Abilities, Interests, and Values: Their Assessment and Their Integration via the World-of-Work Map

Dale J. Prediger ACT, Inc.

This article describes assessments of work-relevant abilities, interests, and values and how the World-of-Work Map (WWM) can be used to link them to (a) each other, (b) Hollands hexagon, (c) basic work tasks, (d) occupational groups, and (e) occupations. The assessments and their linkage procedures, which are implemented in the Career Planning Survey and DISCOVER (a computer-based service), are intended for use with persons in the early stages of career planning or replanning. A case study illustrates how results of the assessments are integrated and linked to career options. Then, the theory, practical considerations, and research supporting the career counseling use of self-estimates of work-relevant abilities are discussed. Next, the three assessment instruments are described, and the research contributing to the WWMs 2000 update is summarized. Finally, an aid is provided for using the WWM with any assessments of Hollands types (e.g., those discussed in this journal issue). Keywords: Career assessment, abilities, interests, work values, ability selfestimates

It is generally recognized that work-relevant abilities, interests, and values are primary considerations when helping persons with career exploration and planning. Yet, assessments of all three of these characteristics are seldom provided by a single, integrated assessment program (e.g., see Kapes, Mastie, & Whitfield, 1994). The purpose of this article is to describe assessments of a wide range of work-relevant abilities, interests, and values and how they can be linked to (a) each other, (b) Hollands (1997) hexagon, (c) basic work tasks (Prediger, 1982), (d) groups of similar occupations, and (e) specific occupations. ACT, Inc. (ACT) uses the three types of assessments in DISCOVER (ACT, 1999), a computerbased career planning system serving 8th graders through adults. The Career
AUTHORS NOTE: The author thanks Rick Noeth, Nancy Petersen, and Kyle Swaney for their review of drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article and requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Dale Prediger, Senior Research Scientist, ACT Research Division, P.O. Box 168, Iowa City, IA, 52243; email: prediger@act.org. JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, Vol. 10 No. 2, May 2002 2002 Sage Publications 209232

209

210

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

Planning Survey (CPS) (ACT, 2000), a paper-based system serving 8th through 10th graders, includes the same the ability and interest assessments as DISCOVER. Work values are addressed informally. As summarized by ACT (1999), DISCOVER uses the Inventory of WorkRelevant Abilities (IWRA) to assess abilities, the Unisex Edition of the ACT Interest Inventory (UNIACT) to assess interests, and the Inventory of Work Preferences (IWP) to assess work values. IWRA and UNIACT provide scores for Hollands (1997) six types of vocational personalities and work environments. Although IWP research did not support providing scores for Hollands types, results from all three assessments can be linked to each other and to occupational options via the empirically based World-of-Work Map (WWM)an extension of Hollands hexagon (e.g., see Prediger, Swaney, & Mau, 1993). Accordingly, the hexagon forms the core of the map (see Figure 1), and the RIASEC abbreviations of Hollands types (Holland, 1997) appear on the periphery with related career cluster titles. Together with the WWM and information about 555 occupations organized by the maps six career clusters and 26 career areas, the three assessments (two in the CPS) are intended for use with persons in the early stages of career planning or replanning. The goal of both DISCOVER and the CPS is a comprehensive, work-world search for occupations that have counselee-compatible characteristics. Of course, the work-relevant ability, interest, and value assessments can also be used in individual counseling involving special concerns. Later in this article, the bases for the assessments and the WWM are discussed. But first, to provide an overview of what they do (the big picture), their application is illustrated by a synopsis of a composite case study originally reported in this journal by Prediger and Swaney (1995). (Prediger, 1999b, reported an extension of the case study.) Because the assessments are components of both computerbased and paper-based services, there are no standard interpretative procedures or materials. Hence, the case study illustrates the general procedures followed in both servicesprocedures that can be used with other assessments reporting scores for Hollands types (e.g., those discussed in this journal issue). To provide a fresh perspective on the case study, the 2000 update of the WWM is used instead of the previous edition. Introduced in 1973, the WWM is now part of five ACT programs serving approximately 5 million persons each year.

THE CASE OF JESSICA VUNDERING

Jessica Vundering (she introduces herself as Jess) grew up on a midwestern farm, helped with farm chores and record keeping, and after graduating from high school, worked as a clerk in a large insurance company. She decided that was not for her and is now a 22-year-old, first-year college student. Her tentative choice of major (people keep asking) is elementary education. Because Exploring Teaching: A Field Experience, the course she took during her first

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

211

Figure 1. World-of-Work Map. Source. Copyright 2000 by ACT, Inc. All rights reserved. Adapted with permission. Note. Case study results are represented by circled initials. C = current occupatonal choice; A = abilities, I = interests; V = work values.

semester, gave Jess second thoughts about that major, she went to the colleges counseling center to explore other possibilities. Her counselor introduced her to

212

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

the WWM and to the basic types of work tasks (working with data, ideas, things, and people) that provide its foundation. She gave Jess examples of the work tasks and noted that the WWM summarizes, via the 26 career areas on the map, how occupations differ with respect to them. Next, Jesss counselor pointed out that her tentative choice of major was located in the education career area, which is in Map Region 12. She asked Jess to mark a C (for choice) in that map region (see Figure 1) and explained that occupations on that side of the map primarily involve working with people. Jesss counselor also introduced her to DISCOVER and to IWRA, UNIACT, and IWP. Jess decided to complete all three assessments on DISCOVER. As shown by the initials in Figure 1 (A for abilities; I for interests), Jesss IWRA and UNIACT results converged on WWM regions involving things and ideas work tasks. Certainly, she had much experience working with things while growing up on the farm. She also recalled that she was one of the few girls in her high school class who liked general science and who took both biology and chemistry. Hence, she thought that UNIACTs Regions 9 and 10 might be telling her something. Also, it was clear that her tentative choice of major was not in line with her strongest abilities and interests, as summarized by their map regions. After Jess completed IWP, DISCOVER compared the work values she had indicated with the characteristics of each of the 555 occupations in DISCOVERs comprehensive database. The four career areas containing occupations that best fit what Jess valued in a job were reported to Jess in rank order. Jess used the career cluster and career area list (Figure 2) to obtain a sense of what each career area was like. Career Area Q (medical technologies), the career area that ranked the highest, seemed especially appealing. So Jess marked a V (for values) by its name on her copy of the map. Jess then used the career cluster and career area list to obtain an overview of the career areas and occupations in her IWRA and UNIACT map regions. She decided to find out more about Career Areas O, P, and Q. Because DISCOVER organizes 555 occupations by educational level within career area, Jess was able to obtain a list of occupations requiring at least 2 years of education/training beyond high school. She printed out DISCOVERs descriptions of several occupations (including related training programs and college majors) and made an appointment with her counselor to discuss how she might further explore and prioritize the occupational options she had identified. Should they be needed as Jess proceeds with self/career exploration, Jesss counselor has access to her IWRA and UNIACT score profiles for Hollands types. Through a look-up table (Table 1) and/or the graphic procedure developed by Miller (1985), the counselor can show Jess how WWM regions are obtained for any report of Holland-type scores. (Prediger et al., 1993, illustrated the graphic mapping procedure, and Prediger & Swaney, 1995, provided counseling suggestions for when map regions do not agree across assessments.) Finally, the counselor understands that there is much more to the work world than can be illustrated on a flat piece of papera map. As explained by Prediger and Swaney

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

213

Figure 2. Career clusters and career areas (A-Z) appearing on the World-of-Work Map (Figure 1). Source. Copyright 2001 by ACT, Inc. All rights reserved. Adapted with permission. Note. Examples of occupations are taken from DISCOVER.

(1995), the WWM attempts to strike a useful balance between work-world complexity and simplicity of use.

OVERVIEW OF WHAT FOLLOWS

The remainder of this article describes the assessments introduced in the case study and the bases for their integration via the WWM. After a discussion of the wide range of work-relevant abilities, special attention is given to the seldom-

214

Table 1 World-of-Work Map Regions Corresponding to Three-Letter Codes

Type A Code ASE ASC ASR ASI AEC AER AEI AES ACR ACI ACS ACE ARI ARS ARE ARC AIS AIE AIC AIR 12 11 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 10 11 11 9 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 SEC SER SEI SEA SCR SCI SCA SCE SRI SRA SRE SRC SIA SIE SIC SIR SAE SAC SAR SAI 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 12 12 1 1 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 ECR ECI ECA ECS ERI ERA ERS ERC EIA EIS EIC EIR EAS EAC EAR EAI ESC ESR ESI ESA 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 CRI CRA CRS CRE CIA CIS CIE CIR CAS CAE CAR CAI CSE CSR CSI CSA CER CEI CEA CES Region Code Region Code Region Code Type S Type E Type C Region 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3

Type R Region 10 9 9 9 10 9 9 10 8 8 9 9 7 8 8 7 8 8 8 7

Type I

Code

Region

Code

RIA RIS RIE RIC RAS RAE RAC RAI RSE RSC RSI RSA REC REI REA RES RCI RCA RCS RCE

8 7 7 7 8 7 7 8 6 6 7 7 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 5

IAS IAE IAC IAR ISE ISC ISR ISA IEC IER IEA IES ICR ICA ICS ICE IRA IRS IRE IRC

Source. From ACT (2000, p. 75). Adapted with permission.

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

215

discussed, practical and psychometric advantages of using self-estimates of abilities in career counseling. The results of five studies, showing that the use of selfestimates can improve on the validity of test estimates (scores), are summarized. The studies focus on validity for career planning applications. Next, IWRA (which obtains self-estimates for 15 work-relevant abilities) and UNIACT are described, and research documenting the unique career planning information provided by IWRA and UNIACT is reported. Attention is then given to the IWP and its research-based link to the WWM. This articles final section (Integration of Assessments via World-of-Work Map) begins with an overview of theory and research supporting the Data/Ideas (D/I) and Things/People (T/P) work task dimensions underlying the WWM and Hollands hexagon. Next, research contributing to the WWMs 2000 update is summarized. Data for the 1,122 occupations in the O*NET Occupational Information Network (O*NET) (Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999) were used in the update. Finally, procedures for translating assessment results into WWM regions are described, and an aid (Table 1) is provided for using the WWM with any assessment that reports (or ranks) scores for Hollands types.

WORK-RELEVANT ABILITIES
As used here, work-relevant abilities include noncognitive abilities in addition to the usual cognitive abilities, and they subsume basic and cross-functional skills (Mumford, Peterson, & Childs, 1999, p. 51). Measures of skill self-confidence, self-efficacy beliefs, and so forth are not discussed because they are the subjects of other articles in this journal issue and because no one seems to view them as ability measures (e.g., see Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996; Campbell, Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992). As noted by Prediger (1999b), It appears that measures of workrelevant abilities differ sufficiently from measures of ability self-confidence [selfefficacy beliefs, etc.] for both to be helpful when used in conjunction with measures of interests (p. 296). Common sense, theory, and research indicate that workers (e.g., accountants, interior designers, insurance agents, machinists, counseling psychologists) differ on a wide range of abilities relevant to their work tasks. Informed common sense is reflected in the 17 abilities identified by Jones (1996) on the basis of studies by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (U.S. DOL, 1992). Harrington and Harrington (1996) identified 14 abilities primarily on the basis of earlier work by the DOL. Regarding theory, Holland (1997) associates 22 abilities and competencies with his six types. Many of these abilities and competencies (e.g., leadership, persuasive, social, artistic) are not routinely assessed by tests (if at all). For 12 of the abilities, Holland obtains self-estimates via the Self-Directed Search (Holland,

216

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

1994). Also relevant is the theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; e.g., see Table 3.1 on p. 27). Studies documenting work-relevant ability differences across occupations have involved test estimates of abilities, job analysis (JA) data, and expert ratings. Prediger (1989) summarized the results of several studies, and he reported new research that involved DOL JA data for occupations in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (U.S. DOL, 1991). Ability ratings were available for 14 of the 15 abilities listed in Table 2. When grouped by Holland type, the DOT occupations differed in sensible ways on those abilities. For example, R-type occupations had the highest mean ratings for mechanical ability and manual dexterity, and E-type occupations had the highest mean ratings for meeting people and sales abilities. What appears to be the most recent evidence regarding the wide range of work-relevant abilities has been provided by the DOL report (Peterson et al., 1999) on the development of O*NET. Expert ratings and job-incumbent ratings for 46 skills (e.g., reading, writing, math, information organization, persuasion, management) generally showed sensible (work-relevant) differences across occupations. Finally, ACT (2000) summarized the theory and research (beginning with Abe & Holland, 1965) leading to the identification of the abilities listed in Table 2. A primary consideration was comprehensive coverage of Hollands types, as shown by their initials under the Table 2 career cluster titles. Although it would certainly be possible to add abilities to the list, practical considerations suggested otherwise (ACT, 2000).

Limitations of Test Estimates of Abilities

Unfortunately, it is difficult (if not impossible) to obtain test estimates for many of the work-relevant abilities identified by common sense, theory, and research. Ability test batteries typically assess only three or four work-relevant abilities beyond reading, numerical, and language use (e.g., see Kapes et al., 1994). Those that are assessed may be operationally defined by narrow test exercises and a brief sample of behavior (e.g., consider the typical spatial and clerical tests). As indicated by the lower section of Table 2, abilities especially relevant to Hollands artistic, social, and enterprising types are seldom assessed. This seriously affects the comprehensiveness of a work-world search for occupational options. Even if test estimates for a comprehensive set of work-relevant abilities could be obtained, they would likely require a substantial amount of time and resourcestime and resources that may not be available in services providing career counseling for the many. Also, because the ability estimates would likely be based on a diverse set of tests, the identification of ability strengths and weaknesses would be difficult due to differences, across tests, in norm groups and score scales.

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

217

Table 2 Assignment of 15 Work-Relevant Abilities to Career Clusters Similar to Holland Types

Career Clustera Science and Social Administration Business Technical Technologyb Arts Service and Salesb Operations (R) (I) (A) (S) (E) (C)

Ability Abilities for which test estimates may be available 1. Reading 2. Numerical 3. Language usage 4. Spatial perception 5. Clerical 6. Mechanical 7. Scientific Abilities for which test estimates are seldom available 8. Creative/literary 9. Creative/artistic 10. Manual dexterity 11. Meeting people 12. Helping others 13. Sales 14. Leadership (management) 15. Organization

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

Source. From ACT (2000, p. 19). Adapted with permission. Note. An X indicates which abilities are used to obtain career cluster composite scores. a. Abbreviations for related Holland (1997) types are shown in parentheses. b. These titles will replace the current Inventory of Work-Relevant Abilities (IWRA) and Unisex Edition of the ACT (UNIACT) Interest Inventory titles (science; business contact) when IWRA and UNIACT are next revised.

Advantages of Self-Estimates of Abilities

When the goal is a work-world-comprehensive search for counselee-compatible career options, one way around the limitations of ability test estimates is to use self-estimates. As discussed in the section on IWRA, self-estimates can systematically and efficiently address a wide range of work-relevant abilities (e.g., see Table 2). More important, perhaps, they can make work-relevant self-concepts evident

218

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

to the counselor and counseleeand, thus, open for discussion. As Super (1957) noted more than 40 years ago, In choosing an occupation one is, in effect, choosing a means of implementing a self-concept (p. 196). Various procedures are used to obtain self-estimates of work-relevant abilities. For example, see Harrington and Harrington (1996), Holland (1994), Jones (1996), and the O*NET Web site (http://online.onetcenter.org). Whether any one of those procedures has a psychometric advantage appears to be an open question. The procedure used by IWRA (see section on IWRA) combines features of each of the procedures (e.g., ability descriptions, examples of activities, an anchored response scale, normed scores). The 15 abilities listed in Table 2 are broadly defined in everyday terms so that self-estimates can be informed by everyday experiencefirsthand and vicarious. Normed scores are reported for each of Hollands six types. Some persons may question the use of ability self-estimates because they assume self-estimates must be inaccurate. Certainly, one could question their use in college admissions or personnel selection. However, the context here is career counseling. Regarding research, Mabe and West (1982) summarized the findings of their (yet-to-be-replicated) meta-analysis of 55 studies involving self-evaluations of ability (self-estimates) as follows: It appears that under certain measurement conditions, self-evaluation of ability may closely correspond to performance on criterion measures (p. 294). (Also see Osberg & Shrauger, 1990.) Prediger (1999a) noted that the two types of ability estimates are subject to similar kinds of distortion (e.g., due to limited experience, response style, deliberate enhancement, or cheating). One must also consider whether the test estimates and selfestimates assess the same ability constructsfor example, spatial ability and clerical ability, as operationally defined by test items as versus examples of everyday activities and experiences. Because one cannot assume that every test score and every self-estimate is accurate, both may be the problem if correlations between the two types of ability estimates are low. Validity comparisons are needed to address the accuracy concern noted above (see the next section). Some persons may be concerned that self-estimates of abilities are subject to racial/ethnic and gender bias. Certainly, that is a legitimate concern regarding test estimates of abilities. The test-relevant literature on the possibility of racial/ethnic bias is too vast to discuss here. Regarding gender differences, they have been found, for example, on test estimates of mechanical and clerical abilities (e.g., see American College Testing, 1988; Psychological Corporation, 1992). Perhaps these differences reflect bias. But as Anastasi and Urbina (1997) observed, Differences in the experiential backgrounds of groups or individuals are inevitably manifested in test performance. . . . Insofar as culture affects behavior, its influence will and should be detected by tests (p. 545). The same would seem to apply to self-estimates of ability. In any case, self-estimates (self-concepts) are prime topics for career counseling, during which they may be clarified and revised. The only alternative is to discount them.

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

219

Validity of Self-Estimates and Test Estimates of Ability: A Comparison

The common sense, theory, and research summarized above indicate that occupations differ on a wide range of abilities. Because ability test batteries typically assess relatively few work-relevant abilities, important abilities may be missed (e.g., sales, leadership, organization, artistic). In contrast, self-estimates can efficiently address a wide range of work-relevant abilities by drawing on self-knowledge based on everyday experiences. But how do the validities of self-estimates and test estimates compare? The validity data summarized below were obtained because of their relevance for career planningas versus predicting success in a specific occupation and so forth. As documented by Prediger (1998), a common way to determine an assessments career planning validity is to find the percentage of criterion group (e.g., occupational group) members whose membership is predicted by the assessments scoresthat is, the hit rate. This validation model asks, in effect, whether members of a given occupational group would have been referred to that group by their scores. Thus, this validation model is consistent with a primary use of career assessmentsto identify personally relevant career options. An ongoing, systematic survey of the vocational psychology literature over the years, a Social Science Citation Index search (http://www.webofscience.com) on Mabe and West (1982), and PsycINFO keyword searches (http://www.csa.com) on ability tests (etc.) and self-estimates (etc.) yielded no studies comparing the career planning validity of self-estimates and test estimates beyond the five summarized by ACT (2000). The results of those studies are briefly reported below. More extensive summaries and references were provided by ACT (2000). Across the five studies, self-estimates for Abilities 7 through 15 in Table 2 were obtained via an early edition of IWRA. Test estimates were obtained for Abilities 1 through 6. The number of tests ranged from 6 (American College Testing, 1988) to 10 (U.S. Department of Defense, 1995). To obtain a comprehensive set of work-relevant abilities, the self-estimates and test estimates were scaled and combined to form six ability composites. (In one of the studies, self-estimates were used instead of test scores.) The composites were based on the four abilities flagged for each of the six career clusters in Table 2. Criterion group hit rates for test estimates, alone, and ability composites were obtained via discriminant analysis (DISANL) followed by the application of Bayess rule (Nurusis, 1990). One of the studies also compared hit rates for test estimates and self-estimates for the same six abilities (Abilities 1-6 in Table 2). Four of the five studies involved students in Grades 11 or 12; the fifth involved college students primarily in Grades 13 and 14. In one of the studies, 12th graders were assigned to Holland-type criterion groups on the basis of vocational education program after being screened for success and satisfaction with program. In the other four studies, students were assigned to Holland-type criterion groups on the basis of occupational choice. (Prediger, 1998, summarized research that supports the use of choice-based criterion groups.) They were asked

220

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

how sure they were that their occupational choice would still be their first choice 1 year later. The response options were very sure, fairly sure, and not sure. In the study with the smallest sample, students giving the third response were excluded from the hit rate analyses. In the other three studies, those giving the second or third responses were excluded. After screening on certainty of choice, sample sizes ranged from 356 to 1,620. Across the five studies, criterion group hit rates for test estimates of abilities ranged from 28% to 39%, with a median of 34%. (The chance hit rate was 17%.) Hit rates for the ability composites that included self-estimates ranged from 34% to 43%, with a median of 42%. The ability composites had higher hit rates (were more valid) in each of the five studies. Thus, the comprehensive assessment of work-relevant abilities made possible by the inclusion of self-estimates increased career planning validity beyond that obtained via test estimates typical of test batteries. For perspective, the ability composite hit rates are similar to those typically reported in studies using Holland-type interest scales (e.g., see Swaney, 1995, for a summary). It might be argued that test-estimate validity would have exceeded self-estimate validity if test estimates had been available for all 15 abilities involved in the above studies. However, the results of the study that compared test-estimate and self-estimate hit rates for the same six abilities counter this argument. The testestimate and self-estimate hit rates were 39% and 41%, respectively. In summary, the results of five studies comparing the career planning validity of self-estimates and test estimates of work-relevant abilities show that using selfestimates improves on the validity of test estimates. Some might argue, however, that these results were obtained because the self-estimates simply reflect interests, which affect occupational choice. This argument is addressed in the section following the sections on IWRA and UNIACT.

IWRA Overview of IWRA

As noted above, ACT (2000) summarized the theory, research, and practical considerations leading to the identification of the 15 abilities assessed by IWRA (see Table 2). Comprehensive coverage of Hollands (1997) types was a primary goal. The same publication also contains a copy of IWRA and an overview of its rationale, development, scoring, and psychometric characteristics. IWRA describes each of its 15 abilities in broad, everyday terms, and the descriptions are accompanied by examples of common, ability-related activities. The goal is to elicit informed self-estimates (e.g., see Norris & Cochran, 1977) of the abilitiesthat is, self-estimates informed by experience (firsthand and vicarious); feedback from parents, peers, teachers, employers, and so forth; and

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

221

test estimates, when available. Organization ability, for example, is described as follows:
Keeping track of tasks and details; doing things in a systematic way [boldface in original]. Consider your ability to keep to a schedule; to see what needs to be done first, second, etc.; to store things (pictures, clippings, tools, etc.) so they are easy to find. (ACT, 2000, p. 70)

Sales ability is described as Influencing people to buy a product, service, or take a suggested course of action [boldface in original]. Consider your ability to change someones mind; to bargain; to make a sale; to persuade a group (ACT, 2000, p. 70). IWRA is untimed and usually takes less than 10 minutes to complete. Level 1 serves students in Grades 8 through 12; Level 2 serves college students and adults. Self-estimates for each of IWRAs 15 abilities are reported on the same 5point scale, and brief descriptions are provided for each scale position. For example, 5 = high (top 10%) and 4 = above average (top 25%). IWRA users indicate how they believe they rank compared to persons their age. After self-estimates have been provided for each of the 15 abilities, users are asked to review their estimates and make any revisions suggested by the review. Raw scores for IWRAs six career clusters (hence, Hollands RIASEC types) are obtained by summing the points for the four abilities assigned to each cluster (see Table 2). The result is a score for each of IWRAs Career Cluster Ability Scales. Scale titles correspond to the career cluster titles in Table 2. Prediger (2002) summarized recent research showing that cross-sectional samples can exhibit substantial differences, from ability to ability, in the extent of self-estimate optimism. These differences make the comparison of raw selfestimates of abilities problematic at best. For this reason, IWRA uses nationally representative, combined-sex norms to obtain stanines for the Career Cluster Ability Scales. For both DISCOVER and the CPS, WWM regions are determined from the three highest stanines (as discussed in this articles concluding section). Standard errors of measurement (SEMs) are taken into account when this is done. (For IWRA reliability data, see ACT, 2000.)

Validity
The theory and research leading to the identification of IWRAs 15 abilities are relevant to its content and construct validity. As noted above, comprehensive coverage of Hollands (1997) RIASEC types was a primary goal. The relevance of IWRA abilities for Hollands types was recently examined, empirically, by Prediger (1999a). Using IWRA self-estimates obtained from two cross-sectional samples of 12th graders (Ns of 6l8 and 4,387), he found a good fit between IWRAs factor structure and the D/I and T/P work task dimensions underlying Hollands hexagon. Thus, IWRAs construct validity was supported. More impor-

222

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

tant, IWRAs factor structure was shown to be similar to the factor structure of occupations and basic interests (e.g., see Prediger, 1996, and this articles concluding section on the WWM). Regarding IWRAs criterion-related validity, the section comparing the career planning validity of self-estimates and test estimates reported the results of five hit rate studies involving an early edition of IWRA. In each study, the use of ability self-estimates improved on the career planning validity of test estimates. Hit rate data for the current edition of IWRA (two studies) are reported in the section following the description of UNIACT. Mean score profiles for occupational choice groups provide another way to look at IWRAs criterion-related validity. As reported by ACT (2000), the occupational choices of Grade 12 students in two cross-sectional samples were used to establish RIASEC criterion groups. For both samples, all six criterion groups scored highest on the Career Cluster Ability Scale corresponding to the groups Holland type. For one sample, the hexagon location of the second highest scale was adjacent to the Holland type of all six criterion groups. For the other sample, this was true for five of the six criterion groups. These results provide additional evidence of IWRAs criterion-related validity.

UNIACT Overview of UNIACT

Relatively little will be said here about UNIACT because so much has been written following its 1977 introduction and 1989 revisionfor example, see the 128-page technical manual (Swaney, 1995) and the article on using UNIACT in career planning (Prediger & Swaney, 1995). UNIACT is part of five ACT programs/ services and is completed by approximately 5 million persons each year. It differs from earlier editions of the ACT Interest Inventory in that it contains items that have similar response distributions for females and males. As with IWRA, coverage of Hollands RIASEC types was a primary goal when UNIACT was developed/revised, and scale titles correspond to the cluster titles in Table 2. UNIACT items emphasize work-relevant activities (e.g., sketch pictures, fix a toy, help settle an argument) that are familiar to most personseither through participation or observation (firsthand or vicarious). For reasons noted by Kuder (1977), occupational titles and job duties are not used. Each of the six UNIACT Career Cluster scales contains 15 items; a three-choice response format (dislike, indifferent, like) is used. UNIACT is untimed and usually takes less than 15 minutes to complete. Level 1 serves students in Grades 8 through 12; Level 2 serves college students and adults. The manner in which UNIACTs six scores are reported differs across the services that use it. In DISCOVER and the CPS, scores are reported as stanines based on nationally representative, combined-sex norms, and WWM regions are

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

223

determined from the three highest stanines. As with IWRA, SEMs are taken into account. (For UNIACT reliability data, see Swaney, 1995.)

Validity
The procedures used to ensure that UNIACTs items adequately address Hollands types are relevant to its content and construct validity. Evidence that these procedures were successful is provided by studies of UNIACT structure (i.e. construct validity) based on scale intercorrelations. As noted in this articles introduction and the discussion of IWRA, theory and research indicate that the D/I and T/P work task dimensions underlie Hollands two-dimensional hexagon. Targeted principal components analyses (PRINCOs) of UNIACT scale intercorrelations for nationally representative samples of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and a cross-sectional sample of adults were used to obtain scale correlations with the two work task dimensions. As reported by Swaney (1995), plots of the correlations on the two dimensions provided a good approximation of Hollands hexagon. Similar results were obtained in separate analyses for females and males. (Also see Prediger & Swaney, 1995.) More recently, Day, Rounds, and Swaney (1998) obtained good hexagon approximations in analyses of UNIACT intercorrelations for 11th- and 12thgrade Caucasian Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans. All analyses were conducted separately for females and males. The above results appear to provide good support for UNIACTs construct validity. Regarding UNIACTs criterion-related validity, more than 30 studies have been conducted, with occupation, occupational choice, or college major serving as the criterion. Both longitudinal and cross-sectional designs have been used, and samples have included 12th graders, 2- and 4-year college students, and employed adults. Criterion group hit rates were obtained in 14 studies (23 sets of RIASEC criterion groups; 68,000 persons) that used the highest UNIACT score (high-point code) to predict criterion group membership. Across the studies, hit rates ranged from 31% to 55% (median of 42%; chance = 17%). As documented by Swaney (1995), these hit rates compare favorably with those of other interest inventories assessing Holland types. Another way to look at criterion-related validity is to see how criterion groups, as a whole, score on a set of scales. Swaney (1995) provided three-letter (Holland) code summaries based on the mean interest scores of 648 criterion groups (N = 79,040). Two thirds of the groups consisted of college students or adults, and for nearly half of the groups, the mean scores were obtained in studies with a longitudinal design. Approximately 75% of the criterion groups scored highest on the UNIACT scale appropriate to their group. The chance rate was 17%. Again, results compare favorably with other assessments of Holland types. (Also see Prediger & Vansickle, 1992.)

224

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING INTEGRATION OF ABILITY AND INTEREST ASSESSMENTS

As noted above, some might argue that using ability self-estimates improves on the career planning validity of test estimates because self-estimates simply reflect interests, which affect occupational choice. Results of research involving both IWRA and UNIACT, summarized below, address this argument.

Evidence of Uniqueness
Correlations between IWRA and UNIACT scales were reported by ACT (2000). Across four cross-sectional samples of high school students, correlations for parallel RIASEC scales were generally in the forties. Median correlations were .40, .43, .43, and .45, respectively. These correlations suggest common variance ranging from only 16% to 20%. However, they are based on one pair of scales at a time (which is common in the research literature). Because career assessment interpretations are generally based on multiscore profiles, these interindividual correlations do not reflect the degree of overlap in the occupational options suggested by IWRA and UNIACT score profiles. One way to estimate overlap is to obtain IWRA and UNIACT high-point codes for each member of a sample. Across the four samples, only about 35% of the students would have been referred to the same Holland type had their IWRA and UNIACT high-point codes been used in a search for occupational options. Thus, results of both types of IWRA-UNIACT analyses contradict the argument that ability self-estimates simply reflect interests.

Independent and Agreement Validity

Although validity data for ability and interest measures are typically reported separately, it is also important to know whether the scores commonly reported to counselees have independent and agreement validity (Prediger, 1999b) when the measures are used in tandem. Hence, IWRA and UNIACT high-point codes were used to obtain RIASEC criterion group hit rates for 12th graders in the two samples cited above. Students were assigned to criterion groups on the basis of occupational choice screened on certainty (as discussed earlier). For both samples, the separate hit rates for UNIACT (44% and 41%) were somewhat higher than for IWRA (38% and 35%). However, the IWRA hit rates for UNIACT misses (the independent hit rates) were 25% for both samples, which is substantially better than chance (17%). The same two samples were also used to determine agreement hit rates. When IWRA and UNIACT high-point codes agreed, the hit rates were 57% and 50%.

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

225

These hit rates were substantially higher than the hit rates for IWRA and UNIACT used separately (see above). Thus, in both types of analyses, the tandem use of IWRA and UNIACT improved on the validity of IWRA and UNIACT, used alone. When these results are considered in the context of the evidence of uniqueness summarized above, it is clear that IWRAs ability self-estimates do not simply reflect interests. (Also see Tracey & Hopkins, 2001.)

Interpretation of Profile Shape

As summarized by Prediger (1998), the literature indicates that scores based on interest scales using Likert-type responses (as most basic interest scales do) are subject to differences in the tendency, across persons, to provide like, dislike, and so forth responsesregardless of item content. This results in scores that reflect what is variously known as acquiescent style, response bias, or response style. In a study involving 10 widely used interest inventories, Prediger obtained the factor structure underlying the RIASEC interest scores of persons in 23 diverse samples (N = 53,429). PRINCOs of the interest scores showed that all of the RIASEC scales had high positive correlations with the first (and by far, the largest) principal component. Across the 23 samples, the median correlation was about .65. Prediger noted that this response-style component directly affects interest profile level. To determine whether interest profile level indicates strength of interest in addition to response style, Prediger (1998) obtained criterion group hit rates for persons with high and low UNIACT score profiles. For two cross-sectional samples of 12th graders, RIASEC criterion groups were based on occupational choice screened on certainty. For an 8-year follow-up sample of adults who completed UNIACT in Grade 11 or 12, RIASEC criterion groups were based on current occupation. If interest profile level reflects strength of interest, one would expect higher hit rates for the high profile groups. However, the high and low profile groups had similar hit rates. On the basis of these results, Prediger (1998) concluded that there is no reason to believe profile level indicates strength of interest (p. 209), and he suggested that counselors interpret interest profile shape, not level. This appears to be especially important when counselors use interest measures in tandem with measures of ability and/or measures of ability self-confidence, self-efficacy, and so forth. (Regarding research on the meaning of IWRA profile level, see Prediger, 1999a.)

IWP
IWP obtains preferences for attributes on which occupations typically differ (e.g., extent of physical activity, training time, income, public contact). Work-

226

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

relevant interests and occupational attribute (OA) preferences (work values) are similar to some extent. But the similarities are far from identities. Following a review of related research, Dawis (1991) concluded that the two domains are distinct, if overlapping (p. 847). (Also see Super, 1995.) In addition, assessments of these constructs have a different focus (Dawis, 2001). Interest inventories address the extent to which a person likes specific work-relevant activities, occupational titles, and so forth. Work value inventories, on the other hand, focus on the importance (to the person) of specific OAs. In this regard, wanting interesting work can be considered to be a work value.

Overview of IWP
The 30-item IWPs rationale, development, research support, and WWM linkage procedure are described by Prediger and Staples (1996), who also provided a copy of the inventory. (For reasons noted below, only 16 of the 30 IWP items are used in the linkage procedure.) IWP is embedded in DISCOVERs Inventory of Work-Relevant Values (IWRV), which is untimed and takes about 15 minutes to complete. It contains those IWRV OAs that tend to characterize an occupation across work settings (see examples above) rather than OAs specific to a given work setting (e.g., short commute, flexible hours, respected employer). Persons express their preference for each IWP item (OA) by choosing one of four response options: very important, somewhat important, not important, dont want. Each option is defined. For example, the first option is defined as follows: This characteristic is very important [boldface in original] to me. I really want this characteristic in my work (Prediger & Staples, 1996, p. 52). The literature review resulting in the identification of IWP OAs is relevant to IWP validity, as are the procedures used to obtain OA ratings for occupations and to identify the OAs used in the WWM linkage procedure (a topic addressed below). Research on IWP, IWRA, and UNIACT uniqueness, independent validity, and agreement validity is under way. Regarding the uniqueness and validity of work value assessments in general, see Dawis (2001).

IWP-WWM Linkage Procedure

A PRINCO of OA ratings for a cross section of 497 occupations showed that, contrary to IWRA and UNIACT, IWP results could not be reported by Holland type. Hence, the IWP-WWM linkage procedure could not use WWM regions. On the basis of test-retest reliability data, five OAs were eliminated from the linkage procedure. Additional analyses (one PRINCO, two DISANL) identified seven OAs that were primarily education related. Because educational plans are separately addressed by DISCOVER, these redundant OAs were candidates for exclusion from the WWM linkage procedure.

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

227

To identify OAs that could be used in the linkage procedure, a DISANL was conducted on the OA ratings for 497 occupations grouped by the six career clusters paralleling Hollands types (Table 2). Substantial and sensible differentiation of clusters was obtained for 12 OAs (e.g., occupations in the social service cluster had high ratings on public contact; those in the technical cluster had low ratings). Thus, IWP criterion-related validity was supported. The IWP-WWM linkage procedure uses the 12 OAs identified in the DISANL and 4 OAs included on the basis of special considerations (e.g., high income, an education-related OA, was included because of its endorsement rate in two field studies involving high school students). Prediger and Staples (1996) described 12 guidelines used in developing the IWP-WWM linkage procedure. For reasons they noted, the expected utility (compensatory) decision-making model was used rather than the sequential elimination model. (See Lichtenberg, Shaffer, & Arachtingi, 1993, for a comparison.) Of the 16 OAs noted above, those to which users respond very important, somewhat important, or dont want are included on the users linkage list. A users preference for a given OA is then compared with the OAs rating for each DISCOVER occupation, and an expected utility is assigned to each occupation, as determined from the nature of the match. Expected utilities for an occupation are then summed across all OAs on the users linkage list to obtain a total degreeof-fit score for the occupation. After degree-of-fit scores are obtained for all occupations, mean scores are calculated for the occupations in each of the WWMs 26 career areas. Career areas are ranked on those scores, and the top four career areas are reported to the user. Their location on the WWM can readily be compared with the map regions reported for IWRA and UNIACT. Users wishing to explore any of IWP-related career areas can request a rank-ordered list of occupations that best fit their work values. DISCOVER, of course, provides descriptions of the occupations and relevant education/training.

INTEGRATION OF ASSESSMENTS VIA WWM

As illustrated by the case study, the WWM is used to link work-relevant abilities, interests, and values to each other and to occupational options. More generally, it provides an overview of the work worldhow groups of similar occupations (career areas) compare with respect to basic work tasks. But, because the map was developed for use as a career planning tool, it is not intended to provide a precise scientific statement. Rather, the goal is to strike a balance between work-world complexity and simplicity of use. The same goal led to the development of two versions of the mapone for professionals (Figure 1) and one for counselees (available to readers on request). The career areas and their locations on the two versions of the map are identical. The formats differ somewhat because

228

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

of their audiences (e.g., the one for counselees does not include Hollands RIASEC types). The empirically based WWM was developed in 1971 to 1972 and last updated in 2000. Because the maps bases in theory and research have been discussed in numerous publications over the years (e.g., ACT, 2000; Prediger, 1981, 1996; Prediger et al., 1993; Prediger & Swaney, 1995), only a brief overview is provided here. The overview begins with a discussion of the D/I and T/P work task dimensions that provide the foundation for the map. The WWM uses these dimensions and its 26 career areas to summarize similarities and differences among occupations.

Basic Work Tasks Dimensions

As noted in this articles introduction, the WWM is an extension of Hollands hexagon. Accordingly, the hexagon forms the core of the map, and Hollands RIASEC types appear on the periphery with related career cluster titles. Research reported in the publications cited above indicates that the bipolar D/I and T/P work task dimensions underlie Hollands hexagon in the manner shown by the hexagons positioning on the map. The structural analyses summarized in the sections on IWRA and UNIACT are also relevant, as is research by Tracey (1997), who obtained D/I and T/P factors in a PRINCO of self-efficacy beliefs regarding work tasks. Recent research involving three diverse occupational databases is reported for the first time in the section that follows. Most, if not all, occupations have some involvement with the four basic work tasks: working with data (e.g., facts, numbers, files, business procedures), ideas (e.g., insights, theories, new ways of saying or doing something), things (e.g., machines, tools, living things, and materials such as food, wood, and metal), and people (e.g., people one serves, cares for, informs, leads, persuades). But usually only one or two of the basic work tasks capture the primary nature of an occupation. For example, an accountant may work with ideas, but the primary purpose is not to create ideas. Rather, it is to organize, record, verify, and so forth data in a systematic manner. Stated differently, when data-related work tasks are primary, ideas-related work tasks tend to be secondary. Similarly, when ideas-related work tasks are primary, data-related work tasks tend to be secondary. The same applies to the bipolar things and people work tasks.

WWMs Bases in Research

During the WWMs 2000 update, career area content and map locations were determined from three databases: (a) expert ratings (Rounds, Smith, Hubert, Lewis, & Rivkin, 1998) on Hollands six work environments for each of the 1,122 occupations in O*NET, (b) JA data for 1,573 recency-screened occupations in

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

229

the DOT (U.S. DOL, 1991) electronic database update (DOT, 1999), and (c) Holland-type mean interest scores (four interest inventories, six samples) for persons pursuing 640 (sometimes overlapping) occupations. These databases provided three diverse perspectives for the WWM update: (a) general nature of work (expert ratings), (b) detailed nature of work (JA data), and (c) interests of workers (mean interest scores). The three databases were used to obtain D/I and T/P work task dimension scores for each of the 1,122 O*NET occupations. For many of these occupations, scores for all three databases were available. For the D/I scores, correlations for database pairs were as follows: rating-JA (.78), rating-interest (.78), and JA-interest (.75). For the T/P scores, the correlations were .81, .77, and .74, respectively. These correlations, which are unusually high for scores based on diverse assessment procedures, provide good support for the work task dimensions. As expected, correlations between the D/I and T/P scores ranged near zero. Initially, work task dimension scores were used to plot O*NET occupations in each of the previous maps 23 career areas. The assignments of occupations to career areas were then revised to increase career area homogeneity with respect to basic work tasks. In addition, some career areas were combined, and new career areas were created. After a second set of plots was obtained, occupational assignments were again revised. This process continued until career area homogeneity stabilized. Purpose of work and work setting were also considered. Figure 2 arranges the career areas by career cluster and provides occupational examples drawn from DISCOVER.

How WWM Regions Are Obtained

As noted in the case study, a persons IWRA and UNIACT scores for Hollands types are used to obtain WWM regions. The procedure begins with the application of formulas (originally presented by Prediger, 1981, and most recently discussed by Swaney, 1995) that produce D/I and T/P scores through the use of score weights based on the hexagons geometry. Although the formulas can be applied to all six Holland-type scores, DISCOVER and the CPS use only the highest three scoresthat is, three-letter (Holland) codes. These scores are replaced with scores of 4, 2, and 1 in the formulas. Research (Prediger, 1981) showed that the D/I and T/P scores obtained from three-letter codes correlate in the low .90s with D/I and T/P scores obtained via the six-score procedure. Because three-letter codes reflect profile shape rather than profile level, their use is in keeping with the considerations noted earlier in this article. It would be possible to use D/I and T/P scores to report a persons WWM location as an exact coordinate point. However, map locations are reported in terms of two or three map regionsin keeping with the level of score reliability and the maps use in the early stages of career planning. Score reliability is also taken into account in determining the rank order of the RIASEC scores. A complex set of

230

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

decision rules address instances of tied scores, and depending on the nature of the ties, split map regions may be reported. When score profiles are flat, or conflicting Holland types are tied for highest (e.g., R, A, E,), no map regions are reported. Table 1 shows the relationships between three-letter codes and formula-based map regions. Because there are 120 three-letter codes and only 12 map regions, the same map regions can be associated with different three-letter codes. Prediger and Swaney (1995) explained how map regions reflect the configuration and interaction of scores for Hollands types, and they noted that this might best be understood through use of Millers (1985) graphic mapping procedure. As illustrated by Prediger et al. (1993), the mapping procedure can be used to help counselees see (literally) how their WWM regions were obtained.

Implications for Career Counselors

With the aid of Table 1 and related materials, the WWM can be used by anyone who wishes to integrate career assessments that report scores for Hollands types (e.g., those discussed in this journal issue) and link them to career options. Full-sized copies of the map, the list, and career area charts that group the 555 DISCOVER occupations by career area and education/training level are available, at no charge, from the author. Of course, integration and linkage is automatic for users of DISCOVER and the CPS. As summarized in this article, DISCOVER and the CPS assess work-relevant abilities (IWRA) and interests (UNIACT). DISCOVER also assesses work-relevant values (IWP). The CPS uses IWRA and UNIACT. IWRA makes a unique contribution to both services because it assesses the wide range of abilities relevant to work-world-comprehensive career exploration and planning.

REFERENCES
Abe, C., & Holland, J. L. (1965). A description of college freshmen: II. Students with different vocational choices (ACT Research Report No. 4). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing. ACT. (1999). Research support for DISCOVER assessment components. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT. (2000). Career Planning Survey technical manual. Iowa City, IA: Author. American College Testing. (1988). Interim psychometric handbook for the 3rd edition ACT Career Planning Program. Iowa City, IA: Author. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Prediger / ABILITIES, INTERESTS, AND VALUES

231

Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial-organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 833-871). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Dawis, R. V. (2001). Toward a psychology of values. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 458-465. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychosocial theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Day, S. X., Rounds, J., & Swaney, K. (1998). The structure of vocational interests for diverse racialethnic groups. Psychological Science, 9, 40-44. Dictionary of Occupational Titles [Electronic data file: DOTFILE.DOC]. (1999). Des Moines, IA: NOICC Crosswalk and Data Center [Producer and Distributor]. Harrington, J. C., & Harrington, T. F. (1996). Ability Explorer: Preliminary technical manual. Chicago: Riverside. Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-Directed Search: Form R assessment booklet. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Jones, L. K. (1996). Job skills for the 21st century: A guide for students. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. Kapes, J. T., Mastie, M. M., & Whitfield, E. A. (Eds.). (1994). A counselors guide to career assessment instruments (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association. Kuder, F. (1977). Activity interests and occupational choice. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Lichtenberg, J. W., Shaffer, M., & Arachtingi, B. M. (1993). Expected utility and sequential elimination models of career decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 237-252. Mabe, P. A., III, & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296. Miller, M. (1985). Counseling Region 99 clients. Journal of Employment Counseling, 22, 70-77. Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N .G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and cross-functional skills. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 49-69). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Norris, L., & Cochran, D. J. (1977). The SIGI prediction system: Predicting college grades with and without tests. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 10, 134-140. Nurusis, M. J. (1990). SPSS advanced statistics users guide. Chicago: SPSS. Osberg, T. M., & Shrauger, J. S. (1990). The role of self-prediction in psychological assessment. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 8, pp. 97120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (1999). An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Prediger, D. J. (1981). Mapping occupations and interests: A graphic aid for vocational guidance and research. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 30, 21-36. Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Hollands hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259-287. Prediger, D. J. (1989). Ability differences across occupations: More than g. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 1-27. Prediger, D. J. (1996). Alternative dimensions for the Tracey-Rounds interest sphere. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 59-67. Prediger, D. J. (1998). Is interest profile level relevant to career counseling? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 204-211. Prediger, D. J. (1999a). Basic structure of work-relevant abilities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 178-184.

232

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / May 2002

Prediger, D. J. (1999b). Integrating interests and abilities for career exploration: General considerations. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp. 295-325). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Prediger, D. J. (2002). Career planning validity of self-estimates and test-estimates of work-relevant abilities: Manuscript submitted for publication. Prediger, D. J., & Staples, J. G. (1996). Linking occupational attribute preferences to occupations (ACT Research Report No. 96-3). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing. Prediger, D. J., & Swaney, K. B. (1995). Using UNIACT in a comprehensive approach to assessment for career planning. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 429-451. Prediger, D. J., Swaney, K., & Mau, W-C. (1993). Extending Hollands hexagon: Procedures, counseling applications, and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 422-428. Prediger, D. J., & Vansickle, T. (1992). Locating occupations on Hollands hexagon: Beyond RIASEC. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 111-128. Psychological Corporation. (1992). Differential Aptitude Tests fifth edition technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Author. Rounds, J., Smith, T., Hubert, L., Lewis, P., & Rivkin, D. (1998). Development of occupational interest profiles (OIPs) for the O*NET. Raleigh, NC: Southern Assessment Research and Development Center, Employment Security Commission of North Carolina. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Brothers. Super, D. E. (1995). Values: Their nature, assessment, and practical use. In D. E. Super & B. verko (Eds.), Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the Work Importance Study (pp. 54-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Swaney, K. B. (1995). Technical manual: Revised Unisex Edition of the ACT Interest Inventory (UNIACT). Iowa City, IA: ACT. 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. Tracey, T.J.G., & Hopkins, H. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occupational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 178-189. U.S. Department of Defense. (1995). Counselor manual for the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Career Exploration Program. North Chicago, IL: U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command. U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1992). Skills and tasks for jobs: A SCANS report for America 2000 (Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.