An Exploration of Profile
Elevation on the Self-Directed Search:
Technical Report 39
By
Emily E. Bullock, M.S.
Robert C. Reardon, Ph.D.
Steve Leierer, Ph.D.
January 20, 2004
Address correspondence to:
Emily Bullock
The
850-644-6431 (voice) 850-644-3273 (FAX)
http://www.career.fsu.edu/techcenter/
An Exploration of Profile Elevation on the
Self-Directed Search
Abstract
Career counselors have interpreted
profile elevation on interest inventories for years. The interpretation has been based on
counselor judgment and not empirical research.
A few studies, along with the current study, have attempted to find some
empirical evidence for the validity of interpreting profile elevation. This study explores some variables that have
the possibility of being related to this construct. The participants were composed of students in
an undergraduate career development course (N = 270). An analysis of variance revealed no
relationship between student profile elevation and age, classification,
ethnicity, or
Introduction
Career counselors seek to maximize
the potential personal and lifestyle development of their clients. To do this well they must have a myriad of
resources and skills. One of the
essential resources is the interest inventory.
These inventories must be well researched and contribute to the way in
which career counselors work with their clients. Currently, career counselors do this amidst
limited budgets, contradicting theoretical opinions, and scarce resources.
The purpose of this study was to help provide practitioners with research-supported instruments such as the Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, 1994). This should be done to help alleviate and simplify some of the burden career counselors feel. It is important to make the most of the resources a career counselor has. This includes maximizing the interpretability of the instrument. In order to save a career counselor the money it takes to administer two instruments to one client, researchers should look into opportunities to expand upon the ways one instrument can be used. In addition, it is important to assure career counselors that the research supporting the interpretable factors of their instruments is sound and based on careful scientific study and understanding.
In this article, the authors sought to
maximize the interpretability of the Self-Directed Search (1994), the popular
instrument based on John Holland’s theory.
Career counselors have long interpreted one construct of the SDS under
the umbrella of a counselor’s judgment, but researchers have never completely
validated its interpretability. This
construct is profile elevation, which is the sum of the six section scores on
the instrument (Fuller, Holland, & Johnson, 1999).
As the following
review of the literature will demonstrate, there has been no research on
profile elevation in college students, a common population career counselors
work with. Also, there has not been
research related to the correlation of profile elevation with the variety of
variables found in this study. The
authors believe the work completed here and the planned future research will
add greatly to the profile elevation literature.
Literature
Holland’s (1994) Self-Directed Search has been used since 1972 to measure interests and abilities as they relate to career choice. While numerous indicators of career planning status have been isolated within the SDS, e.g., differentiation, consistency, congruence, coherence of aspirations, the issue of profile elevation on the instrument has received less research attention.
Researchers have speculated that profile
elevation is related to personality factors.
For example, Spokane, Luchetta, and Richwine (2002) noted, “the
possibility of a relationship between depression and profile elevation has been
discussed for years” (Brown, 2002, p. 402).
In addition, Gottfredson and Jones (1993) indicated that the idea of
profile elevation has been subsumed under the umbrella concept of professional
judgment of a counselor when interpreting the SDS profile of a client. Counselors have reported interpreting profile
elevation to determine whether a client was depressed or overzealous. Gottfredson and Jones state counselors have
been interpreting this based on an intuitive understanding of the instruments
and not a research-validated understanding.
Gottfredson and Jones (1993) examined
profile elevation of the Vocational Preference Inventory and the Self-Directed
Search with a sample of middle school students, high school students, navy
recruits, and bank tellers. They
concluded that high profile elevation reflects an expressive, enthusiastic, or
impulsive general style and that low profile elevation reflects the opposite.
Fuller, Holland, and Johnston (1999)
utilized a sample of over 300 dislocated workers in Missouri from 1991 to 1995
to determine if personality differences existed between those with high and low
profile elevations on the Self-Directed Search.
Their results showed a relationship between profile elevation and
openness to experience, extraversion, and lower depressive personality traits. For instance, a client with significantly
high profile elevation would be more willing to consider options presented to
him or her, be more open and willing to collaborate in discussions of options,
and less likely to exhibit signs of depression.
This would likely create a more conducive environment for career
counseling.
Darcy and Tracey (2003) examined the
areas of interest and ability as they relate to career development. They spoke of a general factor in vocational
assessment on which profile elevation has a clear impact. The authors talk of this general factor of
interest in the same manner as Spearman’s concept of “g” in intelligence. In intelligence theory, “g” represents the
general factor of intelligence. Many
scholars agree intelligence may be multifaceted but still adhere to the general
theory of intelligence (Sattler, 2001).
Darcy and Tracey propose interest may also poses an overarching factor
that indicates general interest as measured by profile elevation of an interest
inventory.
Darcy and Tracey seem to identify a need
for expansion on the profile elevation literature as it relates to the RIASEC
types. These authors indicate a more in depth study of profile elevation may
reveal whether it is related to the general interest factor. They stated profile elevation may “bias the
relations with other variables or be related to other variables in a
substantive manner (p. 227).”
Prediger (1998) conducted an expansive study (N = 53,429) to investigate profile elevation. In his article, he refers to profile elevation as profile level on interest inventories as it relates to the “degree of match between interest-based Holland-type and membership in Holland-type criterion groups (p. 204).” Despite the assumption many career counselors make, his findings indicated that there is no relationship between profile level and interest. In other words, a person with a high profile elevation and a high point code of E on the Self-Directed Search would not have a greater likelihood of entering an E occupation than a person with low profile elevation and a high point code of E on the SDS. Although this finding is surprising and contrary to most counselor assumptions, it does not mean that other important interpretable variables are not related to profile elevation. There is still a need to learn more about what profile elevation in relation to other variables in order to better serve our clients and maximize the resources of counselors.
Some literature has shown the importance of teasing out the difference in using and interpreting the concept of profile elevation and differentiation. These two concepts are highly related, but not analogous. Profile elevation is the sum of the six section scores on the instrument (Fuller, Holland, & Johnson, 1999), whereas, differentiation is defined as the level of definition or distinctness of a profile (Holland, 1997). Differentiation can simply be thought of as the difference between a client’s highest and lowest summary scale score on the SDS. In practice, a counselor may see only good signs in a client’s SDS score and yet the client is still unable to move forward in career decision making. The scores on differentiation, consistency, congruence, and coherence may all be high and positive. Yet, with a closer look it is discovered that profile elevation is low. With the growing research on profile elevation, a counselor will be able to look to the interpretability of client’s low profile elevation for some possible answers as to why this client is unable to move forward in decision making. As current research suggests, the client’s depressive traits or tendency to prematurely eliminate options, indicated by low profile elevation, may be one of the factors intervening in their career decision making.
In a study of the “custom of treating all
undifferentiated subjects as if they were equal” (p. 163), Swanson and Hansen
(1986) emphasized the importance of not grouping those with low and
undifferentiated Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (SCII) profiles and high
and undifferentiated SCII profiles into the same category. They held that it was important to consider
the profile elevation, whether high or low, when interpreting the results of
the client’s SCII.
The important interpretive differences
between differentiation and profile elevation are illustrated in Figure 1. The graph shows that profile elevation level
can be the same for both a differentiated and undifferentiated profile. In addition, low profile elevation is not
synonymous with low differentiation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 Here,
Comparison of Profile Elevation and Differentiation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Swanson and Hansen (1986) considered the
interpretation of profile elevation important based on the following
conclusions of their research: (1) high undifferentiated profiles resembled
consistent profiles more so than low undifferentiated profiles, (2) profile
elevation is positively correlated with effective educational functioning and
achievement (e.g., higher grades, likelihood to persist in college), and (3)
the SCII is more predictive of college majors for high profile individuals as
compared to low profile individuals.
Previous research shows that there does
seem to be a relationship between profile elevation and a variety of factors
that are important in the career counseling process. This study will attempt to add to the
research in this area by comparing profile elevation to a variety of other
factors. Three research questions were
investigated in this study.
- What is
the relationship between ethnicity and/or gender and total SDS profile
elevation?
- What is
the relationship between student classification and/or age and total SDS
profile elevation?
- What is
the relationship between an individual’s high point RIASEC code score and
Total SDS profile elevation?
Method
Participants
Data were collected from 270
students enrolled in an undergraduate career planning class. These students represent all levels of
classification, e.g., freshman, senior, and mirror the ethnic diversity of the
student body at this large southeastern research university. Many of the students enrolled in the course
are experiencing some difficulty in educational and vocational decision making.
The participants were comprised of
freshman, 13%; sophomores, 34%; juniors, 23%; and seniors, 30%. The ethnic makeup of the participants was
African-American, 15%; Caucasian, 65%; Hispanic, 12%; and other ethnicities, 8%. Ninety percent of the participants were
between the ages of 17 and 22, and 43% were male and 57% female. The participants’ SDS profile elevation
scores ranged from 58-229. The
participants’ SDS high point scores were broken down as Realistic, 3%;
Investigative, 2%; Artistic, 10%; Social, 32%; Enterprising, 43%; and
Conventional, 10%.
Instruments
The Self-Directed Search (SDS)
(Holland, 1994) is an interest inventory that utilizes Holland’s RIASEC theory
as a way of classifying individual’s personality type. On the SDS, individuals rate their
activities, competencies, preferences, occupations, and self-estimates in terms
of the RIASEC areas. Individuals are
also given the opportunity to list their occupational aspirations, which are
referred to as occupational daydreams.
The summary scales for the SDS have reliability estimates of r =
0.90 to 0.94, indicating substantial reliability (Holland, Fritzsche, &
Powell, 1994). Test-retest reliability
ranges from 0.76 to 0.89. Because
eliciting vocational aspirations is merely making a list of occupational
daydreams, specific psychometric data for this construct is not included in the
SDS Technical Manual (Holland, Fritzsche, & Powell, 1994). Aspirations were based on the three-letter
code of the first five aspirations.
The Student Data Sheet is a form created
for the career development course. The
answers to the sheet items provide demographic information about the
participants, e.g., age, ethnicity, classification, and gender.
Procedure
The Student Data Sheet and the
Self-Directed Search were completed by each participant as a part of class
requirements and were used for intervention purposes outside the purpose of
this study. Each participant completed
the Student Data Sheet during the first class meeting. Two weeks later each participant completed
the paper-and-pencil version of the Self-Directed Search. Data from the paper-and-pencil version of the
SDS were entered into the SDS Software Portfolio computer system (Reardon &
PAR, 2001) and a Professional Summary along with a client interpretive report
were produced. The Professional Summary
provided information related to the clients’ code, consistency,
differentiation, coherence, and congruence.
Research assistants unaware of the purposes of the study used the
information on the Professional Summaries to calculate the profile elevation of
each participant.
Results
Findings of this study are presented
in terms of three research questions.
Relationship Between Profile Elevation and Gender and/or Ethnicity
For gender an ANOVA (F = 4.19, Df
= 2,268, P = .042) revealed that males (M = 138.13, SD =
3.53) had significantly higher profile elevations than females (M =
127.69, SD = 3.37).
For ethnicity, a 4 x 2 factorial AVOVA (F
= 2.49, Df = 2, 268, P = ns) with four levels of ethnicity and two
levels of gender revealed a non-significant main effect for ethnicity.
However, a gender by ethnicity
interaction showed the more exaggerated difference between the African-American
males’ profile elevation (M = 138.26, SD = 36.61) as compared to
the African-American females’ profile elevation (M = 112.73, SD =
27.14). Figure 2 best illustrates this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 here,
Gender differences by Race
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship Between Profile Elevation and Age and/or
Students’ Classification
The Demographic Data Sheet provided the information of age and classification of each participant. An ANOVA revealed no significance for profile elevation as it relates to age (F = 2.49 Df = 2, 268 P = ns) or year in school (F = 2.59 Df = 2, 268 P=ns).
Total SDS Profile
Elevation as it Relates to an Individual’s High Point RIASEC Code Score
Our final question dealt with the relationship between a student’s SDS profile elevation and his or high point code score. An ANOVA (F = 1.63 Df = 2, 268 P =ns) revealed no significance differences in scale elevations with respect to the six domains (R, I, A, S, E, C) in which individuals were classified according to their high point code.
Discussion
These findings have implications for the
counselor working with clients that complete the Self-Directed Search. Close attention should be paid to the significant
relationship reported between profile elevation and gender, especially to the
large discrepancy in profile elevation between African-American male and female
college students.
Counselors should not automatically
assume that many of the characteristics associated with lower profile elevation
necessarily apply to African-American females.
Gottfredson and Jones (1993) reported that clinical experience has led
many career counselors to assume low profile elevation to be indicator of
things such as passivity and confusion.
Further research could examine why African-American female college
students tend to have lower profile elevation.
Until that time it is unknown if the profile elevation of
African-American college women can be interpreted in the same way as the
profile elevation of other college students in a career course.
It
is also important to note the lack of statistically significant findings
between a students’ profile elevation and high point RIASEC code scores. A student’s high point code was not found to
be related significantly to his or her profile elevation score. Gottfredson and Jones (1993) and Fuller,
Holland, and Johnston (1999) found some relationships between personality
variables such as openness and impulsivity and profile elevation. This should not be confused with the
personality characteristics associated with the RIASEC types. For example, counselors may work with a
student that is a Social type. It is
often assumed that Social types are more expressive, outgoing, enthusiastic,
and open. The findings of the current
study and prior research (Gottfredson & Jones, 1993; Fuller et al., 1999)
do not suggest that the Social type is synonymous with or likely to be
associated with high profile elevation.
The findings of this study support Darcy
and Tracey’s (2003) attempt to highlight the role of profile elevation in the
interpretation of interest inventories.
Past research and the current study show that profile elevation may
capture some variance in the interpretation of interest inventories not
previously captured. For instance,
counselors may work with a client that has no other interpretable factors on
their SDS Professional Summary (Reardon and PAR, 2001), yet this client is
still having trouble identifying a career path.
Perhaps counselors can soon turn to profile elevation to answer the
question of why this person cannot seem to make a decision. It may be related to race, gender,
personality, or depression. Thus far, we
have indications that some important variables are related to profile
elevation. While other variables,
previously considered to be related, may need to be looked at further to
determine if the relationship should stand.
These findings are a contribution to
the profile elevation literature, and there are many relevant profile elevation
issues that appear to merit further research.
Further research could incorporate SDS profile elevation as it relates
to the dysfunctional career thoughts, personality, communication apprehension,
and other secondary constructs measured by the Self-Directed Search and
included in Holland’s theory. It is
hoped that further research on this subject will lead to a more effective and
efficient use of interest inventories, save scarce resources for career
counselors, and help to better serve clients.
References
Darcy, M., & Tracey, T. J.G. (2003).
Integrating abilities and interest in career choice: Maximal versus typical
assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 219-237.
Fuller,
B. E., Holland, J. L., & Johnston, J. A. (1999). The relation of profile
elevation in the Self-Directed Search to personality variables. Journal of
Career Assessment, 7, 111-123.
Gottfredson,
G. D., & Jones, E. M. (1993). Psychological meaning of profile elevation in
the Vocational Preference Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 35-49.
Holland, J. L. (1994). The Self-Directed Search. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making
vocational choices. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Holland,
J. L., Fritzsche, B. A., & Powell, A. B. (1994). The Self-Directed
Search technical manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Prediger, D. J. (1998). Is interest
profile level relevant to career counseling? Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45, 204-211.
Reardon, R., & PAR Staff (2001).
Self-Directed Search Software Portfolio (SDS_SPTM) for WindowsⓇ [Computer program] Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of
children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA:
Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.
Spokane, A. R., Luchetta, E. J., & Richwine, M. H.
(2002). Holland’s theory of
personalities in work environments. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and
development, (4th ed.) (pp. 373-426). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, J. L., & Hansen, J. C.
(1986). A clarification of Holland’s construct of differentiation: The
importance of score elevation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,
163-173.
Figure 1
Comparison of Profile Elevation and Differentiation
Figure 2
Gender Differences by Race
