u n c t i o n 1 1 ( 3%) CHOICES Hi n d e r i n g Category Sex-Grade-Age # of More than students l i n c i d e n t 1. Lack of F - 11 - 16 1 i n f o r m a t i o n F - 12 - 16 1 F - 12 - 17 4 #20, #21 had 2 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 1 #27 had 2 2. Useless F - 11 - 16 7 #13, #28 i n f o r m a t i o n had 2 F - 11 - 17 1 #22 had 2 F - 12 - 17 4 M - 11 - 16 1 #27 had 2 3. U n r e l i a b l e F - 11 - 16 1 o c c u p a t i o n a l F - 11 - 17 1 i n f o r m a t i o n F - 12 - 17 1 4. F a i l s to c o n f i r m F - 11 - 17 1 a p r i o r c h o ice F - 12 - 17 3 M - 11 - 16 1 #34 had 2 M - 12 - 17 1 5. P u z z l i n g and F - 11 - 16 3 Page 213 inappropr i a t e F - 12 - 17 1 job o p t i o n s F - 12 - 19 1 M - 12 - 17 1 6. Questionable F - 11 - 16 2 b a s i s f o r F - 12 - 17 5 narrowing jobs M - 12 - 17 1 7. Needs more F - 11 - 16 2 opt i o n s F - 12 - 16 1 F - 12 - 17 2 M - 12 - 17 1 8. Rushed on F - 11 - 16 1 t e r m i n a l F - 11 - 18 1 F - 11 - 17 1 F - 12 - 17 1 9. Machine F - 11 - 16 1 #9 had 2 m a l f u n c t i o n Page 214 Appendix H TYPES OF CATEGORIES EACH STUDENT EXPRESSED - SDS Student sex-•Grade -Age F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s ** 36 M - 12 - 19 2-2 37 M - 12 - 17 2- 6-7-7-8- *9_-14 38 F - 11 - 17 1-2-3-4-7-9-14 39 M - 11 - 16 2- 7- 14-14 40 F - 11 - 16 2-2-4-7-9- * 10-14- *!_4 41 F - 11 -17 1-2-2-2-6-6- *7.-13-14 42 M - 11 - 16 1-2- 6-7-8-11 43 F - 11 - 16 2-3-3-4-4-4-*6_-6-7-8-10-ll -12 44 M - 12 - 18 45 M - 11 - 16 *3-6-6-6-8- *11-11-11-12 46 M - 12 - 19 -6-8-11-11 47 F - 12 - 17 *l-2-2-2-2-2-2- *2_- *2r* *4_ *5__6-7-8-8- * 8 - 1 0 - l l 11-14 48 F - 11 - 16 *2-2-2-2-4-4-6-7-9-10-13 49 F - 11 - 17 1-2-2- *4.-4-6-6-7-12-12-12-14 50 F - 12 - 19 1-2-3-4-4-8-11-11-13 51 F - 12 -17 2-2-4-11-12-12-12-12-14 Page 215 52 M - 11 - 17 2-2-6-10-11-11- *12.-12-12 53 M - 11 - 17 2-2-4-4-4-6-7-11-14-14 54 F - 12 - 17 1-2-2-4-4-6-6-6- * 10.-10-12 -12-14-14-14 55 F - 11 - 16 1-1-2-2-7- * l i - l l 56 M - 11 - 16 1- *2-2-4-4-4-4-7-U 57 M - 12 - 17 1-3-3- *7-8-10- *13_ 58 F - 12 - 17 1-2-2-4- *4_-6-7-8-12-12-12 59 F - 11 - 17 1-2-6-9-10-60 M - 11 - 16 2-2-3-6-7-11 61 F - 11 - 17 2- *4-4-4-7-7-8-9-10-10-10 -11-12-12 62 F - 11 - 16 4_4_4_ 6_7_7_7_ 8-i2 63 M - 11 - 16 3-3-4-7-9-10-12 64 F - 12 - 19 2 -11-13 65 F - 11 - 15 1-2-3-4-4-4-7-7-8-11-11 66 F - 12 - 18 2-4-4-14 67 M - 11 - 16 1-2-2-4-7-7-9-10-10 -13-13-13 68 F - 11 - 16 2-4-6-7-7-11-12- *!A 69 F - 11 - 15 2-2-2-2-4-4-6-11-11 70 F - 11 _ 16 2-2-4-6-6-7-7-10-14 * Prototype ** See Appendix E f o r c a t e g o r i e s Page 216 Student Sex. -Grade-Aae Hi n d e r i n g C a t e g o r i e s ** Other 36 M - 12 - 19 3-4 3-6 37 M - 12 - 17 1- 5-5-5- *3 38 F - 11 - 17 7- *2 39 M - 11 - 16 5-6 1 40 F - 11 - 16 *l-2-2-4-5-5-6 *l-3-4 -5 41 F - 11 -17 4 1-3-5 42 M - 11 - 16 3-6 43 F - 11 - 16 5-6 44 M - 12 - 18 5-5-6-6-7 9-45 M - 11 - 16 *2_ -4-6- *6_ 46 M - 12 - 19 2-4-4-4-6-6-47 F - 12 - 17 1- 4-5-48 F - 11 - 16 *5_-5-5-5-5 2-49 F - 11 - 17 2-2-4-5-5-6-6-50 F - 12 - 19 2- 4-5-6- 2-51 F - 12 -17 2-3-6-52 M - 11 - 17 4-4 53 M - 11 - 17 4-4-6-7 54 F - 12 - 17 6- 1-1-3-55 F - 11 - 16 3-3-3-6- 2-56 M - 11 - 16 1- 5- 2-57 M - 12 - 17 3-58 F - 12 - 17 5- 2-3-6 Page 217 59 F - 11 -• 17 *1 1- * ! 60 M - 11 - 16 *4_4-4-4-4-6 4 61 F - 11 -• 17 1-3-6-6-62 F - 11 -• 16 2-5- 3-63 M - 11 -• 16 2-64 F - 12 -• 19 1- 2-3 65 F - 11 -- 15 3-66 F - 12 -- 18 6- 3-3-*2 67 M - 11 -- 16 2-3-3 68 F - 11 -- 16 1-1 4-4- 1-3-5 -*6_ 69 F - 11 -- 15 2- *2-3- 1-70 F - 11 -- 16 2-2-4-4-4-5- 1-* Prototype ** See Appendix E f o r c a t e g o r i e s Page 218 Appendix I TYPE OF STUDENT WHO PARTICIPATED IN EACH CATEGORY (SDS) Category # of i n c i d e n t s # of students 1. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 15 2. Expands g e n e r a l job o p t i o n s 57 3. Expands job opt i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 11 4. Narrows focus 42 5. Guides i n f o r m a t i o n search 2 6. Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s and d i s l i k e s 28 7. Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s 31 8. S t i m u l a t e s d e l i b e r a t i o n 14 9. Understanding o n e s e l f over time 8 14 (40%) 29 (83%) 8 (23%) 21 (60%) 2 ( 6%) 19 (54%) 23 (66%) 12 (34%) 8 (23%) 10. F i n d out where to improve 11. Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 12. Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs 13. Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 14. Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e Page 219 17 12 (34%) 25 17 (49%) 22 11 (31%) 8 6 (17%) 18 13 (37%) C a t e g o r y Sex-Grade-Age # of More than Students 1 i n c i d e n t #45 had 2 Cons i d e r s F -- 11- 15 1 e d u c a t i o n a l F -- 11 - 16 1 requirements F -- 11 -17 4 F -- 12 - 17 3 F -- 12 - 19 1 F -- 11 - 16 3 M -- 12 - 17 1 Page 220 2. Expands ge n e r a l F - 11 - 15 2 #69 had 4 job options F - 11 - 16 6 #48 had 4 #40, #55, #70 had 2 F - 11 - 17 5 #41 had 3, #49 had 2 F - 12 - 17 4 #47 had 8. #51, #54, #58 had 2 F - 12 - 18 1 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 5 #56, #60, #67 had 2 M - 11 - 17 2 #52, #53 had 2 M - 12 - 17 1 M - 12 - 19 1 #36 had 2 3. Expands job F - 11 - 15 1 options F - 11 - 16 1 #43 had 2 i n a s p e c i f i c F - 11 - 17 1 f i e l d F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 3 #63 had 2 M - 12 - 17 1 #57 had 2 4. Narrows focus F - 11 - 15 2 #65 had 3; #69 had 2 Page 221 F - 11 - 16 6 #43, #62 had 3 #48 had 2 F - 11 - 17 3 #61 had 3 #49 had 2 F - 12 - 17 4 #47, #54, #58 had 2 F - 12 - 18 1 #66 had 2 F - 12 - 19 1 #50 had 2 M - 11 - 16 3 #56 had 4 M - 11 - 17 1 #53 had 3 Guides F - 12 - 17 1 i n f o r m a t i o n M - 11 - 16 1 search Confirms or F - 11 - 15 1 c l a r i f i e s F - 11 - 16 5 #43, #70 l i k e s and had 2 d i s l i k e s F - 11 - 17 3 #41 had 3 #49 had 2 F - 12 - 17 3 #54 had 3 M - 11 - 16 2 #45 had 3 M - 11 - 17 3 M - 12 - 17 1 M - 12 - 19 1 Page 222 Confirms or F - 11 - 15 1 d i s c o v e r s F - 11 - 16 7 #62 had 3; c a p a b i l i t i e s or #68, #70 i n c a p a b i l i t i e s had 2 d e l i b e r a t i o n F - 11 - 17 4 #61 had 2 F - 12 - 17 2 M - 11 - 16 6 #67 had 2 M - 11 - 17 1 M - 12 - 17 2 #37 had 2 Understanding F - 11 - 16 2 o n e s e l f F - 11 - 17 3 over time M - 11 - 16 2 M - 12 - 17 1 F i n d out where F - 11 - 16 4 to improve F - 11 - 17 2 #61 had 3; #59 had 2 F - 12 - 17 2 #54 had 2 M - 11 - 16 2 #67 had 2 M - 11 - 17 1 M - 12 - 17 1 Matches F - 11 - 15 2 #65 had 2 c a p a b i l i t i e s F - 11 - 16 3 #55 had 2 to jobs F - 11 - 17 1 F - 12 - 17 2 #47 had 2 F - 12 - 19 2 #50 had 2 Page 223 M - 11 — 16 3 #45 had 3 M - 11 - 17 3 #52 had 2 M - 12 - 19 1 #46 had 2 Matches F - 11 - 16 3 i n t e r e s t to F - 11 - 17 2 #49 had 3, jobs #61 had 2 F - 12 - 17 3 #51 had 4 #58 had 3 #54 had 2 M - 11 - 16 2 M - 11 - 17 1 #52 had 3 Matches F - 11 - 16 1 i n t e r e s t and F - 11 - 17 1 capabi1 i t i e s F - 12 - 19 2 to jobs M - 11 - 16 1 #67 had 3 M - 12 - 17 1 Confirms or F - 11 - 16 3 #40 had 2 j u s t i f i e s F - 11 - 17 3 choice F - 12 - 17 3 #54 had 3 F - 12 - 18 1 M - 11 - 16 1 #39 had 2 M - 11 - 17 1 #53 had 2 M - 12 _ 17 1 SDS HINDERING Category Page 224 # of i n c i d e n t s # of students 1. Lack of m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n 2. M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s 3. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items 4. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t i m a t e s 5. F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n 6. Need expansion of options i n f i n d e r 7. No new i n f o r m a t i o n 9 8 (23%) 13 10 (29%) 9 9 (17%) 24 13 (37%) 21 12 (34%) 20 15 (43%) 4 3 ( 8 % ) Category Sex-Grade-Age # of More than Students 1 I n c i d e n t 1. Lack of F - 11 -- 16 2 #68 had 2 mi s l e a d i n g F - 11 -- 17 2 in f o r m a t i o n F - 12 -- 17 1 F - 12 -- 19 1 Page 225 M - 11 - 16 1 M - 12 - 17 1 M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of F - 11 - 15 1 i n t e r e s t s F - 11 - 16 3 #40, #70 had 2 3. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items s e l f - e s t i m a t e s F - 11 — 17 1 #49 had 2 F - 12 - 17 1 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 2 M - 12 - 19 1 F - 11 - 15 1 #69 had 2 F - 11 - 16 1 #55 had 3 F - 12 - 17 2 M - 11 - 16 1 M - 12 - 19 1 F - 11 - 16 3 #70 had 3; #68 had 2 F - 11 - 17 2 F - 12 - 17 1 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 2 #60 had 5 M - 11 - 17 2 #52, #53 had 2 M - 12 _ 19 2 #46 had 3 Page 226 F a i l s to provide F - 11 - 16 4 #48 had 5; s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n #40 had 2 Need expansion of o p t i o n s i n f i n d e r No new i n f o r m a t i o n F - 11 - 17 1 #49 had 2 F - 12 - 17 2 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 2 M - 12 - 17 1 #37 had 3 M - 12 - 18 1 #44 had 2 F - 11 - 16 2 F - 11 - 17 2 #49, #61 had 2 F - 12 - 17 2 F - 12 - 18 1 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 3 #45 had 2 M - 11 - 17 2 M - 12 - 18 2 #44 had 2 M - 12 - 19 1 #46 had 2 F - 11 - 17 1 #38 had 2 M - 11 - 17 1 M - 12 - 18 1 Page 227 Appendix J TYPE OF STUDENT WHO PARTICIPATED IN EACH CATEGORY (OTHER) Category tt of i n c i d e n t s # of students 1. More r e a l i s t i c 25 20 (29%) o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 2. R e a l i t y t e s t i n g 14 14 (20%) 3. S t a r t p l a n n i n g sooner 21 17 (24%) and a l s o l a t e r 4. Job hunting s k i l l s 13 12 (17%) 5. More i n f o r m a t i o n on 13 13 (19%) e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s 6. Nothing e l s e . I t ' s a 9 9 (13%) pe r s o n a l d e c i s i o n 7. More t e s t s to measure 3 3 ( 4%) i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s 8. Teacher involvement 2 2 ( 3 % ) Category Sex-Grade-Age # of More than Students 1 i n c i d e n t 1. More r e a l i s t i c F - 11 - 15 1 o c c u p a t i o n a l F - 11 - 16 11 #30 had 3 i n f o r m a t i o n F - 11 - 17 2 #21 had 2 Page 228 F 12 17 5 #23, had #54 2 M - 11 - 16 1 R e a l i t y t e s t i n g F - 11 - 16 2 F - 12 - 16 1 F - 12 - 17 6 F - 12 - 19 2 M - 11 - 16 2 M - 12 - 17 1 S t a r t p l a n n i n g F - 11 - 15 1 sooner and a l s o F - 11 - 16 5 #35 had 2 l a t e r F - 11 - 17 1 F - 12 - 17 4 #26 had 2 F - 12 - 18 1 #66 had 2 F - 12 - 19 1 M - 11 - 16 1 #67 had 2 M - 12 - 17 2 M - 12 - 19 1 Job hunting F - 11 - 16 3 s k i l l s F - 11 - 17 2 F - 12 - 17 5 #17 had 2 M - 11 - 16 1 M — 12 _ 17 1 Page 229 5. More i n f o r m a t i o n F - 11 - 16 7 on e d u c a t i o n a l F - 11 - 17 1 o p p o r t u n i t i e s F - 12 - 17 4 M - 12 - 18 1 6. Nothing e l s e . F - 11 - 16 5 I t ' s a per s o n a l F - 12 - 17 2 d e c i s i o n M - 12 - 17 1 M - 12 - 19 1 7. More t e s t s to F - 11 - 16 1 measure F - 12 - 17 1 i n t e r e s t s F - 12 - 18 1 and a b i l i t i e s 8. Teacher F - 12 - 19 1 involvement M - 11 - 16 1 Page 230 Appendix K MAP OF CHOICES FACILITATIVE CATEGORIES 1. Considers E d u c a t i o n a l Requirements. - knowledge of t r a i n i n g requirements h e l p f u l 2. Expands General Job Options. - wider range of opt i o n s 3. Expands Job Options i n a S p e c i f i c F i e l d . - look i n t o other r e l a t e d f i e l d s - not l i m i t e d - f a l l back on something e l s e - COMPARE or RELATED routes 4. Narrows Focus. - Get a d i r e c t i o n , a f i e l d 5. S t i m u l a t e s C o n s i d e r a t i o n of E x t r i n s i c Work Features - e a r n i n g s , hours of work, t r a v e l , l o c a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e , working i n s i d e / o u t s i d e , environmental c o n d i t i o n s , p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s ( i n t r a v e l guide) 6. Answers S p e c i f i c Questions - permits easy access - CCDO number ( r e a l i t y t e s t ) 7. Judges Future of Jobs. - r e a s s u r i n g and promotes s t r a t e g y . Page 231 8. Pro v i d e s Reference f o r Future P l a n n i n g . - p r i n t - o u t (being a b l e t o take i t home) 9. C l a r i f i e s i n t e r e s t - ( t r a v e l guide) 10. C l a r i f i e s C a p a b i l i t i e s and A p t i t u d e s . - ( i n t r a v e l guide) 11. Matches I n t e r e s t and A p t i t u d e s to Jobs. - helped to see d i f f e r e n t areas of concern 12. C o n f i r m a t i o n of choice 13. D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of c h o i c e . - r e a l i t y t e s t . SAFEGUARDS: CHOICES (from h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s ) 1. Useless i n f o r m a t i o n . - s t r e s s the use of the " t h i s doesn't matter to me" o p t i o n . 2. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n . - l i s t of c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s forthcoming. - no l i s t of courses necessary to graduate. - no p l a c e s of employment. - P r o v i n c i a l o n l y (but you can access to any Province i n Canada). - d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n on onl y s t a r r e d o c c u p a t i o n s . - CCDO number can be researched. Page 232 F a i l s to c o n f i r m p r i o r c h o i c e - Backtrack, f i n d out how you answered - Access p r e f e r r e d c h o i c e - what i s needed. - *** S t r e s s B a r g a i n i n g . P u z z l i n g and I n a p p r o p r i a t e Job Options. - "garbage i n , garbage out" - 14 t o p i c s do not cover every s i t u a t i o n i n a l l a r e a s . Ex.: Not being able to stand the s i g h t of blood yet wanting to be a surgeon. Needed more o p t i o n s . Rushed on t e r m i n a l . - promote an a t t i t u d e of experimentation, of b a r g a i n i n g . - Reschedule an hour or two a f t e r i n i t i a l exposure. U n r e l i a b l e O c c u p a t i o n a l Information - C o n t i n u a l l y update system, forwarn students r e g a r d i n g s a l a r y l e v e l s and employment outlook. Machine M a l f u n c t i o n . - o n l y 1 i n c i d e n t - p r e t t y w e l l r e c t i f i e d Appendix L Page 233 MAP OF SDS What the seven s e c t i o n of the SDS do: t h a t i s , which s e c t i o n s promote which c a t e g o r i e s ? (from Appendix E, page 189) 1. Daydream s e c t i o n - time to w r i t e t h e i r wishes - l i s t i n g daydreams - f o r c e s one to d e l i b e r a t e ; t e s t r e a l i t y of ideas, not what parents want - i n t e r e s t to jobs - s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g over time compare o l d and new a s p i r a t i o n s see d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s - c o u l d not code daydreams op t i o n s f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Expands ge n e r a l job options - Narrows focus - Stimulates d e l i b e r a t e s - Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs - Understands o n e s e l f over time Hind e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - Need expansion of options 2. A c t i v i t i e s s e c t i o n - l e a n i n g to one area - awareness of l i k e s and d i s l i k e s - what s k i l l s to improve - i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s - no s p o r t s - u s e l e s s items (vocabulary too d i f f i c u l t ) 3. Competencies s e c t i o n - c o n c e n t r a t e i n one area - what you can and can't do - what s k i l l s to improve - c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs - i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s - m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s Page 234 F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Narrows focus - Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s or d i s l i k e s - F i n d out where to improve - Matches i n t e r e s t s and and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / M i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s - I r r e l e v a n c e of some items F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Narrows focus - Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s of i n c a p a b i l i t i e s - F i n d out where to improve - Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs - Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / M i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s - u s e l e s s items (vocabulary too d i f f i c u l t ) - u n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f -e s timates - a l r e a d y knew 4. Occupations s e c t i o n - b e t t e r o v e r a l l view, wider range, f o r c e d look a t a v a r i e t y of jobs, f e e l i n g of having numerous a l t e r n a t i v e s - maximize o p t i o n i n s p e c i f i c area t h a t i s the c l u s t e r of jobs a v a i l a b l e - i n t e r e s t s to jobs - m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s 5. S e l f - E s t i m a t e s s e c t i o n - Forces one to look a t your code more Page 235 - I r r e l e v a n c e of some items - U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f -estimates - No new i n f o r m a t i o n F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Expands ge n e r a l job options - Expands job opt i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d - Matches i n t e r e s t s t o jobs H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / M i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s - s k i l l s to improve - C a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs - I n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s - U n r e l i a b i l i t y because of c r i t e r i a 6. Summary Code - Interchange of l e t t e r s - Check c l u s t e r - Narrowing - I n t e r e s t to jobs - I n t e r e s t to c a p a b i l i t i e s - I n t e r e s t s don't agree with code 7. Booklet - E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l Page 236 - F i n d out where to improve - Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs - Matches i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i 1 i t i e s H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - U n r e l i a b i l i t y of S e l f -Estimates F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Expands ge n e r a l job options - Expands job op t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d - Narrows focus - Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs - Matches i n t e r e s t and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / M i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s F a c i l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s - Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements - Job expansion - C l u s t e r e d jobs - Narrowing - CCDO number guides search - lack of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n - l a c k of s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n - More jobs per code, common jobs l e f t out, daydream jobs l e f t out Page 237 - Expands ge n e r a l job options - Expands job op t i o n s i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d - Narrows focus -Guides i n f o r m a t i o n search H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s - Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n - F a i l s to provide a s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n -Need expansion of options SDS: SAFEGUARDS Page 238 1. Need expansion of options i n f i n d e r : - s t r e s s l i m i t e d number of occupations i n f i n d e r - how to s t r e t c h these options - 2 l e t t e r code i n s t e a d of 3 - r e f e r r i n g to CCDO number - c l u s t e r of jobs 2. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of S e l f E s t i m a t e s : - c r i t e r i a f o r s e l f estimates emphasized - show booklet to f a m i l y and f r i e n d s . 3. F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n : - Forwarn students of SDS O b j e c t i v e - (Holland's quote-) "The SDS i s o n l y intended to f a c i l i t a t e a person's o c c u p a t i o n a l s e a r c h . At best, i t can o n l y i n d i c a t e a c l a s s of occupations a person p r e f e r s : i t cannot e f f i c i e n t l y p r e d i c t a simple choice f o r a person." (lower e x p e c t a t i o n s ) 4. M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t s : - Again Holland's d i r e c t i o n s i f f o llowed -a) resemblance determined 5 times b) a l l permutations of code c) code and daydream comparison d) t a l k to c o u n s e l l o r Page 239 5. Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n - Numerical system of e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l i n book l e t should be e x p l a i n e d . 6. I r r e l e v a n c e of some items: - No new i n f o r m a t i o n - an open a t t i t u d e i s apt to promote b e t t e r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g Appendix M Page 240 Map of Other Ways of F a c i l i t a t i n g Career P l a n n i n g 1. More r e a l i s t i c o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . - t a l k to people i n the f i e l d - video of work place - b e t t e r l i t e r a t u r e 2. R e a l i t y t e s t i n g . - experience through work 3. S t a r t p l a n n i n g sooner and l a t e r - s t a r t i n grade 8 - keep doors open - keep p l a n n i n g even l a t e r i n l i f e 4. Job hunting s k i l l s - resume w r i t i n g , i n t e r v i e w i n g s k i l l s , a p p l i c a t i o n w r i t i n g 5. More i n f o r m a t i o n on e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s - academic i n f o r m a t i o n - courses e t c . - how to a p p l y f o r a loan 6. Nothing, i t ' s up to me. 7. More t e s t s to measure i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s 8. Teacher involvement. - r e l a t i n g s u b j e c t matter to the r e a l world. Appendix N Page 241 L e t t e r and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e to 126 Experienced C o u n s e l l o r s June 3, 1986 Dear Sir/Madam: Please take a few moments to answer a few quest i o n s about c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . The 5 or 10 minutes i t w i l l take w i l l help c l a r i f y and help v a l i d a t e a study concerning the S e l f - D i r e c t e d Search and CHOICES. Please r e t u r n the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the s e l f - a d d r e s s e d stamped envelope as soon as p o s s i b l e . Thank you f o r your c o - o p e r a t i o n . S i n c e r l y , Chuck Provost D o c t o r a l student Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology U.B.C. Page 242 - Have you used CHOICES with your students? Yes No If yes, please i n d i c a t e the number of years and answer the page on CHOICES. - Have you used the SELF DIRECTED SEARCH (SDS) with your students? Yes No - I f yes, please i n d i c a t e the number of years and answer the page on the SDS. How the study was done: A number of students were inter v i e w e d a f t e r they had used CHOICES or the SDS. They were asked what had helped them ( f a c i l i t a t i v e c a t i e g o r i e s ) and what was l e s s h e l p f u l ( h i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s ) i n t h e i r c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Now based on your experience as a c o u n s e l l o r , please i n d i c a t e whether you agree, d i s a g r e e or are undecided about these v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s . That i s , do you agree t h a t your students would generate s i m i l a r c a t e g o r i e s . Thank you f o r your c o n t r i b u t i o n . Page 243 C H O I C E S F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s Agree Disagree Undecided 1. Expands ge n e r a l o p t i o n s 2. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 3. Narrows focus 4. Answers s p e c i f i c q u estions 5. Judges f u t u r e of jobs 6. Pr o v i d e s r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g 7. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 8. S t i m u l a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e x t r i n s i c work f e a t u r e s ( s a l a r y , hours, e t c . ) 9. C l a r i f i e s l i k e s 10. C l a r i f i e s c a p a b i l i t i e s and a p t i t u d e s 11. Matches i n t e r e s t and a p t i t u d e s 12. Confirms c h o i c e s 13. D i s c o n f i r m s c h o i c e s Page 244 Hinde r i n g c a t e g o r i e s 1. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n 2. Us e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n 3. U n r e l i a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 4. F a i l s to c o n f i r m a p r i o r c h o i c e 5. P u z z l i n g and i n a p p r o p r i a t e job o p t i o n s 6. Questionable b a s i s f o r narrowing jobs 7. Needs more options 8. Rushed on t e r m i n a l 9. Machine m a l f u n c t i o n Any other c a t e g o r y you would l i k e to add Thank you Page 245 S E L F D I R E C T E D S E A R C H F a c i l i t a t i v e C a t e g o r i e s A g r e e Disagree Undecided 1. Expands ge n e r a l job opt i o n s 2. Expands job options i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d 3. Narrows focus 4. Guides i n f o r m a t i o n search 5. Considers e d u c a t i o n a l requirements 6. Confirms or c l a r i f i e s l i k e s and d i s l i k e s 7. Confirms or d i s c o v e r s c a p a b i l i t i e s or i n c a p a b i l i t i e s 8. S t i m u l a t e s d i l i b e r a t i o n 9. Understanding o n e s e l f over time 10. F i n d out where to improve 11. Matches c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 12. Matches i n t e r e s t to jobs Page 246 13. Matches i n t e r e s t s and c a p a b i l i t i e s to jobs 14. Confirms or j u s t i f i e s c h o i c e s H i n d e r i n g c a t e g o r i e s 1. Lack or m i s l e a d i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 2. M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n / m i s d i r e c t i o n of i n t e r e s t 3. I r r e l e v e n c e of some items 4. U n r e l i a b i l i t y of s e l f -estimates 5. F a i l s to provide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n 6. Need expansion of options i n f i n d e r 7. No new i n f o r m a t i o n Any other c a t e g o r y you would l i k e to add Thank you APPENDIX 0 Summary of Similarities and Differences of CHOICES and the SDS i JHif Jiff A * WORK FEATURES * SPECIFIC QUESTIONS « JUDGES FUTURE K REFERENCE » LIKES 5* CAPABILITIES * MATCHES « DISCONFIRMS FACI1 iTIVE r* EDUCATION * NARROWS FOCUS * EXPANDS-GENERAL * GUIDES SEARCH ft LIKES & DISLIKES * CAPABILITIES * DELIBERATION * UNDERSTANDING * MHERE TO IMPROVE * EXPANDS-SPECIFIC I * MATCHES CAPABILITIES * CONFIRMS HINDERING ft USELESS INFO, ! ft LACK OF INFO• * UNRELIABLE * RUSHED ft MALFUNCTION * FAILS TO CONFIRM * PUZZLING OPTIONS * QUESTIONABLE BASIS * NEEDS MORE OPTIONS ft MATCHES INTERESTS ft MATCHES BOTH Ift MISIDENTIFICATION * IRRELEVANCE * SELF-ESTIMATES * SPECIFIC DIRECTION * OPTIONS IN FINDER ft NEU INFO. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0053658/manifest

Comment

Related Items