Career Decision Scale

Test created by Samuel H. Osipow, Clarke G. Carney, Jane Winer, Barbara Yanico, and Maryanne Koschier

Presentation by Patsy DoughertyCareer Decision Scale1Try out the sample question!Pass out handouts. Have everyone complete the sample question on the handout These are the types of questions included on the Career Decision Scale. 2More samples:Exactly like meVery much like meOnly slightly like meNot at all like meI have decided on a career and feel comfortable with it. I also know how to go about implementing my choice.

4321I know what Id like to major, in but I dont know what careers it can lead to that would satisfy me.

4321None of the above items describe me. The following woulddescribe me better: (write your response below).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The first question is one of the two for the Certainty Scale. The other one only differs by replacing career with major.The second question counts toward the Indecision Scale.The third question is the last question on the assessment. 3Career Decision ScaleThe Career Decision Scale was designed as a rapid and reliable instrument for surveying high school and college students about their status in the decision-making process.

It provides an estimate of career indecision and its antecedents as well as an outcome measure for determining the effects of interventions relevant to career choice and development.

Also This scale provides a simple way of identifying the principal barriers which interfere with an individual's ability to make a required educational or vocational decision.

4Career Decision ScaleHigh School and College studentsSpecial Populations: Adults in Continuing Education Programs and Women Returning to CollegeSpecialty Versions: Spanish, medical students, rewording for graduate students, rewording for high school students

Development:Part of a proposed modular system to promote self-counseling about career indecision16 items (The Indecision Scale)18 items (The Certainty Scale)19 items (Open-ended Questions)-> Normed according to Grade and Gender Also includes Age norms from validity studies, manual doesnt use age because of the correlation with grade but neighter of these are very accurate norm groups- Specialty versions NOT available for use. Used in validity studies. Any rewording was modest ( and the HS rewording was deemed unnecessary since it was already normed on Hsers)5Factor StructureOriginal Study VS. Further ExaminationStability?

Differences may be due to item interpretation

Still, the study has a good predictability!Lack of Structure and ConfidenceExternal Barrier to a Preferred ChoiceDifficulty Choosing among OptionsPersonal ConflictFactor Analysis only conducted for the Indecision Scale

- All factors are associated with decision-making! (Not just lack of structure in life)6Reliability Test ManualOsipow, Carney, and Barak (1976)Individual Items and Indecision ScaleTest-retest correlation, 0.9 and 0.82Item correlations for Certainty and Indecision Scales.34-.82 Mostly 0.60-0.80

Slaney, Palko-Nonemaker, and Alexander (1981)Test-retest over 6 weeksCertainty and Indecision ScaleItem correlation from 0.19-0.70CDS total = 0.70

** Not alternate forms *** .8 = acceptable.7 = can still be usefulDEF room for improvement7Validity Test ManualGroup Comparison and Correlations with Other InstrumentsAssessment of Career Decision Making (ACDM)Occupational Alternative QuestionCareer Maturity Inventory (CMI) - Attitudes ScaleHolland and Holland ScaleTreatment StudiesCareer Counseling InterventionsCollege Residential Career Exploration ProgramCareer Planning Discussion Groups Career Exploration ClassCareer Development WorkshopsRelationships with Other Personality VariablesExternal Locus of ControlFear of SuccessRelationships with Demographic VariablesAge DifferencesGrade LevelSex DifferencesEthnic DifferenceGPAAchievement TypeAptitudeArea of Study

8Validity Test ManualSlaney (1980): Group Comparisons and Correlations with Other InstrumentsOccupational Alternatives QuestionFirst choice and no alternativesFirst choice plus alternatives

MethodsN = 232Male and female college studentsComparison of scores for both tests

No first choice with alternativesNeither a first choice or alternatives

Results Concurrent Validity: Clearly differentiated subjects into same categories in both tests

Concurrent Validity which as we learned in class can be a double edged sword because it assumes the other instrument is valid. May not be the best test of validity, but it is a strong example of the validity that the CDS has. 9Predictive Validity of the Career Decision Scale Administered to High School StudentsHartman, Fuqua & Hartman (1983)N = 205Chicago, urban, middle income communityHigh school seniors enrolled in specific courseworkTwo categories: Decided-No changeUndecided-Still Undecided

Methods

In-person administration Follow-up phone interview Final phone interview

Results

Predictive Validity: strong, increasing over time Factor Structure: After one year, only 3 relevant. After two years, only 2.Problem with this study is the focus on using the CDS in high schools, when the CDS is already normed for high schools. Actually relatively useless study.**No treatmentThought this would be an interesting study to analyze because it is mentioned in the manual as a specialty version, and represents yet another conflicting finding of the factor structure of the CDS. This is PART TWO (the second year) of the study that is not included in the manual.10Proposed Validity Study500 students in First Year College Program, NCSUTreatment Group: 250 studentsControl Group: 250 studentsPre-test: August Post-test: December

Treatment/Intervention:Bi-weekly group workshops and individual advising meetingsTopics including:Career InformationDecision-Making StrategiesInterest Inventories

Convenience sampling (use the students available at state) Ask for volunteers in the First Year College Program Wanted to look at this type of validtiy study because there were some conflicting results reported on these category of studies in the manual. Would assume that the results of this study would indicated PREDICTIVE VALIDITY that students who received the treatment/intervention would have increased certainty ratings and decreased indecision ratings.11Results of AdministrationN = 52 = Male3 = Female5 = College1 Freshman (Male)1 Sophomore (Male)1 Junior (Female)2 Seniors (Females)Individual administrationConvenience sampling

12Scoring ProcedureTotal 1-2Total 3-18Normative Group% ileCerIndThis is what the scoring box looks like. You add up the scores for the two scales and place them in those boxes. Next you input the norm group applicable to the subject, (such as Female, College, Senior).Last, you look up the percentiles associated with the subjects scores for each scale. These percentiles are located in the back of the test manualSuggested that you look at individual items in order to plan proper interventions more specific to the needs and what factors are significant13Percentile Distribution

1684LowMediumFurther need for assessmentHighUncertainCertainDecisiveIndecisiveExplain that there are two distributions that should be inversely correlated. If you score the same range in each, then it is likely that the data is inaccurate. If you score opposing scores than your results are more clearly defined as to whether you need interventions (Cer-Low, Ind-High) or dont (Cer-High, Ind-Low).

If you fall in the middle for either scale, you require more assessment. Unspecified whether you would benefit from intervention.14Participant 1Total 1-2Total 3-18Normative Group% ileCer6Female, College58Ind28Senior78Interpretation ****

Participant one falls in the Middle range for both scores. These scores are about average, and the participant would benefit from additional testing15Participant 2Total 1-2Total 3-18Normative Group% ileCer8Female, College100Ind23Senior52Interpretation ****

8 = 100th percentile didnt know you could have that. 16Participant 3Total 1-2Total 3-18Normative Group% ileCer5Female, College21Ind34Junior84CER Actually 1 SD below the mean for her Grade! Could be signficantly low for certainty. Is almostttt significantly high for Indecision

High for Indecision, VERY close to Low for Certainty. High likelihood of need for intervention17Participant 4Total 1-2Total 3-18Normative Group% ileCer8Male, College100Ind30Freshman55Interpretation ****100 on the certainty scale, again, is a strange percentileAlso, while he was VERY extroidinarily high on certainty, he was in the middle for Indecision, where as these two are intended to be inversely correlated. This means that Participant 5 would likely benefit from additional assessment in order to more effectively analyze his needs.

18Participant 5Total 1-2Total 3-18Normative Group% ileCer8Male, College100Ind25Sophomore42Interpretation ****

19Means and Standard DeviationsManual Includes:

High School (Sample S and Sample W)SexGradeAge **

CollegeSexGradeAge **College of Study **Age Asked on the test booklet, but it is not normed. Only mentioned in the standard deviations

College of Study - NOT mentioned in the manual or asked for on the test ** -> comes from various validity studies listed in manual20Means College FemalesBiggest differences are Participant 2 who is low on Indecision, which is good.. That means she is likely more decisiveWhile Participant 3 is about 7 scale points HIGHER than the mean on Indecesion21Means College Males22ProblemsResponse RateOut-of-date

InstructionScoringTime commitmentSuccessesResponse rate: had to ask around to a few people before receiving 5 completed assessmentsOut-of-date: THIS WAS TEST-TAKER REPORTED. Some of the questions apparently seemed unclear, and the wording is somewhat out-of-date.Instruction: Very easy instruction, and easily self-administeredTime commitment: Very short assessment, so people were more willing to take and complete the assessment23SummaryPositive Aspects:Reliable instrumentValidity studied extensivelyProven predictability

Points for Consideration:Certainty Scale unclearFactor instabilityAged test instrument

24ReferencesHartman, B. W., Fuqua, D. R., & Hartman, P. T. (1983) Predictive validity of the Career Decision Scale administered to high school students. Psychological Reports, 52, 95-100. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1983.52.1.95

Osipow, S. H. (1980). Career decision scale: Manual. (3rd rev.) Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting & Press, 1980.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Kochier, M. (1976). The Career Decision Scale (3rd revision). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

25Questions?26