Self-Efficacy, Vocational Interests, and Ability Self-Estimates in Career Assessment RReardonMark David Sciallo212007-04-09T13:19:00Z2007-04-09T13:19:00Z1564232161FSU268753772811.8125Self-Efficacy, Vocational Interests, and Ability Self-Estimates in Career Assessment (Technical Report No. 48 The authors thank Gary W. Peterson and Emily E. Bullock for helpful comments on early drafts of this manuscript. Communication about this paper should be addressed to Robert Reardon, Career Center UCA4150, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2490. Phone: 850-644-9777, Fax: 850-644-3273, email: rreardon@admin.fsu.edu. Laura K Wright, email: lwright@fgcu.edu. Michael G. Railey, email: railey@mail.coe.fsu.edu. Laura K. WrightFlorida Gulf Coast UniversityMichael G. RaileyRobert C. ReardonFlorida State UniversityApril 6, 2007AbstractThis study investigated the relationships among self-efficacy, interests, and ability self-estimates in career decision making as measured by the Self-Directed Search (SDS) and Strong Interest Inventory (SII). Participants were 239 college students enrolled in psychology courses at a large public university. The RIASEC structure of interests and self-efficacy was found to be similar due to strong positive correlations among the constructs. Ability self-estimates and self-efficacy were also positively correlated. Features of the SII and the SDS in relation to career decision making and career counseling are analyzed and discussed.Keywords: Self-efficacy, career interest, ability self-estimates, Self-Directed Search, Strong Interest Inventory, self-confidence, skills confidence Self-Efficacy, Vocational Interests, and Ability Self-Estimates in Career AssessmentThe study of career interest inventories and other assessments has important implications for individuals, families, organizations, and society. Three of the most familiar elements in career assessments are interests, abilities, and self-efficacy, which are operationalized in the Strong Interest Inventory (SII; Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994) and Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, Powell, & Fritzsche, 1994). Prediger (1999) noted that individual career decision making could be facilitated if interests, skills-confidence, ability self-estimates, and occupations had the same basic conceptual structure, and he indicated that some prior research supports the idea that Holland’s RIASEC theory (1997) provides key elements of that conceptual structure.The SII and SDS are two of the most widely used interest inventories in the U.S. and perhaps the world. The General Occupational Theme Scales (GOTs) in the SII and the Summary scores of the SDS provide information about the interests of the persons completing the instruments. Both use Holland’s RIASEC theory (1997) in describing personality traits and occupations or fields of study related to measured interests. The SII GOT scores measure very broad interests across the six RIASEC areas, and high interest in one of the areas means that the respondent marked “Like” to the items directly associated with that theme. Nothing directly related to skills or abilities is reflected in the GOT scores. This contrasts with the RIASEC Summary scores on the SDS that include measures of competencies and two ability self-assessments. Thus, there are some subtle differences in the SII and SDS regarding the matter of skill or ability assessment. Career counselors and others are interested in the relationship between these two instruments and may wonder if they both produce the same information about interests and the same lists of occupations. An exploration of this issue was one motive for this study.Since Bandura’s (1977) initial article concerning self-efficacy, research has focused on exploring its various dimensions with respect to career decision making (Betz & Hackett, 2006; Betz & Hackett, 1981; Walsh, 2002). The notion of skills confidence is derived from this self-efficacy literature and can be defined as the extent to which individuals believe or perceive that they can successfully perform a skill (or set of skills) associated with a specific domain of occupational interest (Betz, 1992). It has been asserted in the self-efficacy literature that a feeling of confidence in an area of occupational interest is a vital precursor to the actual pursuit of the interest (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 2006; Betz & Rottinghaus, 2006). Along these lines, one of the more popular questions regarding skills confidence has been its relationship to measured vocational interests. Chartrand et al. (2002) cited several studies wherein results have indicated that there is a positive linear relationship between measured vocational interests and self-efficacy (skills confidence). Nauta, Kahn, Angell, and Cantrelli (2002) suggested that that the relationship between career interests and self-efficacy is bi-directional or reciprocal. Furthermore, the results of a meta-analytic review by Lent, Larkin and Brown (1989) revealed that self-efficacy and career interests are positively related to career choice.Career interests and their relationship to self-efficacy have also garnered the attention of researchers (Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991; Tracey, 1997; Walsh, 2002). Holland (1997) believes that interest types are actually personality types, and that self-efficacy is included in one’s overall personality structure. For example, Holland (1997) has noted that “It is not necessary to administer a self-efficacy measure to identify a person’s beliefs about his or her vocational self-efficacy. The low points in an interest profile indicate the areas where a person lacks the self-confidence to perform well” (p. 209). The SDS, therefore, does not measure self-efficacy independently from overall interest assessment. In contrast, the 1994 version of the SII included an additional instrument, the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996), to measure self-efficacy. Some have concluded that self-estimates and ability self-ratings as measured by the SDS are the equivalent of “type-specific self-efficacy expectations” (Gottfredson, 2002; Walsh, 2002) or skills confidence. The SDS (Holland, Powell et al., 1994) measures respondents’ perception of their abilities in two sections: Competencies and the two Self-Estimates scales. When used together, the competencies in abilities and self-estimates of abilities from the SDS are also reliable predictors of vocational choice (Gottfredson, 2002; Prediger, 2002). Feehan and Johnston (1999) examined SDS Summary scores in relation to self-efficacy as measured by the Task-Specific Occupational Self-efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and found evidence that the SDS predicted career self-efficacy. They specifically suggested examining the SDS in relation to the SCI as a measure of self-efficacy, which is the focus of this present study.The Competencies section of the SDS Assessment booklet includes the six RIASEC scales of 11 items each of self-estimated skills or proficiencies, which are marked “yes” or “no.” Users are invited to describe their skills, the kinds of things learned in the past, as well as things that have never been done. For example, “I am good at explaining things to others” or “I am a careful and orderly person.” This list of competencies may reflect a person’s interests because people often develop skills in things that are important or interesting to them. The final section of the SDS is Self-Estimates. It includes the six RIASEC scales, which are rated twice (from 1 to 7) with respect to ability and skill. Respondents are asked to rate themselves “as you really think you are when compared with other persons your own age.” Betz (1999) noted that skills confidence or self-efficacy grew out of Social Cognitive Career Theory, while the notion of ability self-estimates emanated from trait-and-factor theory. They have different conceptual roots, according to Betz (1999), who characterized them as empirically distinct, although correlated, concepts. Lent, Brown, and Hackett (2002, p. 265) further explored the matter of interests and self-confidence and suggested that “people form enduring interest in an activity when they view themselves as competent at it and when they anticipate that performing it will produce valued outcomes.” In their scheme, abilities (as assessed in achievement or grades) inform self-efficacy beliefs rather than influencing interest development directly. Interests are the result of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. It should be noted that Lent et al. do not address the matter of ability self-estimates in their analysis, which is included in the present study.While self-confidence and ability self-estimates are not necessarily analogous to actual, objectively measured ability, an individual’s perception of how effective he/she can be is positively correlated with interests and is, therefore, a useful predictor of career choice (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 2006; Gottfredson, 2002). In fact, Betz, Harmon, and Borgen (1996) argue that confidence in one’s ability to perform is a necessary antecedent to actual career choice. Prediger (2002) noted that use of ability self-estimates can be an effective way to facilitate identification of realistic, compatible career options. A major effort to clarify knowledge about self-efficacy and interests was undertaken in a meta-analysis of 60 empirical studies (Rottinghaus, Larson, & Borgen, 2003). This analysis included the SII and the Campbell Interest and Skills Survey (CISS; Campbell et al. (1992) but not the SDS, which is included in the present study. The results demonstrated that self-efficacy and interests were independent constructs that correlated moderately, sharing about one-third of their variance. Rottinghaus et al. found that the self-efficacy/interest relationships between the RIASEC domains were stronger with the SCII than the SII, probably because of the response scale and scoring procedures in the SCII reflect external normative judgments. This measurement scheme is similar to the one used in the SDS. The magnitude of the correspondence across the RIASEC types ranged from .42 for Enterprising to .67 for Investigative; it was unclear why the RIA relationships were stronger than the SEC.The study by Brown, Lent and Gore (2000) has relevance to this one because they also used ability self-estimates as measured by the SDS in relation to occupational interests as measured by the SII. They used only the Self-Estimates section of the SDS to measure ability self-estimates, and they modified the instructions of the Occupations section of the SDS to create a measure of occupational self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options. Occupational interests were measured with 30 occupations taken from the Occupations section of the SII rather than the six GOT scores. With these measurement tools, they found occupational self-efficacy beliefs were conceptually related but empirically distinguishable from occupational interests and ability self-estimates. They concluded that ability self-estimates and self-efficacy may serve complimentary rather than competing roles related to interest development and career decision making.The relationships among self-efficacy, interests, and ability self-estimates were addressed in this exploratory study. Practitioners may be especially interested in this study because of the cost/efficiency of using one instrument to measure these constructs rather than two or three. Specifically, we sought to examine (1) the relationship between self-efficacy measured by the SCI and vocational interests measured by the SDS and SII with respect to RIASEC types, and (2) the relationship between ability self-estimates as measured by the SDS and self-efficacy as measured by the SCI. MethodParticipantsThe participants were 239 male (25%) and female (75%) students from a large northwestern public university enrolled in a psychology course. The top five majors represented among the participants were psychology, undecided, biological sciences, economics, and human development. Thirty-seven percent (37%) were Caucasian, 36% were Asian-Pacific Islander, 11% were Hispanic/Latino, 5% were African-American, 5% were Biracial, 5% Other, and 1% was American Indian. First letter RIASEC codes for participants were Realistic, 5%; Investigative, 12%; Artistic, 7%; Social, 47%; Enterprising, 17%; and Conventional, 12%. ProceduresThe data were obtained in five sessions in a large lecture hall. The research summary was read to inform participants of a study of career decision making and each received a folder containing a consent form, a demographic form, and the research instruments in alternating order. Participants were asked to complete the forms and answer all questions on the instruments in the order they appeared within the folder. When the students were finished they each received a debriefing statement referring them to the career or counseling center for further counseling, and documentation of research participation. Instruments SCI. The SCI is a 60-item assessment of self-efficacy based upon Holland’s RIASEC theory. Respondents rate their degree of confidence, or self-efficacy, on a five point Likert scale to items that are related to one of the Holland types (Harmon, Borgen, Berreth, King, Schauer, & Ward, 1996). These ratings translate into Skills Confidence Theme scores. This instrument is reported to be useful in career counseling and assessment because of the instances of low skill confidence but high interest, or low interest and high skill confidence in a particular area (Harmon et al., 1996). The technical considerations for this instrument support its usage by reporting concurrent and construct validity, as well as alpha coefficients ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 on the RIASEC scales and test-retest consistency ranging from .83 to .87.SDS. The SDS Form R (Holland, Powell et al., 1994) has 228-items with five scales (Activities, Competencies, Occupations, and two Self-Estimates). Once scored, the SDS uses a six-part RIASEC typology to classify the structure of an individual's career interests. Internal consistency coefficients of the adult norming subgroup for each of the SDS summary scales are greater than .91. Test-retest reliability of the SDS, using a sample of 73 individuals (28 males & 45 females) ranging 14 to 48 years of age and a median age of 20, for each of the summary scales were: Realistic r = .78, Investigative r = .87, Artistic r = .89, Social r = .89, Enterprising r = .82, and Conventional r = .76. Ability Self-Estimates. In the SDS Competencies section, the respondents are directed to identify the 11 activities across the six RIASEC categories they feel competent to perform and those activities they have been performed poorly or never performed. Holland, Fritzsche et al. (1994) cited two studies indicating that competencies scores have low but statistically significant correlations with scores on the ASVAB and non-academic accomplishments. In the Self-Estimates section, the respondents must rate themselves (as compared with peers) on the six generic abilities associated with Holland’s RIASEC model. This rating is on a scale from one to five with one being low rated ability and five being high in ability. Holland, Fritzsche et al. (1994) indicated that these self-ratings scores are also correlated with ASVAB scores and low to moderate predictive validity as indicated in several studies. Internal consistency (KR-20) for the Competencies section ranged from .72 to .84 for college men and women (Holland, Fritzsche et al., 1994), but this was not reported for the Self-Estimates sections. ResultsCorrelation statistics were used to explore the relationships among self-efficacy, ability self-estimates, and interests on the SII and the SDS. All analyses were carried out using Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1.----------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 means and standard deviations about here----------------------------------------------------------Interests and Self-EfficacyThe correlations between SCI Theme scores and corresponding SDS Summary scores were all positive and showed a strong, significant relationship ranging from r = .58 to r = .78 (see Table 2). Across the 36 correlations shown in Table 2, the correlations across RIASEC types shown in bold print for both the SDS and SCI Themes were much larger for congruent types than any others. Additionally the overall relationship between and among interests and self-efficacy showed that types, which are more similar or have higher levels of consistency, have stronger relationships than types that are less similar relative to Holland’s (1997) hexagonal model. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 2 SDS and SCI correlations about here-------------------------------------------------------------------------------We were also interested in examining the relationship between the SDS Summary scores and the SCI Theme scores and these correlations are reported in Table 3. Additionally, we were interested in examining the relationship between SII Occupational Theme scores and SCI Theme scores and used correlations reported by Donnay and Borgen (1999) for this information (see Table 3 column 2). Table 3 reveals that SDS Summary scores were more closely correlated with SCI Theme scores than SII General Occupational Theme scores across all six RIASEC types. The range of differences between interests as measured by the SII and SDS with respect to the self-efficacy as measured by the SCI was +.03 for Realistic to +.29 for Enterprising. --------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 3 SDS and SII correlations with SCI about here--------------------------------------------------------------------------Ability Self-Estimates and Self-Efficacy The SDS Competencies and Self-Estimates sections as measures of ability self-estimates, were also compared to the SCI Theme scores. For the SDS Competencies and SCI Theme scores, strong positive correlations indicating the presence of a relationship were found. The significant values ranged from r = .46 to r = .72. Across the 36 correlations shown in Table 4, the correlations across RIASEC types shown in bold print for both SDS Competencies and SCI Themes were much larger for congruent types than any others. Inspection of Table 4 shows that 25 of the 36 correlations between the SDS Competencies Scale and the SCI Theme scores were statistically significant at the .001 level, while four were significant at the .05 level. Seven of the 36 correlations were not significant.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 4 competencies scores with SCI scores about here------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Similarly, SDS Self-Estimates and SCI Theme scores yielded significant correlations ranging from r = .50 to r = .75. Across the 36 correlations shown in Table 4, the correlations across RIASEC types shown in bold print for both SDS Self-Estimates and SCI Themes were much larger for congruent types than any others. Inspection of Table 5 shows that 17 of 36 correlations between the SDS Self-Estimates scores and the SCI Theme scores were statistically significant at the .001 level, while seven were significant at the .05 level. Twelve of the 36 correlations were not statistically significant.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Tables 5 and self-estimates scores with SCI scores about here------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Discussion Our literature review revealed no other study has examined skills confidence as measured by the SCI in relation to both interests as well as ability self-estimates as measured by the SDS. The results of the present study revealed a strong relationship between self-efficacy and interests and self-efficacy and ability self-estimates. This finding replicates numerous other studies cited in the introduction and showing a significant connection between strength of interests and self-efficacy with both the SII (Donnay & Borgen, 1999) and the SDS (Feehan & Johnston, 1999). The present results indicate that the SDS Summary scores have higher correlations with the SCI Theme scores than do the General Occupational Theme scores on the SII. Perhaps the SDS is actually more of a comprehensive measure for vocational decision making because the summary scores include the measures of ability self-estimates. One might speculate that the SDS is sufficient to explore both self-efficacy and interests due to the strong relationship between sections of the SDS and the SCI. Yet counselors need to pay close attention to the ability self-estimates and competencies sections of the SDS to get an understanding of a client’s level of self-efficacy across RIASEC areas. The inclusion of the SCI to explore self-efficacy when using the Strong Interest Inventory to assess interest type may be necessary as the SII may be a “purer” measure of interests alone and does not clearly include abilities or self-efficacy components.The correlational analyses between interests and self-efficacy revealed strong, positive relationships between SDS Summary scores and SCI Theme scores. One explanation for this finding may be found in the techniques used to measure interests and self-efficacy in the SDS and SCI. In looking at the SDS and the SCI, the directions to the user are different. For the various sections of the SDS, the directions ask respondents to indicate whether they would “like” or “dislike” specific activities (Activities Section), answer “yes” to activities you can do well or competently and “no” to activities you have never performed or perform poorly (Competencies section), specify “yes” if an occupation interests or appeals to you and “no” if you dislike or find that occupation uninteresting (Occupations section), and lastly rate yourself on traits “as you really think you are when compared to other persons your own age”(Self-Estimates section) (Holland, Powell et al., 1994, p. 4-9). The SCI directions read, “For each activity or task below, indicate your present degree of confidence in your ability to perform that activity. Rate your confidence, not whether you would like to do the activity” (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996). These directions are carefully worded to tease out the individual’s respective interest or confidence for specific activities. However, it should be noted that the SDS actually directs users to self-assess competence, not confidence, across the six RIASEC areas.Although the directions are carefully constructed to measure different things, the actual items within each assessment instrument are similar. The SDS clearly delineates which items are measuring interest or ability in each of the RIASEC areas, whereas the SCI does not separate the questions by type. Yet in looking at individual items it is clear that they are tapping into the same RIASEC areas. For example, one item in the SDS asks if one would like or dislike to “Fix electrical things.” The SCI asks test-takers to indicate confidence in “Learn(ing) to repair electrical wiring.” Another item from the SDS is “Help others with their personal problems” and a similar SCI item reads “Help others solve their problems.” Since both of these assessment instruments are based on Holland’s (1997) RIASEC theory, it appears as if designing different measuring instruments to tease out interests from self-efficacy is a difficult task. The finding that interests and self-efficacy had a strong relationship is not surprising considering the similarity of many of the items. This result also supports what has previously been found in the self-efficacy and interest literature.This research also produced evidence addressing the relationship between self-efficacy and interests or abilities within the RIASEC types. SCI scores across the six types were found to have stronger more positive relationships with the same types as well as with similar types (areas adjacent on the hexagon) than with opposite types or areas farthest apart on the hexagon. Holland et al. (1994) found similar results when looking at the intercorrelations among types as measured by the SDS. For example, Holland, Powell et al. (1994) found that the correlation between the Realistic and Investigative Summary scores on the SDS was r = .26. The correlation between the SDS Realistic summary score and the Realistic SCI Theme score was r = .65. Similar results were found when other correlations between SDS Summary scales and SCI Theme scores were compared. From these results it appears that self-efficacy has a similar structure to interests, in that the relationships among and between various RIASEC types for both interests and self-efficacy are similar. Tracey (1997) and Donnay and Borgen (1999) also examined the structure of efficacy and interests and found them to be similar, with some differences found for the structure of interests and efficacy for women. Comparing the results of this study with those of Donnay and Borgen (1999), who used the Strong General Occupational Themes instead of the SDS Summary scores as the measure of interests, shows that across all RIASEC types there are positive correlations between SCI Theme scores and Holland RIASEC scores. The result that the structure of self-efficacy and interests are similar appears to be consistent with other studies.For both SDS Self-Estimates and Competencies the lowest correlations with the SCI Theme scores were for Conventional types. Conventional types are often skilled in clerical tasks, office skills, and arithmetic. One might speculate that the Conventional type having the lowest interest and self-efficacy relationship is a result of these individuals being proficient and having confidence in organizational and office type skills but not possessing any interest in pursuing such skills as a career choice. Just because one is good at something does not necessarily constitute interest in that activity. Holland (1999, p. 99) also emphasized this type of intervention and said, “Ask about the origins of their high and low self-ratings of abilities; likewise ask about the origins of their competencies and incompetencies.” Whether the counselor chooses to give a separate instrument to assess self-efficacy or just brings up the topic as one to process within the counseling relationship depends on the individual counselor’s orientation and the resources of the agency.The findings of this study should be viewed as suggestive and with some caution because the generalizability of this research may be limited in several ways. The sample was drawn from the psychology pool of students who received extra credit for participating in this research. It was also 75% female, and 73% were Caucasian or Asian-Pacific Islander with a mean age of 20 years. As might be expected, almost half of the sample were Social types in Holland’s (1997) typological theory. As in many samples drawn from a college population, there were few Realistic or Artistic types. Due to the sample being largely female and non-white, it is possible that some coefficients may have been under or overestimated. The Social type is common among women and may have larger values within this study than if the male to female ratio was equivalent. These factors limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations.This study highlighted the need for future research in several areas. First, the question of the need for a separate self-efficacy measure to assess confidence across RIASEC types is not settled. Although there was a strong relationship between self-efficacy and interests, the two constructs did not overlap completely and seem to be distinct. More research is needed to answer this question with any certainty. For test developers the issue of how to measure interests versus self-efficacy and ability within the same RIASEC paradigm is also an important one.Second, the matter of self-efficacy and ability self-estimates could benefit from further study. The SDS and the CISS appear to have similar items for measuring abilities and self-efficacy (Betz & Rottinghaus, 2006), and practitioners and researchers need to be attentive to nuances in item-construction when interpreting these constructs in research and with clients. Are these two constructs distinct ideas and how can they be measured independently of one another? We tend to agree with Gottfredson’s (2002) observation that ability self-estimates from the SDS might be viewed as type-specific self-efficacy expectations. He noted that Holland’s (1997) “self-beliefs” as measured by the SDS Competencies and Self-Estimates scales correspond to what Bandura called self-efficacy expectations that are measured by instruments like the SCI. “Because the SDS incorporates aspirations (goals), interests (dispositions), and self-ratings of competencies and skills (related to self-efficacy expectations), and provides a tool for using some insights from social cognitive perspectives as the virtues of an organizing typology” (Gottfredson, 2002, p. 206). Third, the question of gender differences and self-efficacy is an area for future research. Comparing men and women’s self-efficacy within each RIASEC type could add further clarity to the area of how self-efficacy plays into career decision-making differentially for men and women. Comparing the levels of self-efficacy across various cultural and ethnic groups could also provide a wealth of new information. The large number of women and Asian-Pacific Islanders in the present sample is an important consideration.In order to help individuals fully explore their options in career decision making, matters related to interests, self-efficacy and ability must be considered. When a client comes to a career counselor, he or she brings a lifetime of personal experiences, thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that can either make this process easier or more difficult to negotiate. Hopefully this research will be helpful to the practitioner in clarifying how individuals’ self-efficacy, interests, and ability self-estimates affect their career decision-making process.ReferencesBandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Betz, N. E. (1992). Counseling uses of career self-efficacy theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 41, 22-26.Betz, N. E. (1999). Getting clients to act on their interests: Self-efficacy as a mediator of the implementation of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp. 327-344). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.Betz, N. E., Borgen, F., & Harmon, L. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. H. (2006). Vocational confidence and personality in the prediction of occupational group membership. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 36-55.Betz, N. E. & & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 3-11.Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410. Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.Betz, N. E., & Rottinghaus, P. J. (2006). Current research on parallel measures on interests and confidence for basic dimensions of vocational activity. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 56-76.Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Gore, P. A. (2000). Self-rated abilities and self-efficacy beliefs: Are they empirically distinct? Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 223-235.Campbell, D. P. (1995). The Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (CISS): A product of ninety years of psychometric evaluation. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 391-410.Chartrand, J. M., Borgen, F. H., Betz, N. E., & Donnay, D. (2002). Using the strong interest inventory and the skills confidence inventory to explain career goals. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 169-189.Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of vocational self-efficacy: An examination of interest, self-efficacy, and occupation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 432-447. Feehan, P. F., & Johnston, J. A. (1999). The Self-Directed Search and career self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 145-159. Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Interests, aspirations, self-estimates, and the Self-Directed Search. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 200-208. Harmon, L. W., Borgen, F., Berreth, J. M., King, J. C., Schauer, D., & Ward, C. C. (1996). The Skills Confidence Inventory: A measure of self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 457-477.Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Holland, J. L. (1999). Why interest inventories are also personality inventories. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp.87-102). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.Holland, J. L., Fritzsche, B. A., & Powell, A. B. (1994). Self-Directed Search technical user’s guide. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Holland, J. L., Powell, A. B., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994). Self-Directed Search professional user’s guide. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 255-311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C., & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to inventoried vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 279-288.Matsui, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (1991). Relation between career self-efficacy measures based on occupational titles and Holland codes and model environments: A methodological contribution. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 78-91.Nauta, M. M., Kahn, J. H., Angell, J. W., & Cantrelli, E. A. (2002). Identifying the antecedent in the relation between career interests and self-efficacy: Is it one, the other, or both? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 290-301. Prediger, D. J. (2002). Abilities, interests, and values: Their assessment and their integration via the world of work map. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 209-232.Prediger, D. J. (1999). Integrating interests and abilities for career exploration: General considerations. In M. Savickas & A Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp. 295-325). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.Rottinghaus, P. J, Larson, L. M. & Borgen, F. H. (2003). The relation of self-efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 221-236.Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). The structure of interests and self-efficacy expectations: An expanded examination of the spherical model of interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 32-43.Walsh, B W. (2002). Introduction: Exploring interests, self-efficacy, and career goals. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 147-149.Table 1Means and Standard DeviationsSDS Summary ScoresVariableMeanStandard DeviationR16.899.89I23.939.72A21.6710.02S33.469.42E27.09.96C23.4810.84SDS CompetenciesR4.223.19I7.272.86A4.692.67S8.312.61E6.633.01C7.172.76SDS Ability Self-EstimatesR11.714.44I16.265.19A12.195.22S19.594.24E15.974.94C17.034.87Skills Confidence InventoryR2.980.78I3.100.78A2.970.82S3.760.67E3.150.72C3.220.73_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 2Correlations between SDS Summary Codes and SCI Theme CodesSCI - RSCI - ISCI - ASCI - SSCI - ESCI - CSDS SUM- R.65**.22**.20**-.02.19**.33**SDS SUM - I.21**.78**.11.14*.13*.28**SDS SUM - A.32**.11.78**.24**.21**-.05SDS SUM - S.04-.04.23**.69**.13*-.12SDS SUM - E.26**.07.14*.16*.68**.39**SDS SUM - C.15*.06-.08-.04*.06.58*** p < .05** p < .001Table 3Correlations between Interests (as measured by the SDS and SII) and Self-efficacy (as measured by the SCI) with the range of differencesTypeSDSSII*DifferenceRealistic.65.62+.03Investigative.78.65+.13Artistic.78.58+.20Social.69.43+.26Enterprising.68.39+.29Conventional.58.41+.17* Donnay & Borgen (1999)Table 4Correlations between SDS Competencies and SCI Theme CodesSCI - RSCI - ISCI - ASCI - SSCI - ESCI - CSDS COM - R.61**.26**.26**.11.25**.28**SDS COM - I.28**.66**.18**.22**.21**.27**SDS COM - A.30**.14*.71**.33**.33**-.01SDS COM - S.14*.02.29**.70**.32**-.04SDS COM - E.27*.18**.26**.34**.73**.24**SDS COM - C.23**.12.04.13*.07.46*** p < .05** p < .001Table 5Correlations between SDS Self-Estimates and SCI Theme CodesSCI - RSCI - ISCI - ASCI - SSCI - ESCI - CSDS SE - R.55**.23**.17*-.05.22**.33**SDS SE - I.15*.71**-.03.02.14*.35**SDS SE - A.30**.11.75**.23**.16*-.06SDS SE - S.14*.06.34**.70**.32**.01SDS SE - E.25**.04.14*.19**.61**.39**SDS SE - C.14*.02-.02.08.11.50*** p < .05** p < .001PAGE PAGE 1Self-Efficacy, Interests, Abilities