Journal of Career Assessment-2000-Betz-205-22.pdf

205-

Self-Efficacy Theory as a Basisfor Career Assessment

Nancy E. BetzThe Ohio State University

This article reviews the basic postulates of self-efficacy theoryand describes its applications to the study of career choice anddevelopment. Following a discussion of issues involved in themeasurement of perceived self-efficacy with respect to domains ofcareer behavior, measurement of and research on occupational self-efficacy, mathematics self-efficacy, self-efficacy with respect to basicdomains of activity, and career decision self-efficacy are reviewed. Therelationship of self-efficacy to vocational interests and the particularrelevance of the theory to the career development of women andmembers of racial/ethnic minority groups are also discussed.

Keywords: Self-efficacy theory, career self-efficacy, social cognitivetheory, career decision self-efficacy, self-efficacy and interests

Journal of Career AssessmentVolume 8/Number 3/Summer 2000/Pages

The concept of personal efficacy, as originated by Bandura (1977), can beconsidered to have broad and significant implications for both career theoryand career counseling. In fact, Fitzgerald and Harmon (1998) describedself-efficacy as the most important new construct in counseling psychologyin the past 25 years. Like all areas of psychology, however, advances inboth the understanding and application of the theory depend on our abilityto operationalize, or measure, its central constructs. In the sections tofollow, I will begin by outlining the basic postulates of self-efficacy theory.Then, I will summarize the career-related behavioral domains and

populations to which self-efficacy theory has been applied-this summarymust of necessity be selective due to length limitations for this article.Finally, I will highlight areas for further research in career assessment,noting especially the important contributions of the articles contained in thisspecial issue.

Self-Efficacy TheoryThe applicability of self-efficacy theory to vocational behavior was first

suggested by Hackett and Betz (1981; Betz & Hackett, 1981) and has nowbeen investigated empirically in numerous studies. Briefly, as originally

Correspondence concerning this article and requests for offprints should be addressedto Dr. Nancy E. Betz, Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, The OhioState University, Columbus, OH 43210-1222.

Published and copyright © 2000 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. All rights reserved.

at Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta PARE on December 16, 2015jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bank Wawan

Highlight

http://jca.sagepub.com/

206

proposed by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy expectations refer to a person’sbeliefs concerning his or her ability to successfully perform a given task orbehavior. These efficacy beliefs are behaviorally specific rather than general.The concept of self-efficacy must therefore have a behavioral referent to bemeaningful. We could refer to perceived self-efficacy with respect tomathematics, initiating social interactions, investing in stocks, or fixing aflat tire. Because they are discussed in reference to a specific behavioraldomain, the number of different kinds of self-efficacy expectations is limitedonly by the possible number of behavioral domains which can be defined-in other words, infinite for all practical purposes.The concept of self-efficacy expectations is particularly useful both

theoretically and practically because of the nomological network (a networkof constructs and their postulated interrelationships, as defined byCronbach & Meehl, 1955) in which it is embedded. As depicted in Figure 1,self-efficacy expectations are postulated by Bandura (1977, 1997) to haveat least three behavioral consequences, shown on the right side of thefigure. It is these behavioral consequences which make perceived self-efficacyan important explanatory construct. The left side of the nomological networkshows four sources of background or experiential information postulated toexplain the initial development of expectations of efficacy. These sources ofefficacy information are important not only in its initial development but canbe used to guide the design of interventions capable of building orstrengthening perceived self-efficacy with respect to that domain.

Returning to the right side of Figure 1, the behavioral consequences ofperceived self-efficacy are as follows: (a) approach versus avoidancebehavior; (b) quality of performance of behaviors in the target domain;and (c) persistence in the face of obstacles or disconfirming experiences.Thus, low self-efficacy expectations regarding a behavior or behavioraldomain are postulated to lead to avoidance of those behaviors, poorerperformance, and a tendency to &dquo;give up&dquo; when faced with discouragementor failure.

The concept of &dquo;approach&dquo; versus &dquo;avoidance&dquo; behavior is one of thesimplest, yet one of the most profound in its impact, in all of psychology. Inthe context of career development in particular, &dquo;approach behavior&dquo;describes what we will try, while avoidance behavior refers to things we willnot try. It thus encompasses both the content of career choice, that is, thetypes of educational majors and careers we will attempt, and the process ofcareer choice, that is, the career exploratory and decision-making behaviorsessential to making good choices.The effects of self-efficacy expectations on performance can refer to

effects such as performance on the tests necessary to complete collegecoursework or the requirements of a job training program. Finally, theeffects of self-efficacy on persistence are essential for long term pursuit ofone’s goals in the face of obstacles, occasional failures, and dissuading&dquo;messages&dquo; from the environment, for example, gender- or race-baseddiscrimination or harassment.

Thus, with even these few examples, the potential importance of career-related self-efficacy expectations is evident. Equally as important as theconsequences of self-efficacy are its postulated causes, for these provideas well the basis for increasing and strengthening such expectations.The sources of information include the following: (a) performance


Bank Wawan

Highlight


207

C)Cdu

Q)

rnb

Q)C)fr

p..4~o

oQ)

t::N

Cd&dquo;cC

cC¡:!IC4~0

d0

Cd

rnQ)

U

U

S1)

~=!

C)UJ.&dquo;-!U

;:3

’N



208

accomplishments, that is, experiences of successfully performing thebehaviors in questions; (b) vicarious learning or modeling; (c) socialpersuasion, for example, encouragement and support from others; and(d) lower levels of emotional arousal, that is, lack of anxiety, in connectionwith the behavior.

Past performance accomplishments, which Bandura (1997) also calls&dquo;enactive mastery experiences&dquo; (see pp. 79-86), serve as indicators ofcapability and are the most influential sources of efficacy information. Asstated by Bandura, &dquo;success builds a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy.Failures undermine it, especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacyis firmly established&dquo; (p. 80). In addition, once a moderate level of self-efficacy develops, establishment of a strong, resilient sense of personalefficacy requires succeeding on difficult, rather than easy, tasks. Succeedingonly on easy tasks is unlikely to teach the perseverance necessary in mostworthwhile real-world endeavors.

The second source of efficacy information is vicarious learning, ormodeling. Bandura (1997) suggests that the greater the perceived similaritybetween the individual and the model, the more persuasive will be his or her(the model’s) successes or failures. Further, observing failure in a similarmodel can reduce perceived self-efficacy just as observing success canincrease efficacy. Modeling is more effective as there is more uncertaintyabout one’s own capabilities, as models are more competent, and as thereare multiple competent models rather than just a single model (Bandura).

Social persuasion from others can be effective in enhancing and sustaininga sense of personal efficacy if the target behavior is within realisticboundaries. That is, social persuasion that is well beyond what the individualis actually capable of doing will not be effective as the negative results ofthe individual’s inadequate performances will constitute more powerfulfeedback than will unrealistic social persuasion. Rather, persuasion andencouragement should be focused on realistic challenges rather thanimpossible tasks, failure on which will be detrimental to perceived efficacy.The fourth source, emotional arousal, refers to somatic information

conveyed by physiological and emotional states. Physiological indicators canrefer to indices of autonomic arousal such as sweating and fast heart beat,physical indicators such as fatigue or windedness. Anxiety is the mostcommonly discussed type of emotional arousal. Self-efficacy can be enhancedby reducing the extent to which the individual experiences these indicatorsfor example, by managing stress and anxiety responses and by increasingphysical fitness levels.

In considering the role of these sources of efficacy information it isimportant to note that they are as subjectively appraised and integrated bythe perceiver:

Information that is relevant for judging personal capabilities...is not inherently enlightening. It becomes instructive onlythrough cognitive processing of efficacy information andthrough reflective thought. Therefore, a distinction must bedrawn between information conveyed by experienced eventsand information as selected, weighted, and integrated intoself-efficacy judgment (Bandura, 1997, p. 80).



209

Bandura also distinguishes efficacy from outcome expectations as follows:&dquo;perceived self-efficacy is a judgement of one’s ability to organize andexecute given types of performance, whereas an outcome expectation is ajudgment of the likely consequence such performances will produce&dquo; (1997,p. 22). Efficacy beliefs influence behavior. Outcome expectations can bepositive or negative physical effects, social effects, and/or self-evaluations.Performances may be more or less closely related to outcomes. Banduraargues that in most cases efficacy expectations are the more powerfulpredictors of behavior. For example, high efficacy expectations are unlikelyto lead to behavior if no positive outcomes of that behavior are anticipated.On the other hand, high self-efficacy expectations may sustain behavior inthe face of obstacles and/or discouraging experiences (i.e., lowered outcomeexpectations). Although most research in this area has focused on self-efficacyexpectations, some studies, especially those examining Lent, Brown, andHackett’s (1994) social cognitive model, have examined the predictive utilityof both efficacy and outcome expectations (e.g., see Fouad & Smith, 1996).

Thus, the concept of perceived self-efficacy is embedded within a rich andcomprehensive nomological network which has extensive heuristic andapplied implications. In order to investigate and apply this theory, however,its central constructs must be assessed. Before mentioning some of thecareer-related domains to which the theory has been applied to data, I willdiscuss some general issues in the assessment of perceived self-efficacy.

General Issues in Assessment

Although a comprehensive discussion and critique of assessment issues isbeyond the scope of this article, a few general guidelines are appropriate here.First, the concept of perceived self-efficacy is used in reference to a specificbehavioral domain-unless and until the behavior domain of interest is

carefully defined and delineated, assessment cannot proceed. I often receiverequests for a &dquo;measure of self- efficacy&dquo;-simply put, there is no such thing.

Thus, the assessment of perceived self-efficacy derives from the careerresearcher’s or career counselor’s interest in a specific behavioral domain-the researcher/counselor must believe that self-efficacy with respect tomathematics, the domains of Holland’s (1997) theory, or the process ofcareer decision making, as examples, is important to the overall process ofcareer development. When the researcher becomes interested in a domainfor which no appropriate measure of perceived self-efficacy exists, thenhe/she must define the domain, especially with reference to its importantconstituent behaviors, so that self-efficacy with reference to that domain canbe assessed. (It should also be noted here that the frequently used term&dquo;career self-efficacy&dquo; is also a misnomer, as there is, again, no such thing.Rather the term has been used to summarize the entire body of researchapplying self-efficacy theory to various behavior domains relevant to thecareer development process).Once the behavior domain of interest is defined and delineated, the

response continuum is specified. In Bandura’s (1977) original theory, leveland strength of self-efficacy were distinguished. Level was assessed by a&dquo;yes&dquo; or &dquo;no&dquo; response to the questions &dquo;Can you successfully perform thisbehavior&dquo;-level referred to the most difficult task the individual perceivedherself/herself able to perform in a sequence of progressively more difficulttasks. Strength referred to the individual’s confidence in that perceived



210

capability. Because of the close relationship of level and strength ratings,and because strength (Confidence) provides a continuous rather thandichotomous item response, most measures of self-efficacy used currentlyemploy a 5- to 10-point confidence continuum (e.g., see Bandura, Pastorelli,Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Taylor & Betz, 1983) though some instrumentsalso continue to use a level assessment.

In the next sections, domains of career self-efficacy which have receivedthe most extensive research attention will be briefly reviewed. The focus ofattention will be on constructs, measures, and representative research-thelength of this chapter does not permit a comprehensive review of any, muchless all, of these self-efficacy domains. The content domains to be coveredinclude occupational self-efficacy, including self-efficacy for scientific/technicalcareers, mathematics self-efficacy, self-efficacy with respect to basicdimensions of career behavior such as those represented by the Holland typesand by Osipow’s Task Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Careerdecision-making self-efficacy will be reviewed as an illustrative processdomain. For each area I will provide illustrative measures and findings.

Career Self-Efficacy Assessment: Content DomainsA number of researchers have studied perceived self-efficacy with regard

to specific content domains of educational and career choices-because self-efficacy is postulated to influence &dquo;approach&dquo; versus &dquo;avoidance&dquo; behavior,content domain-specific self-efficacy expectations may help us to understandthe nature of people’s choices and, if appropriate, provides us a means ofincreasing the range of possible career options.

Occupational Self-EfficacyThe first study examining the applicability of self-efficacy theory to career

development was that of Betz and Hackett (1981). Their 20-item OccupationalSelf-Efficacy Scale was developed to measure students’ perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to the educational requirements and job duties of 20commonly known occupations. The instrument was originally developed totest the postulate that the underrepresentation of women in manynontraditional (i.e., male-dominated) career fields was due in part to women’slow expectations of career-related self-efficacy with respect to male-dominatedcareer fields. Accordingly, the concept of traditionality/nontraditionalitywas used both to select occupational titles for inclusion in the instrumentand as a basis for scoring the instrument. Based on percentages of womenand men in the occupation, 10 traditionally female-dominated (denoted&dquo;traditional&dquo;) and 10 traditionally male-dominated (&dquo;nontraditional&dquo;)occupations were selected. &dquo;Social Worker&dquo; and &dquo;Engineer&dquo; are examples oftraditional and nontraditional occupations, respectively.

Consistent with prediction, significant gender differences were found inoccupational self-efficacy expectations when traditionality of the occupationwas taken into account. Men’s occupational self-efficacy was essentiallyequivalent for traditionally male-dominated and traditionally female-dominated occupations; women’s self-efficacy expectations were significantlylower than men’s for male-dominated occupations, and significantly higherthan men’s for female-dominated occupations. Further, these genderdifferences in self-efficacy were predictive of gender differences in therange of traditional and nontraditional occupations considered, suggestingthat low perceptions of efficacy with respect to gender nontraditional careersreduces the likelihood of including them among one’s range of options.



211

The assessment of general occupational self-efficacy as pioneered byBetz and Hackett (1981) has been used in many subsequent studies, withmost showing gender differences in occupational self-efficacy (Layton, 1984;Matsui, Ikeda, & Ohnishi, 1989; Mitchell, 1990; Post-Kammer & Smith,1985; Williams & Betz, 1994; Zilber, 1988). The largest and most robustdifference is the higher male self-efficacy with respect to male-dominatedoccupations. Other studies (e.g., Layton, 1984; Rotberg, Brown, & Ware,1987) have replicated the findings that self-efficacy is related to the rangeof career options considered.A related area of research employed a more focused set of occupational

titles, those in scientific and technical careers. Specifically, Lent, Brown, andLarkin (1984) adapted Betz and Hackett’s (1981) assessment procedure tomeasure self-efficacy with regard to 15 scientific and technical occupations.Lent et al. (1984; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986) found significant differencesin several measures of academic performance and persistence betweenstudents with high versus low scientific/technical self-efficacy;scientific/technical self-efficacy was significantly predictive of grades intechnical courses, persistence in a major, and range of career options. Thus,the research of Lent and his colleagues supported Bandura’s hypothesis thatperceived self-efficacy was related to performance and persistence amongstudents who had already made tentative career choices.Although research on occupational self-efficacy, including scientific/

technical occupations, has supported the theoretical validity of self-efficacyexpectations as a predictor of choices, performance, and persistence inchosen majors, optimal application of Bandura’s theory to career behaviorsuggested the development of domain-specific measures of self-efficacy,discussed next.

Mathematics Self-EfficacyThe important of math background to a range of educational and career

options has led it to be called the &dquo;critical filter&dquo; to career development(Sells, 1982), yet many students, especially women, avoid taking mathcourses (Betz, 1997). Early research examining cognitive barriers to thestudy of math emphasized the concept of math anxiety (see Tobias, 1978).In 1983 Betz and Hackett published the first measure of mathematicsself-efficacy expectations and proposed that because self-efficacy theoryincludes a specification of the components of interventions (i.e., the foursources of efficacy information), it may be a more useful concept than thatof math anxiety.The original research of Betz and Hackett (1983) used a 3-part measure

of math self-efficacy-everyday math tasks (e.g., balancing a checkbook),math courses (e.g., calculus), and math problems. Large gender differencesin math self-efficacy were found, with males being significantly moreconfident than were females. In addition, math self-efficacy expectationswere related to student’s preferences for, versus avoidance of, careers in thesciences. Hackett (1985) used path analysis to test the hypothesis thatmathematics-related self-efficacy mediates the effects of gender andmathematics preparation and achievement on the math-relatedness ofcollege major choice. Results were consistent with a self-efficacy approachto career development, in that gender, gender-role socialization, high schoolmathematics preparation, and mathematics achievement were all foundto influence math self-efficacy, which in turn was significantly predictive ofmath-related major choice.



212

Following these early studies, a considerable body of empirical researchhas consistently supported the existence of large gender differences inmath self-efficacy (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991), the predictive relationshipof math self-efficacy to math performance and achievement (e.g., Siegel,Galassi, & Ware, 1985), and the importance of math self-efficacy to thescience- or math-relatedness of career choices (Hackett & Betz, 1989; Lapan,Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996; Post-Kammer & Smith, 1986).

Recent research has focused on the sources of math self-efficacy, and itsresults may have important implications for the design of treatmentprograms. For example, Lent, Lopez and their colleagues (Lent, Brown,Gover, & Niijer, 1996; Lent et al., 1991; Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore, 1996;Lopez & Lent, 1992) have assessed the four sources of math self-efficacypostulated in Bandura’s theory (performance accomplishments, vicariouslearning, social persuasion, and emotional arousal). Their findings havesuggested, among other things, that past performance accomplishmentswere the strongest predictors of self-perceived math efficacy. Factor analysesof measures of the four sources of mathematics self-efficacy supportBandura’s four-factor model of the sources of self-efficacy, but also suggesta more parsimonious hierarchical model in which performance accomplish-ments, social persuasion, and emotional arousal are highly correlatedbecause they are all based on direct, personal experience, while vicariouslearning is an indirect source of efficacy information.

Luzzo, Hasper, Albert, Bibby, and Martinelli (1998) reported thesuperiority of performance accomplishments in an intervention focused onincreasing math/science self-efficacy in undecided college students. Theperformance accomplishments intervention, involving a number-series taskstructured so that participants successfully &dquo;passed,&dquo; led to increased math-science course self-efficacy both post-treatment and at a follow-up conducted4 weeks after the conclusion of treatment. The vicarious learningintervention, a videotaped presentation of an African American man and aEuropean American woman describing their successful pursuit of math-science careers, did not have significant effects on self-efficacy. However,students who received both the performance accomplishments and vicariouslearning interventions reported significantly higher math-science interestsat the 4-week follow-up than did other students. Thus, research onmathematics self-efficacy has now progressed to include studies of itssources and treatment, as well as its behavioral consequences.

Self-Efficacy With Respect to Holland’s ThemesThere are now several measures of self-efficacy of one or more of the six

Holland (1997) types; these six themes, Realistic, Investigative, Artistic,Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (henceforth abbreviated RIASEC, asis standard practice), have been among the major individual differencesvariables used in career theory, assessment, and counseling.

Lapan, Boggs, and Morrill (1989) developed a measure of self-efficacy withrespect to the RIASEC areas in order examine the degree to which genderdifferences in self-efficacy mediated gender differences in interests. Lapanet al. introduced and described each theme as an occupational category, andprovided examples of occupations in that category (i.e., pharmacist, computerprogrammer, mathematician, and physicist for the Investigative theme).Lapan et al. found significant gender differences in favor of males on



213

Realistic and Investigative self-efficacy, though not on self-efficacy withrespect to Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional themes. Self-efficacy was found to play a major role in mediating gender differences inInvestigative and Realistic interests.

Rooney (1991) cluster-analyzed the items of the Task Specific OccupationalSelf-Efficacy Scale (Rooney & Osipow, 1992) and was able to assign 225 ofthe 230 items to one of the six Holland theme areas. Number of items percluster ranged from 18 (Enterprising) to 56 (Realistic). Males weresignificantly more confident with respect to Realistic and Investigative,and females were significantly more confident in the Social area.Lenox and Subich (1994) also developed measures of self-efficacy with

respect to Holland’s themes. Six 5-item scales were developed using activitiesrepresenting each theme. Only the Realistic, Investigative, and Enterprisingscales were investigated further, however, because the Artistic, Social, andConventional scales were characterized by restriction in range. Like previousresearch findings, women were less confident than men in relationship toRealistic and Investigative.The Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) is

a 60-item measure of self-efficacy, with 10 items assessing self-efficacy foreach of the six RIASEC areas. As described in Betz, Borgen, and Harmonand Betz, Harmon, and Borgen (1996), the SCI was developed using samplesof about 1,100 employed adults and 700 college students. Each confidencescale consists of 10 activities, tasks, or school subjects associated with therelevant Holland theme.

Gender differences on the SCI varied according to the sample studied. In theoriginal normative studies, college men reported significantly more confidenceon the Realistic, Investigative, Enterprising, and Conventional themes,whereas college women reported significantly greater Social confidence. Fewergender differences were evident among 1,147 employed adults-genderdifferences (in favor of men) were found only for Realistic and Enterprisingconfidence. In further within-occupation analyses, gender differences on theRIASEC themes were found for only 9 of 126 possible comparisons (Betz,Borgen, Kaplan, & Harmon, 1998). Fewer gender differences are evident inresearch using samples where choices have already been made, for exampleLent et al.’s (1984, 1986) engineering students and also Hackett, Betz, Casas,and Rocha-Singh’s (1992) students in engineering majors.

Recent research using measures of self-efficacy with respect to the Hollandthemes has focused on the relationships between interest in and self-efficacyexpectations with respect to a given Holland theme (e.g., Betz, Borgen, &Harmon, 1996; Lenox & Subich, 1994) and, in particular, the joint use ofthese in career assessment and counseling. The theoretical relationshipsbetween interests and efficacy will be discussed in a subsequent section.

Task-Specific Occupational Self-EfficacyAlso measuring several basic dimensions of vocational self-efficacy is

the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale, or TSOSS (Osipow,Temple, & Rooney, 1993; Rooney & Osipow, 1992). The original version of theTSOSS consisted of 230 occupationally relevant skills items selected fromthe 66 GOE (Guide for Occupational Exploration) Categories from theDictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1981). Specificitems included &dquo;Indicate your confidence in your ability to gain the trust andconfidence of people&dquo; and &dquo;Use hand tools.&dquo;



214

A short form of the TSOSS was developed (Osipow, Temple, & Rooney,1993) based on factor analysis of the original 230-item scale. Based on thisanalysis, a 60-item short form including four factors was derived. Thefactors were described as follows: (a) Verbal, interpersonal skills, Verbal;(b) Quantitative, logical, and business skills, Quant; (c) Physical strengthand agility, Physical; and (d) Aesthetic skills, Aesthetic. In a recent review,Osipow and Temple (1996) suggest that the short form, with its fourinterpretable subscales, is potentially more useful than the long form,which provided only an overall self-efficacy score.

Williams and Betz (1994) and Betz, Schifano, and Kaplan (1999) reportedstatistically significant gender differences on the TSOSS factors, with collegemen (n = 108) scoring significantly higher on the Quantitative and Physicalfactors in comparison with college women (n = 159). No gender differences onthe Verbal or Aesthetic factors were found. Lee (1994) reported that womenin engineering and natural science majors scored significantly higher onTSOSS Factor 2 (Quant) and significantly lower on both Factors 1 (Verbal) and4 (Aesthetic), in comparison to other groups of college women, thus providingsome evidence for the criterion-related validity of the TSOSS short form.

Evidence of validity was reported by Betz, Schifano, and Kaplan (1999).They examined the relationships of TSOSS scores to Skills ConfidenceInventory scores. They reported that relationships among similarly namedscores, that is, TSOSS Verbal/interpersonal with SCI Social, TSOSSQuantitative with SCI Investigative, TSOSS Physical with SCI Realistic, andTSOSS Aesthetic with SCI Artistic were high, ranging from .50 (Verbalwith Social) to .80 (Aesthetic with Artistic). Both TSOSS Verbal/interpersonaland SCI Social were negatively related to career indecision, thus suggestingthat self-perceived social/interpersonal confidence plays a facilitative rolein career decision making. Correlations between Verbal/interpersonalconfidence and indecision were also reported by Temple (1991) in men andby Temple and Osipow (1994) in women.

Career Self-Efficacy Assessment: Process DomainsIn addition to career self-efficacy measures designed to predict the type of

options considered versus avoided, or the nature of the choices made, self-efficacy theory has also been applied to the process of career decision making.One of the most important characteristics of successful career developmentand adjustment is an individual’s willingness to take control of his/hercareer &dquo;destiny.&dquo; And one of the most important bases of this sense of control,or agency is one’s life, including the educational and vocational arenas of thatlife, is a sense of personal agency. As stated by Bandura (1997)

People make causal contributions to their own psychosocialfunctioning through mechanisms of personal agency. Amongthe mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasivethan beliefs of personal efficacy. Unless people believe theycan produce desired effects by their actions, they have littleincentive to act. Efficacy belief, therefore, is a major basis ofaction. People guide their lives by their beliefs of personalefficacy. Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’scapabilities to organize and execute the courses of actionrequired to produce given attainment. The ability to secure



215

desired outcomes and to prevent undesired ones, therefore,provides a powerful incentive for the development andexercise of personal control. The more people bring theirinfluence to bear on events in their lives, the more they canshape them to their liking. By selecting and creatingenvironmental supports for what they want to become, theycontribute to the direction their lives take. (pp. 2-3)

The importance of a sense of personal agency to career development hasbeen discussed by Solberg, Good, and Nord (1994; Solberg, Good, Fischer,Brown, & Nord, 1995). Further, the importance to career development processof an active exploration of both self and environment has long been stressed(Harren, 1979; Jordaan, 1963; Super & Hall, 1978). There is now strongevidence to support the importance of self-efficacy in evoking exploration ofself and environment (Blustein, 1989; Taylor & Popma, 1990). More generally,measures of the concepts of career decision-making self-efficacy (Betz &

Luzzo, 1996) and career search efficacy (Solberg, Good, Nord, Holm et al., 1994;Solberg et al., 1995) have stimulated such useful research.

Career Decision-Making Self-EfficacyThe most widely used measure is the Career Decision-Making Self-

Efficacy scale (CDMSE; Taylor & Betz, 1983) designed to measure anindividual’s degree of belief that he or she can successfully complete tasksnecessary to making career decisions. Based on Crites’ (1978) model ofcareer maturity, the item content included behaviors pertinent to (a) accurateself-appraisal; (b) gathering occupational information; (c) goal selection;(d) making plans for the future; and (e) problem solving. There is a 50-item version, including 10 items for each competence domain (Taylor &

Betz, 1983) and, a shorter 25-item form (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996),containing 5 items for each domain of decision-making behavior. As reviewedby Betz and Luzzo (1996) both versions have been shown to be highlyreliable and to be strongly related to criterion measures including careerindecision, as measured by the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, 1987; Osipow,Carney, & Barak, 1976), and the Vocational Identity subscale of MyVocational Situation (Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980).A number of studies have shown CDMSE scores to be related to behavioral

(vs. self-report) indicators of educational and career adjustment. Forexample, research has shown that CDMSE (or CDMSE short form) scoresare related to whether or not students have declared college majors (Taylor &

Popma, 1990), to preferences for male-dominated or gender-neutral versustraditionally female careers (Mathieu, Sowa, & Niles, 1993), to careerexploratory behavior (Blustein, 1989), and to academic and social adjustmentin underprepared college students (Peterson, 1993a, 1993b).Not surprisingly, given findings regarding its correlates, research is now

being focused on the evaluation of counseling interventions designed toincrease career decision-making self-efficacy. This research, reviewed by Betzand Luzzo (1996), has strongly supported the effectiveness of careerinterventions in increasing career decision-making self-efficacy and reducingcareer indecision (e.g., see Foltz, 1993; Fukuyama, Probert, Neimeyer,Nevill, & Metzler, 1988; Luzzo & Taylor, 1994; McNeill, 1990).



216

Career Search EfficacyOther researchers have developed and examined measures of self-efficacy

relative to aspects of the process of career decision-making and imple-mentation. For example, Solberg, Good, Nord et al. (1994) reported thedevelopment of a measure of career search efficacy, defined in general as &dquo;thedegree of confidence an individual has for performing a variety of careersearch tasks&dquo; (Solberg et al., 1994, p. 113). In a subsequent study, Solberget al. (1995) reported that both the Career Search Efficacy Scale and theCareer Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale were positively related to careersearch activities and career decidedness. Ryan, Solberg, and Brown (1996)reported relationships between the quality of parental relationships andcareer search efficacy. Like career decision-making self-efficacy, interventionsfocused on career search efficacy may be useful in career counseling.

Self-Efficacy and Vocational InterestsSelf-efficacy theory has considerable potential for understanding and

modifying vocational interests. As far back as 1971, Osipow and his colleaguespostulated a relationship between interests and task success (what inBandura’s theory are called performance accomplishments). Osipow andScheid (1971) administered a task involving choice among paired nonsensesyllables and experimentally manipulated success ratios from 85%:15%,70%:30%, and 50%:50%. As predicted, preferences for the task increasedmost under conditions of greatest success. Similarly, research by Osipow(1972), Campbell and Hackett (1986), and Hackett and Campbell (1987)supported the relationship of task success to task liking and/or interests.Lapan and his colleagues (Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989; Lapan,

Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996) have been pursuing research based on thepresumption that increasing self-efficacy can increase interests. Lapanand his colleagues (1989) found evidence that lower self-efficacy with respectto Realistic and Investigative areas may explain women’s lower Realistic andInvestigative interests. And Lapan and his colleagues (1996) used pathanalysis to support the importance of both math self-efficacy and mathinterests in predicting entry into math/science majors and in the mediationof gender differences in these decisions.

Lent et al. (1994) developed a social-cognitive model incorporating bothself-efficacy and interests. Their model highlights three &dquo;person&dquo;mechanism s-s elf-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals-that form thecore of a social cognitive approach to career behavior. Efficacy and outcomeexpectations are postulated to influence the development both of interestsand of goals related to the career choice and decision process, with plans,decisions, aspirations, and behavioral choices all involving goal mechanisms.The research of Lent, Lopez, and Bieschke (1993) suggested that self-efficacy mediates the effects of prior performance on interests which, in turn,mediate the effect of self-efficacy on choice intentions. Fouad and Smith(1996), in another test of the social cognitive model, reported a strongrelationship between self-efficacy and interests which, in turn, related tochoice intentions. Lopez, Lent, Brown, and Gore (1997) reported the resultsof a comprehensive test of the social cognitive model for predicting math-related interests and performance in a sample of 296 high school students.Both self-efficacy and outcome expectations were related to subject matterinterest, and self-efficacy partially mediated the effects of measured abilityon course grades.



217

More generally, researchers are now suggesting that measures of self-efficacy be used in conjunction with measures of vocational interests incareer counseling on the assumption (now well supported by research ofDonnay & Borgen, 1999, as well as that of Lapan et al., 1989, 1996) that bothcontribute to the understanding of career choices (Betz, 1999). Use ofconjoint measures is now made possible by the availability of the SkillsConfidence Inventory (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) used in conjunctionwith the Strong Interest Inventory (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer,1994) and by the Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale (Lucas, Wanberg, &

Zytowski, 1997) which may be used in conjunction with the KuderOccupational Interest Survey (Kuder & Zytowski, 1991). Other similarmeasures include the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (Campbell, Hyne,& Nilsen, 1992), which uses self-estimates of skills and, the Self-DirectedSearch (Holland, 1994) and the UNIACT (Prediger & Swaney, 1995) whichuse self-estimates of ability as part of or along with assessments of theHolland interest themes.

Applications to Women and Racial/Ethnic Minority GroupsIn the original article suggesting the potential utility of self-efficacy

theory to career development research and career counseling, Hackett andBetz (1981) noted the particular relevance of the theory to the understandingof the career development of women. Specifically we suggested thattraditional female socialization often led to deficits in the sources of efficacyinformation important to the development of strong expectations of efficacywith respect to such traditionally male-dominated areas as mathematics, thesciences, and engineering/technology careers. We therefore suggested thatgender role socialization influences women’s career development at least inpart because of its effect on the mediating variable of self-efficacyexpectations. This postulate led to a number of testable hypotheses, all ofwhich have been supported by subsequent research (e.g., Betz & Hackett,1981; Layton, 1984; Post-Kammer & Smith, 1985; Rotberg, Brown, & Ware,1987). More generally, research since 1981 has strongly supported ourcontention that women’s lower self-efficacy expectations with respect to anumber of career-related variables serve as an important cognitive barrierto career choice and development (see a review by Betz & Hackett, 1997).Using the same reasoning by which restricted or stereotypic socialization

experiences were implicated in lower career-related self-efficacy expectationsamong women, these theories are now gaining increasing credence as anexplanation for cognitive barriers to career development among members ofracial-ethnic minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantagedindividuals. For example, self-efficacy (or social cognitive) theory has nowbeen applied to the career development of African Americans (Gainor & Lent,1998; Hackett & Byars, 1996), Mexican Americans (Flores & O’Brien, 2000),and Asian Americans (Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999). Fouad and Smith(1996) have applied social cognitive theory to increasing math and scienceself-efficacy in inner-city middle school children. Chartrand and Rose (1996)describe the usefulness of social cognitive theory for economically andoccupationally disadvantaged adults, in particular female offenders.

SummaryThus, it is evident that self-efficacy theory has considerable utility for

the understanding and treatment of a wide range of career-related behaviors



218

and within a diversity of populations. However, the research to date has,in my opinion, only begun to exploit the potential of this theory. Thearticles invited by the Journal editor that follow provide a number ofinteresting additions to knowledge of the application of self-efficacy theoryto career assessment.

The first two articles address basic aspects of self-efficacy theory itself.Brown, Lent, and Gore (2000) examine the degree to which self-efficacybeliefs and self-estimates of ability are overlapping versus distinctconstructs. They also examine the relative utility of each set of constructsin predicting vocational interests and perceived career options. The articleby Gore and Leuwerke (2000) examines the relative efficiency of self-efficacybeliefs, outcome expectations, and Holland theme congruence in predictingthe extent to which undergraduates consider 84 occupations.The third and fourth articles address applications of self-efficacy theory

in new populations. The Brown, Reedy, Fountain, Johnson, and Dichiserarticle (2000) reports on the career decision-making self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, as well as the perceived barriers to career pursuitsof employed and unemployed battered women. Kreishok, Ulven, Hecox,and Wettersten (2000) use self-efficacy theory as a basis for the evaluationof interventions to assist veterans in career decision-making self-efficacy andjob search skills. In addition to examining the effectiveness of a resume-basedtreatment for increasing career decision-making self-efficacy, Kreishok andhis colleagues develop a new measure of self-efficacy with respect to one’sability to apply self-knowledge of abilities and personality to work situations.The last two articles focus on advancing the assessment of constructs

related to self-efficacy theory. Smith and Betz (2000) report on thedevelopment of a measure of self-efficacy with respect to the socialinteractional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonalrelationships. Because of considerable past research indicating theimportance of social competence to educational and career adjustment,concepts and measures of social self-efficacy may prove useful in furtherresearch on the career decision-making and adjustment processes of collegestudents and adults. Finally, Bieschke (2000) investigates the factorstructure of a measure of research outcome expectations in samples ofrehabilitation counseling and counseling psychology doctoral students. Shealso studies the validity of the scale as a predictor of research interestsamong faculty members in rehabilitation counseling programs.

ReferencesBandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacypathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269.

Betz, N. E. (1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completingmajors in science and engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school:Effects on achievement and performance (pp. 105-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Betz, N. E. (1999). Getting clients to act on their interests: Self-efficacy as a moderatorof the implementation of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.),Occupational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 327-344).Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Betz, N., Borgen, F., & Harmon, L. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory applications andtechnical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.



219

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F., Kaplan, A., & Harmon, L. (1998). Gender as a moderator of thevalidity and interpretive utility of the Skills Confidence Inventory. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 53, 1-19.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectationsto perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,399-410.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectationsto the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1997). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the careerdevelopment of women. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 383-402.

Betz, N., Harmon, L., & Borgen, F. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Hollandthemes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.

Betz, N. E., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the CareerDecision-Making Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47-57.

Betz, N., & Luzzo, D. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 313-328.

Betz, N., Schifano, R., & Kaplan, A. (1999). Relationships among measures of perceived self-efficacy with respect to basic domains of vocational activity. Journal of Career Assessment,7, 213-226.

Bieschke, K. J. (2000). Factor structure of the Research Outcome Expectations Scale.Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 303-313.

Blustein, D. L. (1989). The role of goal instability and career self-efficacy in the careerexploration process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 194-203.

Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2000). Self-rated abilities and self-efficacybeliefs: Are they empirically distinct? Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 223-235.

Brown, C., Reedy, D., Fountain, J., Johnson, A., & Dichiser, T. (2000). Battered woman’scareer decision-making self-efficacy: Further insights and contributing factors. Journal ofCareer Assessment, 8, 251-265.

Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance on mathself-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 149-162.

Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. C. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest andSkill Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Chartrand, J. M., & Rose, M. L. (1996). Career interventions for at-risk populations:Incorporating social cognitive influences. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 341-353.

Crites, J. O. (1978). Career Maturity Inventory: Theory and research handbook. Monterey,CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin, 52. 281-302.

Donnay, D. A., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of vocational self-efficacy:An examination of interest, efficacy, and occupation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,432-447.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Harmon, L. W. (1998, August). Sam Osipow and women’s careerdevelopment: A post modern update. In F. T. L. Leong and A. Barak (Co-Chairs), Contemporarymodels in vocational psychology: A symposium honoring Samuel H. Osipow. Symposiumconducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Flores, L. Y., & O’Brien, K. (2000). The career development of Mexican American women:A structural analysis of social cognitive career theory. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus.

Foltz, B. M. (1993). The effect of a career counseling workshop on the career self-efficacy ofnon-traditional college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University,Clemson, SC.

Fouad, N., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Test of a social-cognitive model for middle schoolstudents: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 338-346.

Fukuyama, M. A., Probert, B. S., Neimeyer, G. J., Nevill, D. D., & Metzler, A. E. (1988).Effects of DISCOVER on career self-efficacy and decision making of undergraduates. CareerDevelopment Quarterly, 37, 56-62.



220

Gainor, K. A., & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations and racial identityattitudes in predicting the math choice intentions of Black college students. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 45, 403-413.

Gore, P. A., Jr., & Leuwerke, W. C. (2000). Predicting occupational considerations:A comparison of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and person-environmentcongruence. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 237-250.

Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majorsof college women and men: A path model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47-56.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development ofwomen. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1989). Mathematics performance, mathematics self-efficacy, andthe prediction of math-related college majors. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,20, 261-273.

Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, andsocial cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527-538.

Hackett, G., & Byars, A. M. (1996). Social cognitive theory and the career development ofAfrican American women. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322-340.

Hackett, G., & Campbell, N. (1987). Task self-efficacy and task interest as a function ofperformance on a gender neutral task. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 203-215.

Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F., & Hammer. A. (1994). Manual for the StrongInterest Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of career decision making for college students. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 119-133.

Holland, J. S. (1994). Self-Directed Search Form R: 1994 edition. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities andwork environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). Some diagnostic scales for researchin decision-making and personality: Identity, information, and barriers. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 39, 1191-1200.

Jordaan, J. P. (1963). Exploratory behavior: The formation of self and occupationalconcepts. In D. E. Super (Ed.), Career development: Self-concept theory (pp. 42-78). Princeton,NJ: CEEB.

Krieshok, T. S., Ulven, J. C., Hecox, J. L., & Wettersten, K. (2000). Resume therapy andvocational test feedback: Tailoring interventions to self-efficacy outcomes. Journal of CareerAssessment, 8, 267-281.

Kuder, F., & Zytowski, D. C. (1991). Kuder Occupational Interest Survey: General manual.Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator ofInvestigative and Realistic General Occupational Themes on the Strong Interest Inventory.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 176-182.

Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy expectations and vocationalinterests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinalstudy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 277-291.

Layton, P. L. (1984). Self-efficacy, locus of control, career salience, and women’s career choice.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Lee, J. Y. (1994). The relationship between women’s self-efficacy expectations and careerdecision status at the college level in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The OhioState University, Columbus.

Lenox, R., & Subich, L. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and inventoriedvocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Gover, M. R., & Niijer, S. K. (1996). Cognitive assessment of thesources of math self-efficacy: A thought listing analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 33-46.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theoryof career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,79-122.



221

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations toacademic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academicsuccess and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 265-269.

Lent, R., Lopez, F., & Bieschke, K. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relationto science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424-430.

Lent, R., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice andsuccess behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,42, 223-236.

Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1996). Latent structure of thesources of mathematics self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 292-308.

Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high schoolstudents. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 3-12.

Lopez, F. G., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Role of social-cognitiveexpectations in high school students’ mathematics related interest and performance. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 44, 44-52.

Lucas, J. L., Wanberg, C. R., & Zytoswki, D. G. (1997). Development of a career task self-efficacy scale: The Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 437-459.

Luzzo, D., Hasper, P., Albert, K., Bibby, M., & Martinelli, E. (1998). Effects of self-efficacyenhancing interventions on the math-science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, andactions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233-243.

Luzzo, D. A., & Taylor, M. (1994). Effects of verbal persuasion on the career self-efficacyof college freshmen. California Association for Counseling and Development Journal, 14,31-34.

Matsui, T., Ikeda, H., & Oshnishi, R. (1989). Relations of sex-typed socializations tocareer self-efficacy expectation of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 1-16.

Mathieu, P. S., Sowa, C. J., & Niles, S. G. (1993). Differences in career self-efficacy amongwomen. Journal of Career Development, 19, 187-196.

McNeill, P. (1990). Impact of a problem-solving vocational intervention on career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 852A.

Mitchell, S. L. (1990). The relationship between racial identity attitudes, career self-efficacy, and involvement in campus organizations among black students. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Osipow, S. H. (1972). Success and preference: A replication and extension. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 56, 179-180.

Osipow, S. H. (1987). Career Decision Scale manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., & Barak, A. (1976). A scale of educational-vocationalundecidedness: A typological approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 233-243.

Osipow, S. H., & Scheid, A. B. (1971). The effect of manipulated success ratios on taskpreference. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 93-98.

Osipow, S. H., & Temple, R. D. (1996). Development and use of the Task-SpecificOccupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 445-456.

Osipow, S. H., Temple, R. D., & Rooney, R. A. (1993). The Short Form of the Task SpecificOccupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 13-20.

Peterson, S. L. (1993a). Career decision-making self-efficacy and institutional integrationof underprepared college students. Research in Higher Education, 34, 659-683.

Peterson, S. L. (1993b). Career decision-making self-efficacy and social and academicintegration of underprepared college students: Variations based on background characteristics.Journal of Vocational Education Research, 18, 77-115.

Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1985). Sex differences in career self-efficacy, consideration,and interests of eighth and ninth graders. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 551-555.

Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1986). Sex differences in math and science career self-efficacy among disadvantaged students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 89-101.



222

Prediger, D. J., & Swaney, K. B. (1995). Using UNIACT in a comprehensive approach toassessment for career planning. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 429-452.

Rooney, R. A. (1991). The relationship of task-specific occupational self-efficacy and careerinterests in college women and men. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus.

Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale:The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 14-32.

Rotberg, H. L., Brown, D., & Ware, W. B. (1987). Career self-efficacy expectations andperceived range of career options in community college students. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 34, 164-170.

Ryan, N. E., Solberg, V. S., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Family dysfunction, parental attachmentand career search self-efficacy among community college students. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 43, 84-89.

Sells, L. (1982). Leverage for equal opportunity through mastery of mathematics. In S. M.Humphreys (Ed.), Women and minorities in science (pp. 7-26). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Siegel, R. G., Galassi, J. P., & Ware, W. B. (1985). A comparison of two models forpredicting mathematics performance: Social learning versus math-aptitude-anxiety. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 32, 531-538.

Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of Perceived SocialSelf-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 283-301.

Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., & Nord, D. (1994). Career search efficacy: Ripe for applicationsand intervention programming. Journal of Career Development, 21, 63-72.

Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Fischer, A. R., Brown, S. E., & Nord, D. (1995). Relativeeffects of career search self-efficacy and human agency upon career development. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 42, 448-455.

Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Nord, D., Holm, C., Hohner, R., Zima, N., Heffernan, M., &Malen, A. (1994). Assessing career search expectations: Development and validation of theCareer Search Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 111-123.

Super, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1978). Career development: Exploration and planning. AnnualReview of Psychology, 29, 333-372.

Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans’ career choices: A pathmodel to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,142-157.

Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understandingand treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63-81.

Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). Construct validity of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy scale and the relationship of CDMSE to vocational indecision. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 37, 17-31.

Temple, R. D. (1991). The relationship between task-specific self-efficacy and careerindecision. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Temple, R. D., & Osipow, S. H. (1994). The relationship between task-specific self-efficacy,egalitarianism, and career indecision for females. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 82-90.

Tobias, S. (1978). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.U.S. Department of Labor. (1981). Selected characteristics of occupations defined in the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Williams, T., & Betz, N. (1994). The relationships among occupational and task-specific

measures of career self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 341-351.

Zilber, S. M. (1988). The effects of sex, task performance, and attributional styles on taskand career self-efficacy expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus.



Documents

Journal of Career Assessment-2000-Betz-205-22.pdf