Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 57, No. 2, 239 –247 0022-0167/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019177

Theoretical and Methodological Issues With Testing the SCCT

and RIASEC Models: Comment on Lent, Sheu, and Brown (2010) and
Lubinski (2010)

Patrick Ian Armstrong and David L. Vogel

Iowa State University

The current article replies to comments made by Lent, Sheu, and Brown (2010) and Lubinski (2010)
regarding the study “Interpreting the Interest–Efficacy Association From a RIASEC Perspective”
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(Armstrong & Vogel, 2009). The comments made by Lent et al. and Lubinski highlight a number of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

important theoretical and methodological issues, including the process of defining and differentiating
between constructs, the assumptions underlying Holland’s (1959, 1997) RIASEC (Realistic, Investiga-
tive, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional types) model and interrelations among constructs
specified in social cognitive career theory (SCCT), the importance of incremental validity for evaluating
constructs, and methodological considerations when quantifying interest– efficacy correlations and for
comparing models using multivariate statistical methods. On the basis of these comments and previous
research on the SCCT and Holland models, we highlight the importance of considering multiple
theoretical perspectives in vocational research and practice. Alternative structural models are outlined for
examining the role of interests, self-efficacy, learning experiences, outcome expectations, personality,
and cognitive abilities in the career choice and development process.

Keywords: social cognitive career theory, Holland’s RIASEC model, interests, self-efficacy, structural
equation modeling

One of the motivations underlying our recent study examining the
relations between interests and self-efficacy, “Interpreting the
Interest–Efficacy Association From a RIASEC Perspective” (Arm-
strong & Vogel, 2009), is our perception that researchers evaluating
social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994)
often do not consider alternative theoretical perspectives. In our study,
we presented an alternative perspective grounded in Holland’s (1959,
1997) theory of RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, and Conventional) types. Using the statistical techniques
of multidimensional scaling (MDS), cluster analysis, and structural
equation modeling (SEM), we found evidence that interest and effi-
cacy measures can be interpreted as components of the Holland types.
These results were contrasted with the SCCT model, which defines
interests and efficacy as distinct constructs with a causal sequence of
development. In their reaction, Lent, Sheu, and Brown (2010) raised
theoretical and methodological issues with our methods, statistical
analyses, and the interpretation of our results. In comparison, Lubinski
(2010) noted a lack of incremental validity evidence for using self-
efficacy measures in addition to measures of cognitive abilities and
interests for predicting career-related outcomes. In this response, we
examine a number of these points, including the process of defining
and differentiating between constructs, assumptions underlying the
Holland and SCCT models, methodological issues related to estimat-
Patrick Ian Armstrong and David L. Vogel, Department of Psychology,
Iowa State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patrick
Ian Armstrong, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, W237
Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50010. E-mail: pia@iastate.edu
ing interest– efficacy correlations and the interpretation of statistical
analyses, and the importance of considering the full range of individ-
ual differences variables when conducting research on the career
choice process.
Although, as outlined below, we disagree with a number of the
points made by Lent et al. (2010), we do agree with their position that
future research may be improved by highlighting and debating the
methodological and theoretical considerations that have emerged
from our work. We agree with Lubinski’s (2010) position that it is
important to demonstrate the incremental validity of new constructs in
research before their integration into career counseling interventions
but would propose adding personality measures to the list of ability
and interest predictors he identified. Both of these reaction articles
highlight topics that should be addressed in future research examining
the interrelations between interests; self-efficacy; other constructs
such as learning experiences, personality, and cognitive abilities; and
their relative contributions to the career choice and development
process. Underlying these points is the more general issue of how to
design studies that advance career counseling theory, research, and
practice by considering multiple theoretical perspectives.
Defining and Differentiating Constructs
Lent et al. (2010) began their critique of our research by framing it
in terms of a well-known expression on waterfowl classification using
auditory and visual evidence. This analogy set the stage for their claim
that our research implied that interest and self-efficacy measures are
“essentially interchangeable” (Lent et al., 2010, p. 219). However,
our hypothesis that the relations between interest and efficacy
measures should be interpreted in the context of Holland’s

239
 240 ARMSTRONG AND VOGEL
(1959, 1997) RIASEC types does not imply that the two constructs
are interchangeable. In individual-differences psychology, constructs
are often classified using a hierarchical structure, including cognitive
abilities (Carroll, 1993) and the five-factor model of personality
(Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). For example, the broad personality
traits in the five-factor model can be divided into facets (Costa &
McCrae, 1992), with warmth, gregariousness, and assertiveness clas-
sified as facets of extraversion; anxiety, depression, and self-
consciousness classified as facets of neuroticism; and so forth. How-
ever, classifying warmth, gregariousness, and assertiveness as facets
of extraversion in the five-factor model of personality does not imply
that these facets are interchangeable. Similarly, the hypothesis that
interests and self-efficacy are components of the RIASEC types does
not imply their interchangeability.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Lent et al.’s (2010) waterfowl classification analogy is also
problematic because it marginalizes the importance of our re-
search. In fact, there is a long history in individual-differences
psychology of defining and differentiating constructs that appear
to tap into similar underlying psychological processes on the basis
of both theoretical and empirical evidence. This history can be
traced back to Kelley’s (1927) discussion of the jingle and jangle
fallacies (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). The jingle fallacy
refers to the mistake of assuming that a single psychological
construct is being measured on the basis of superficial similarities,
when in fact two distinct psychological constructs are present. In
comparison, the jangle fallacy refers to the opposite mistake of
assuming that two distinct constructs are present on the basis of
superficial differences between measures. As such, we view the
issue of examining the theoretical and measurement overlap be-
tween constructs as a fundamental research question.
To further illustrate this point, consider the results from a series of
four studies examining the covariance between measures of self-
esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy, as
well as the discriminant and incremental validity of these measures
(Judge et al., 2002). In the first study, Judge et al. (2002) conducted
a meta-analysis to estimate the population correlations between the
constructs, reporting a mean correlation of .60 between measures of
each construct. On the basis of these results, they hypothesized that
the measures were indicators of a single higher order construct, which
they evaluated in a second study using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The results for the CFA presented in Study 2 indicated that a
higher order factor could account for the relationships between mea-
sures, with a model including the higher order factor producing better
fit statistics than did a model without the higher order factor. In the
third study, Judge et al. conducted a series of multitrait–multimethod
(MTMM) analyses comparing the four measures. The results of the
MTMM analyses were interpreted as supporting the presence of a
higher order factor because the correlations between measures of the
same trait using different methods tended to be of a smaller magnitude
than the correlations between measures of different traits using the
same methods. Finally, in the fourth study, Judge et al. examined
correlations with measures of personality traits and job and life
satisfaction, finding additional evidence for the presence of a higher
order factor.
The results of the Judge et al. (2002) study suggest that a higher
order factor can account for the relations between a set of conceptu-
ally related measures. Additionally, the results of the analyses indi-
cated that the individual measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus
of control, and generalized self-efficacy provided little incremental
validity over the variance accounted for by their higher order factor.
However, it is not always the case that measures of lower order
constructs in a hierarchical model will have no incremental validity
over a measure of the higher order factor. Indeed, a number of studies
have demonstrated that personality facet measures have incremental
validity over broad personality trait measures (Beauducel, Lipmann,
Felfe, & Nettelsnstroth, 2007; Bibb, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2008;
Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2007;
O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). For ex-
ample, in a meta-analysis examining the prediction of job perfor-
mance using personality measures, Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, and
Cortina (2006) found that facet-level measures of conscientiousness
provided incremental improvements in job performance prediction
over broad measures of conscientiousness.
Therefore, it is possible to find that a higher order factor accounts
for shared variance between measures but also find that that the lower
level measures provide unique information in prediction models.
Dudley et al.’s (2006) results suggest that using facet-level conscien-
tiousness measures improves the prediction of job performance. How-
ever, finding incremental validity evidence when using a set of mea-
sures does not rule out the presence of a higher order factor that
accounts for the shared variance between measures. In other words,
finding that conscientiousness facet measures have incremental
validity over global conscientiousness measures is an argument for
using the facet-level measures but should not be interpreted as
evidence that conscientiousness facets are not facets of conscien-
tiousness. Similarly, finding that interest and efficacy measures
have incremental validity for predicting career-related outcomes
(Betz & Rottinghaus, 2006; Donnay & Borgen, 1999; Larson et al.,
in press) provides evidence supporting the use of both interest and
efficacy measures in career counseling but does not rule out the
possibility that interests and efficacy can be interpreted as com-
ponents of higher order RIASEC constructs.
Interpreting Holland’s Model
One argument against our research put forward by Lent et al.
(2010) is that Holland’s (1959, 1997) theory of RIASEC types is
not meant to encompass self-efficacy. Holland (1959) first pro-
posed his theory long before Bandura (1982, 1986, 1997) devel-
oped social cognitive theory and the self-efficacy construct,
thereby making it very difficult for Holland to have initially
incorporated self-efficacy into his theory. Conversely, Holland
(1997) updated his theory after Bandura proposed social cognitive
theory and defined the self-efficacy construct. The lack of refer-
ences to the self-efficacy construct in Holland’s later writing could
be interpreted as evidence for the position that the RIASEC types
should not include self-efficacy. However, it is also possible that
Holland did not refer to self-efficacy when discussing the RIASEC
model because, from his perspective, this construct was already
represented in the model, albeit using other terms. In fact, one of
Holland’s key collaborators1 made this very point in an article
reviewing the Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, Fritzsche, &
1
In addition to the 15 journal articles listed in the PsycINFO database
published with John Holland between 1975 and 1993, Gary Gottfredson
also coauthored the Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes (Gottfred-
son & Holland, 1996).
 COMMENT ON LENT, SHEU, AND BROWN (2010) AND LUBINSKI (2010)
Powell, 1997): “What Holland (1997) called ‘self-beliefs’ are
measured by the SDS Competencies and Self-Estimates scales.
These scales correspond to what Bandura called self-efficacy”
(Gottfredson, 2002, p. 202).
Lent et al. (2010) questioned our decision to put forward Hol-
land’s (1959, 1997) theory as an alternative to SCCT, noting that
the SCCT model provides a framework for identifying the pro-
cesses that contribute to career development, whereas the Holland
model is primarily focused on classification. Holland’s theory is
closely associated with interest measurement and occupational
classification (Campbell & Borgen, 1999; McDaniel & Snell,
1999; Rounds, 1995; Rounds & Day, 1999). However, Holland
consistently defined the RIASEC types as being part of a larger
theoretical perspective on the career development process. In par-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ticular, Holland argued that an individual’s experiences interacting
with an environment (or learning experiences, using the SCCT
term) will contribute to either stability or change in career-related
behaviors over time and that this developmental process can be
interpreted using the RIASEC model. Holland hypothesized that
congruence between the individual’s vocational personality and
the work environment will lead to positive experiences that pro-
mote the stability of career-related behaviors. Conversely, incon-
gruence will lead to negative experiences that promote changes in
career-related behaviors.
Holland (1959, 1997) also hypothesized that differentiation, the
extent to which an individual’s vocational personality matches one
of the RIASEC types, will also impact the career development
process. Holland predicted that differentiated individuals would
react to negative experiences caused by incongruence by either
changing work environments or modifying their current work
environment, whereas undifferentiated individuals would change
their vocational personality to better fit the work environment (see
Holland, 1997, pp. 61–72). Therefore, although it is true that the
RIASEC model is used to classify both individuals and work
environments (Gottfredson & Holland, 1996; McDaniel & Snell,
1999), Holland (1997) viewed this classification system as a foun-
dation for understanding the career development process through-
out the life course. As such, to suggest that Holland’s RIASEC
model is merely a classification system ignores the potential utility
of the theory as an alternative to the SCCT perspective on how
career choices are shaped by the interaction between individual
differences and learning experiences.
Interpreting the SCCT Model
Lent et al. (2010) suggested that we misinterpreted the role of
self-efficacy in their model when we noted that self-efficacy is its
key construct. We are somewhat surprised by this because it is
widely accepted that self-efficacy is the key construct in Bandura’s
(1982, 1986, 1997) social cognitive theory and also in the SCCT
model based on Bandura’s theory. For example, Lent and Brown
stated that “self-efficacy beliefs . . . are considered to be central
determinants of thought and action in social cognitive theory. They
have, accordingly, received the lion’s share of attention in research
on SCCT” (Lent & Brown, 2006, p. 15). Additionally, as illus-
trated in Figure 1, the relative importance of self-efficacy to other
constructs in the SCCT model can be seen by examining the
relative number of paths of influence.2 Self-efficacy has a direct
effect on interests and an indirect effect on interests mediated
241
Figure 1. Traditional social cognitive career theory model of interrela-
tions among learning experiences, self-efficacy, interests, and outcome
expectations, as well as their prediction of vocational behaviors. LE ⫽
learning experiences; SE ⫽ self-efficacy; IN ⫽ interests; OE ⫽ outcome
expectations; VB ⫽ vocational behavior.
through outcome expectations. In comparison, the effect of inter-
ests on self-efficacy is limited to an indirect mediated path through
vocational behaviors and learning experiences. When predicting
vocational behaviors, both self-efficacy and interests have direct
paths in the SCCT model, but the overall influence of self-efficacy
is larger because this construct also has indirect paths of influence
mediated through links between outcome expectations and inter-
ests with vocational behaviors. Self-efficacy both mediates the
influence of more distal variables on subsequent vocational behav-
iors and also contributes to more proximate variables that also
influence outcomes. Therefore, it would appear that the SCCT
model is often represented with self-efficacy as the key variable
predicting vocational behavior.
It should be noted that our observation that self-efficacy is the
key construct in the SCCT model is not intended as a criticism.
Indeed, the model of interrelations among constructs in SCCT is
entirely consistent with how Bandura (1982, 1986, 1997) concep-
tualized self-efficacy, and Lent et al. (1994) explicitly linked
SCCT to Bandura’s theory in the original formulation of their
model. Subsequent theoretical statements and SCCT-based studies
have maintained this link to Bandura (e.g., Lent, 2005, pp. 101–
102). Instead of criticizing SCCT for being based on Bandura’s
theory, the focus of our work is on the identification and evaluation
of alternative models to compare with SCCT. This focus is moti-
vated by our observation that many empirical studies supporting
the SCCT model, including the longitudinal and experimental
research cited by Lent et al. (2010), have focused on testing
2
The full SCCT model (e.g., Lent, 2005, p. 108) includes constructs not
illustrated in Figure 1. These changes were made to simplify the path
diagram presented in Figure 1 and facilitate comparisons with Figures 2
and 3. Constructs not illustrated include background contextual affor-
dances, person inputs (e.g., predispositions, gender, race/ethnicity, and
disability/health status), and contextual influences proximal to choice be-
haviors. Each of these constructs fall outside of the feedback loop dis-
cussed in this article. Additionally, the construct of vocational behavior is
often divided into choice goals, choice actions, and performance domains
and attainments when representing the full SCCT model.
 242 ARMSTRONG AND VOGEL
relatively small deviations from it (e.g., Lent et al., 2003, 2005;
Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu, 2008; Lent, Sheu, et al., 2008) and
that the model-confirming predisposition in this type of research
seems unlikely to lead to new insights. Therefore, we proposed
using Holland’s (1959, 1997) theory to specify an alternative
model to compare with the SCCT model when analyzing interest–
efficacy correlations.
Our decision to focus specifically on Holland’s (1959, 1997)
theory will hopefully not detract from the more general point that
it is important to consider alternative theoretical perspectives when
conducting research. Consider what would have happened if our
results supported the SCCT model over the proposed Holland-
based alternative, with the split between interest and confidence
scales emerging as the first dimension in the MDS analysis,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interest and confidence scales grouped into two distinct sets of
between-type clusters, and the fit indices obtained in the SEM
analyses reaching cutoff criteria for the SCCT-based model but not
for the Holland-based alternative. The conclusions drawn from
these hypothetical results would be very different from what is
presented in our work. In particular, we would have raised
issues regarding the assumptions underlying Holland’s type
definitions and the use of measures, such as the SDS, that create
total scores from interest, competency, and ability self-estimate
subscales. More importantly, we would have also argued that
empirical support for the SCCT model was enhanced by our
consideration of an alternative theory. However, these results
would not have been as interesting, as it seems unlikely that the
current thought-provoking debate would have occurred if our
research had supported the SCCT model.
Alternatives to the SCCT Model
A number of empirical studies have demonstrated a direct
reciprocal relationship between interests and efficacy (Bonitz,
Larson, & Armstrong, in press; Nauta, Kahn, Angell, & Cantarelli,
2002; Tracey, 2002a). In their reaction to our work, Lent et al.
(2010) acknowledged this point, noting that the relationship be-
tween interests and self-efficacy “is likely to be reciprocal in
nature” (p. 220). However, they did not acknowledge that the
traditional SCCT model does not include a reciprocal path between
interests and efficacy. As illustrated in Figure 1, in the SCCT
model, self-efficacy has a direct path influencing interests, but the
influence of interests on self-efficacy is indirect, mediated through
other constructs. In comparison, as illustrated in Figure 2, it is
possible to specify a model with direct reciprocal links between
interests and self-efficacy. This bidirectional alternative, or mutual
influence model, represents a potential alternative to the SCCT
model that could be evaluated in future research. We agree with
Lent et al.’s observation that the empirical support for the mutual
influence model is limited to a small number of studies primarily
based on college student samples. Additionally, their hypothesis
that moderator variables may play a role in determining the pri-
mary direction and magnitude of interest– efficacy influences is
very interesting, and we agree fully with their position that these
issues deserve further study.
A second alternative to the SCCT model based on Holland’s
(1959, 1997) theory is presented in Figure 3. In comparison to the
mutual influence model illustrated in Figure 2, which hypothesizes
a direct reciprocal link between interests and self-efficacy, this
Figure 2. Mutual influence model with bidirectional link between inter-
ests and self-efficacy, their interrelations with learning experiences and
outcome Expectations, and the prediction of vocational behaviors. LE ⫽
learning experiences; SE ⫽ self-efficacy; IN ⫽ interests; OE ⫽ outcome
expectations; VB ⫽ vocational behavior.
Holland-based model represents the interests and self-efficacy
constructs as components of higher order RIASEC constructs. As
discussed in Armstrong and Vogel (2009), the primary advantage
of the Holland-based model illustrated in Figure 3 is its parsimony
over the SCCT model, and this would also be the case when
comparing it to the mutual influence model. However, as noted by
Lent et al. (2010), the parsimony advantage of using higher order
Holland constructs would only be present in research measuring
interests and self-efficacy across all six of the RIASEC scales.
Therefore, research focused on domain-specific measures of inter-
ests and self-efficacy in areas such as engineering may not benefit
from examining the proposed Holland-based model. Conversely,
this type of domain-specific research may be problematic because,
as noted by Lubinski (2010), not measuring the full range of
interests and self-efficacy beliefs is a violation of Carnap’s (1950)
total evidence rule.
Linked Measures and Interest–Efficacy Correlations
One of the issues raised in the SCCT literature is that using
linked interest and efficacy measures may overestimate the mag-
nitude of correlations between the two constructs (Lent & Brown,
2006; Lent et al., 2010). Research based on the SCCT model using
domain-specific measures often reports interest– efficacy correla-
tions that are lower than what was reported in Armstrong and
Vogel (2009). For example, Table 1 lists estimates of interest–
efficacy correlations from our study, the test manuals for the Skills
Confidence Invention (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 2005) and
the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (CISS; Campbell, Hyne, &
Nilsen, 1992), and a number of recently published studies con-
ducted with college students in engineering and computing majors
by Lent and colleagues (Lent et al., 2003, 2005; Lent, Lopez, et al.,
2008; Lent, Sheu, et al., 2008). The mean interest– efficacy corre-
lation reported by Armstrong and Vogel was .64, which falls
within the range of other RIASEC-based measures. In comparison,
the interest– efficacy correlations in studies of engineering and
computing students ranged from .42 to .46, with a study-weighted
mean of .43. However, these differences in the magnitude of
 COMMENT ON LENT, SHEU, AND BROWN (2010) AND LUBINSKI (2010)
Figure 3. Holland-based model of interrelations among learning experi-
ences, Holland types, and outcome expectations, as well as their prediction
of vocational behaviors, with interests and self-efficacy as Holland-type
indicator variables. LE ⫽ learning experiences; SE ⫽ self-efficacy; IN ⫽
interests; OE ⫽ outcome expectations; VB ⫽ vocational behavior.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interest– efficacy correlations across studies may be attributed to
issues other than shared measurement variance.
In particular, restriction of range effects may be present in
samples obtained from specific occupations or college majors,
thereby attenuating estimates of interest– efficacy correlations rel-
ative to studies based on unrestricted samples. The samples of
engineering students reported in Table 1 had an average SAT
mathematics score of 674.59, which corresponds to approximately
the 90th percentile (College Board, 2009). It also seems likely that
these students would represent a restricted range of interest and
efficacy in the engineering domain. Indeed, according to the SCCT
model, students with low interest and efficacy in engineering
would be less likely to pursue engineering majors than would
students with high interest and self-efficacy. SAT mathematics
scores for students in the computing domains were not reported by
Lent, Lopez, et al. (2008). However, similar to the engineering
students, it seems likely that these students would represent a
restricted range of interest and efficacy in the computing domain.
Therefore, the samples of engineering and computing majors listed
in Table 1 should have, on average, interest and efficacy scores in
these domains that are much higher than a general sample of
college students. For this reason, and following the total evidence
rule discussed by Lubinski (2010), the suggestion that our research
has overestimated interest– efficacy correlations needs to be eval-
uated against the possibility that studies using very selective
groups of students have underestimated these correlations.
Corrections for restriction of range effects are frequently used in
meta-analytic research to estimate population correlation coeffi-
Table 1
Published Estimates of Interest–Efficacy Correlations
R Domains measured
.70 Campbell Interest and Skill Survey Orientation Scales
.68 RIASEC types
.64 RIASEC types
.61 RIASEC types
.46 Engineering
.45 Engineering
.42a Engineering
.42 Computing disciplines
a
Mean interest– efficacy correlation across time points in a longitudinal study. RIASEC ⫽ Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and
Conventional.
243
cients from samples that do not represent the full range of indi-
vidual differences of the measured attributes (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004). By using a formula for correcting restriction of range
effects, it is possible to estimate what the interest– efficacy corre-
lation for all college students would be on the measures used with
engineering and computing majors. This correction is based on
estimating the ratio of variances in interest and efficacy between
the full student population and the restricted range of variances in
the samples of engineering and computing students. Therefore, the
magnitude of underestimation of interest– efficacy correlations due
to restriction of range attenuation is dependent on how restricted
the sample is. If we make the modest assumption that engineering
and computing majors have above-average interest in engineering
and computing (i.e., that they score above the 50th percentile on
these measures relative to all college students), then the corrected
estimate of interest– efficacy correlation would be .623 using the
procedures outlined by Hunter and Schmidt (2004, pp. 103–109).
As such, our finding of a mean interest– efficacy correlation of .64
across RIASEC categories in a general sample of college students
appears to be consistent with finding an interest– efficacy correla-
tion of .43 in samples of engineering or computing majors re-
sponding to domain-specific measures.
The self-efficacy-based measures most frequently used in con-
junction with interest measures, such as the SCI (Betz et al., 2005)
and CISS (Campbell et al., 1992), were developed in response to
Bandura’s work on the self-efficacy construct and the emergence
of SCCT as a model of the career choice and development process.
Aside from the statistical issue of quantifying the magnitude of
interest– efficacy correlations, it may be essential to use this type
of linked measures when working with clients in applied settings.
As outlined in the SCI manual, the interpretation of jointly admin-
istered interest and self-efficacy measures involves differentiating
between career choices classified as being a high priority for future
exploration because both interest and confidence levels are high
and career choices that are classified as a low priority for future
career exploration because both interests and confidence scores are
low. When using this interpretive framework, it is also possible to
find cases where there are discrepancies between interests and
self-efficacy. When an individual has high interest but low self-
efficacy in a domain or low interest but high self-efficacy in a
domain, the interpretation is that occupations in this domain with
interest– efficacy discrepancies could become a good option for
Sample Source
Employed adults (n ⫽ 4,842) Campbell, Hyne, & Nilsen (1992)
Undergraduate students (n ⫽ 331) Betz, Borgen, & Harmon (2005)
Undergraduate students (n ⫽ 608) Armstrong & Vogel (2009)
Employed adults (n ⫽ 362) Betz, Borgen, & Harmon (2005)
Engineering students (n ⫽ 487) Lent et al. (2005)
Engineering students (n ⫽ 328) Lent et al. (2003)
Engineering students (n ⫽ 209) Lent, Sheu, et al. (2008)
Computing students (n ⫽ 1,208) Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu (2008)
 244 ARMSTRONG AND VOGEL
future exploration if the interest or self-efficacy deficit can be
modified.
A recent study by Tracey (in press) illustrates the potential
utility of using linked interest and self-efficacy measures to predict
career-related outcomes. Using a sample of 2,145 adults who
completed the Personal Globe Inventory (PGI; Tracey, 2002b), the
effects of interest and efficacy congruence with expressed career
choices were examined as predictors of career certainty. Overall,
Tracey (in press) found that both interest-choice and efficacy-
choice congruence were related to career certainty, with higher
levels of congruence linked to higher levels of certainty. Although
efficacy congruence did not provide any incremental validity for
predicting certainty over interest congruence, there was a signifi-
cant interest– efficacy interaction effect. When there was agree-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ment between interests and efficacy, there was also a strong
positive relation between congruence and career certainty, but in
cases of interest– efficacy discrepancies, there was little relation
between congruence and certainty. The PGI requires individuals to
rate the same items on both their interests and confidence. There-
fore, we can assume that interest– efficacy discrepancies reflect the
attitudes of the respondent and are not artifacts of differences in
item content. In comparison, when using interest and efficacy
measures that were not designed to be used together for a joint
administration in either research or applied settings, the results
may be confounded by item content differences.
Other Methodological Considerations
Lent et al. (2010) raised a number of specific criticisms regard-
ing how we framed our research question, performed our statistical
analyses, and interpreted our results. They were critical of our use
of the Alternate-Forms Public Domain RIASEC marker scales
(AFPD; Armstrong, Allison, & Rounds, 2008) in our research,
noting that there is limited validity evidence for these measures.
Although there is structural and convergent validity evidence for
the AFPD scales (see Armstrong, Allison, & Rounds, 2008, pp.
291–293), we agree that additional research on the validity of these
measures is warranted. Additionally, it will be important to repli-
cate our results for the AFPD scales with the commercially avail-
able interest and efficacy measures that are used in applied set-
tings. Lent et al. also made the point that RIASEC-based measures
may be less ideal than domain-specific measures when examining
the relations between interests and self-efficacy. We agree some-
what with this point, noting that domain-specific measures have
been developed for interests and self-efficacy (Betz et al., 2003)
and that these measures have incremental validity over broad
RIASEC measures (Donnay & Borgen, 1996). However, similar to
what is found with personality facets (e.g., Dudley et al., 2006), the
use of these domain-specific measures does not rule out the pres-
ence of higher order factors because basic interest scales can be
conceptualized as facets of the Holland types (Tracey & Rounds,
1995).
Researchers working with confidence measures have generally
assumed that the underlying attribute being measured is self-
efficacy (Rottinghaus, Larson, & Borgen, 2002). However, Lent et
al. (2010) were critical of our operational definition of the self-
efficacy construct, arguing that there is an important distinction
between an individual’s level of confidence to perform a task and
his or her self-efficacy to perform a task, noting that “being able to
do something and being able to do it well, especially under more
difficulty performance conditions, are somewhat different matters”
(p. 221). The implication here is that confidence measures are not
optimal measures of self-efficacy, as the threshold for endorsing a
confidence item would be lower than the threshold for endorsing
an equivalent self-efficacy item. We find this argument problem-
atic because Lent et al. did not cite any empirical research to
support their assumed distinction between confidence and self-
efficacy measures.
In our MDS analyses of interest and efficacy, we found that a
two-dimensional solution produced a structure consistent with
Holland’s RIASEC model and that adding a third dimension to the
analyses produced a separation between interest and efficacy mea-
sures that improved model fit by 4.3%. Lent et al. (2010) misin-
terpreted our discussion of this result as implying that this effect is
“somewhat trivial” (p. 222). In fact, we do not see this result as
being trivial. Improving model fit by 4.3% when adding a third
dimension separating interest and efficacy scales demonstrates that
there are differences in how individuals respond to interest and
efficacy measures. However, because the contribution of this third
dimension is small relative to the first two dimensions, our results
suggest that interest– efficacy distinctions should be interpreted
within the context of the RIASEC model. Similarly, Lent et al.
misinterpreted our hierarchical clustering results, noting that “sep-
arate self-efficacy and interest subclusters did emerge within each
RIASEC type” (Lent et al., 2010, p. 222). Although this observa-
tion is technically correct, it ignores the fact that our cluster
analysis, as based on Gati’s (1979, 1991) model, is focused on
evaluating between-type clusters.3
When reviewing our SEM analyses, Lent et al. (2010) were
critical of our inclusion of interest and efficacy response factors in
our Holland-based model and also raised questions regarding the
utility of our model for predicting vocational outcomes. We agree
with their observation that using method factors is a novel ap-
proach for interest– efficacy research but would point out that this
technique is well established in other areas of individual-
differences psychology (Eid & Diener, 2006). Additionally, our
MDS analysis demonstrated that there were differences in how
individuals respond to interest and efficacy measures. Therefore,
any model fit to this data must account for differences in how
individuals respond to the two types of measures. This is done
within the SCCT framework by modeling interest and efficacy
measures as indicators of separate constructs. In our alternative
model, which hypothesizes that the shared variance between in-
terests and efficacy can be accounted for by Holland-based con-
structs, the logical place to account for differences between the two
3
In Gati’s (1979, 1991) model, the six RIASEC types form three
between-type clusters: (R, I), (A, S), and (E, C). In Armstrong and Vogel
(2009), the four scales for each RIASEC type (activity interest, occupa-
tional interest, activity confidence, and activity confidence) each formed a
distinct within-type cluster, and these six type clusters then formed the
three between-type clusters predicted by Gati’s model. These results dem-
onstrate that the interest– efficacy distinction is secondary to the RIASEC
typology. Conversely, if separate between-type clusters had formed for
interest and efficacy scales (e.g., if the R and I confidence scales formed a
separate cluster from the R and I interest scales), then the results would
suggest that the RIASEC typology is secondary to the interest– efficacy
distinction.
 COMMENT ON LENT, SHEU, AND BROWN (2010) AND LUBINSKI (2010)
measures is in method factors. However, we agree with Lent et al.
that this alternative model needs to be evaluated by examining its
prediction of vocational outcomes. To the extent that the shared
variance between interests and efficacy measures is important for
predicting outcomes, then our model may be preferred due to its
parsimony. Conversely, if the differences in how individuals re-
spond to the two types of measures are more important, then the
SCCT model should emerge as the better solution in future re-
search comparing models.
A Broader Individual-Differences Perspective
Lubinski (2010) synthesized a wide range of theoretical, empir-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ical, and epistemological sources in support of the position that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
researchers working within the SCCT framework need to incor-
porate measures of cognitive abilities into their study designs. We
find ourselves in agreement with this point. As noted by Lubinski,
cognitive ability scores have implications for the level of employ-
ment that an individual is best suited for, and occupations that
require higher levels of cognitive ability tend to be of higher
prestige than occupations that require lower levels of cognitive
ability. The importance of evaluating the incremental validity of
self-efficacy over cognitive abilities is illustrated in a recent meta-
analysis by Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, and Rich (2007) exam-
ining the prediction of job performance using self-efficacy mea-
sures after accounting for the effects of general mental ability,
personality, and previous work experience. The results of the
analyses demonstrated that self-efficacy was a significant predictor
of job performance. However, self-efficacy did not have any
incremental validity over the other measures. Judge et al. inter-
preted their results as indicating that Bandura (1997) overstated the
importance of self-efficacy as a predictor of work-related out-
comes.
When representing prestige or occupational level in models of
the world of work, these constructs are often conceptualized as a
third dimension that is orthogonal to the interest-based data–ideas
and things–people dimensions that underlie Holland’s (1959,
1997) RIASEC types (Rounds, 1995; Rounds & Day, 1999). For
example, the spherical model of interests (Tracey & Rounds, 1996)
includes prestige as a third dimension, and Gottfredson and Hol-
land (1996) proposed using complexity. These conceptualizations
imply that once an appropriate level of occupational attainment is
set by the individual’s ability level, the career choice process is
determined more by interests and other noncognitive factors. How-
ever, there is an emerging body of empirical research on integrat-
ing individual-differences measures into trait complexes (Acker-
man & Heggestad, 1997; see also Armstrong, Day, McVay, &
Rounds, 2008) that has demonstrated links between abilities and
the RIASEC model of interests. Additionally, Lubinski (2010)
presented longitudinal data from Project Talent illustrating differ-
ences in verbal, spatial, and mathematical abilities for individuals
who completed either a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or
doctorate in nine academic disciplines. Spatial and verbal abilities
were implicated in the choice of academic discipline, with high
levels of spatial ability, relative to verbal ability, linked to careers
in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
fields and the opposite ability pattern linked to non-STEM fields.
As such, cognitive abilities may influence the career choice pro-
245
cess beyond determining the appropriate level of employment for
an individual.
Although we agree with Lubinski’s (2010) position that cogni-
tive ability measures need to be included in vocational research
and practice, we propose adding personality to his list of estab-
lished constructs that predict career-related outcomes. In a meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies examining personality traits, cog-
nitive abilities, and socioeconomic status (SES) for predicting
mortality/longevity, divorce, and educational and occupational at-
tainment, Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg (2007)
found that the magnitude of effects for personality was comparable
to those of SES and cognitive abilities. Personality traits were also
found to have incremental validity in predicting these important
life outcomes above cognitive abilities. Another recent study found
that interest and self-efficacy measures had incremental validity
over personality traits for predicting the current academic majors
of college students (Larson et al., in press). Overall, there is
empirical evidence demonstrating that interests, cognitive abilities,
personality, and self-efficacy can be used to predict to academic
and career-related behaviors and outcomes. However, as noted by
Lubinski, until research is conducted examining the incremental
validity of using all of these constructs in the same study, there
remain unanswered questions regarding their relative importance.
Summary and Conclusions
One of the key objectives of the research presented in Arm-
strong and Vogel (2009) was to encourage the examination of
alternative theoretical perspectives in vocational research. We
believe that the testing of alternative models enhances understand-
ing of career-related theory and practice, irrespective of which
specific model is supported by the data. In our research, we have
found evidence that a Holland-based interpretation of the relation-
ships of interest and efficacy may be a useful alternative to the
SCCT model. However, Lent et al. (2010) raised a number of
issues with our findings on the basis of theoretical and method-
ological points regarding our research methods, statistical analy-
ses, and interpretation of results. Although we have disagreed with
a number of the specific points made by Lent et al., overall, we
agree with their position that future research may be improved by
highlighting and debating the methodological and theoretical con-
siderations that have emerged from our work. We also find our-
selves in agreement with Lubinski’s (2010) position that it is
important to demonstrate the incremental validity of new con-
structs in research before their integration into career counseling
interventions. Overall, demonstrating the importance of consider-
ing alternative models, including the need to examine the interre-
lations between interests and self-efficacy in relation to other
constructs within these models, remains one of the essential ob-
jectives in our work.
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and
interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
219 –245.
Armstrong, P. I., Allison, W., & Rounds, J. (2008). Development and
initial validation of brief public-domain RIASEC marker scales. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 73, 287–299.
Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X., McVay, J. P., & Rounds, J. (2008). Holland’s
 246 ARMSTRONG AND VOGEL
RIASEC model as an integrative framework for individual differences.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 1–18.
Armstrong, P. I., & Vogel, D. L. (2009). Interpreting the interest– efficacy
association from a RIASEC perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 56, 392– 407.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Beauducel, A., Leipmann, D., Felfe, J., & Nettelsnstroth, W. (2007). The
impact of different measurement models for fluid and crystallized intel-
ligence on the correlation with personality traits. European Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychological Assessment, 23, 71–78.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (2005). Skills Confidence
Inventory Manual (rev. ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., Rottinghaus, P., Paulsen, A., Halper, C. R., &
Harmon, L. W. (2003). The expanded Skills Confidence Inventory:
Measuring basic dimensions of vocational activity. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 62, 76 –100.
Betz, N. E., & Rottinghaus, P. J. (2006). Current research on parallel
measures of interests and confidence for basic dimensions of vocational
activity. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 56 –76.
Bibb, T., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Personality and achievement
motivation: Relationship among Big Five domains and facet scales,
achievement goals, and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 44, 1454 –1464.
Bonitz, V. S., Larson, L. M., & Armstrong, P. I. (in press). Interests, self
efficacy, and choice goals: An experimental manipulation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Campbell, D. P., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). Holland’s theory and the
development of interest inventories. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55,
86 –101.
Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Manual for the
Campbell Interest and Skill Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Com-
puter Systems.
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
College Board. (2009). SAT percentile ranks, 2009 college-bound seniors:
Critical reading, mathematics, and writing percentile ranks by gender
and ethnic groups. Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard
.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-
2009.pdf
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between person-
ality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 1080 –1107.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) pro-
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417– 440.
Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content
of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 43, 275–291.
Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of
vocational self-efficacy: An examination of interest, self-efficacy, and
occupation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 432– 447.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A
meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job
performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental va-
lidity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40 –57.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006). Handbook of multimethod measurement in
psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From Big
Five personality factors to facets. Journal of Personality, 75, 899 –925.
Gati, I. (1979). A hierarchical model for the structure of interests. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 15, 90 –106.
Gati, I. (1991). The structure of vocational interests. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 109, 309 –324.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34.
Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Interests, aspirations, self-estimates, and the
Self-Directed Search. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 200 –208.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1996). Dictionary of Holland occu-
pational codes (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 6, 35– 45.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational
personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psycholog-
ical Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., Fritzsche, B. A., & Powell, A. B. (1997). The Self-Directed
Search technical manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures
of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control and generalized self-
efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007).
Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of indi-
vidual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127.
Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Larson, L. M., Wu, T. F., Bailey, D. C., Gasser, C. E., Bonitz, V. S., &
Borgen, F. H. (in press). The role of personality in the selection of a
major: With and without vocational self-efficacy and interests. Journal
of Vocational Behavior.
Lent, R. W. (2005). A social cognitive view of career development and
counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development
and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 101–127).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing
social cognitive constructs in career research. Journal of Career Assess-
ment, 14, 12–35.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social
cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79 –122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., &
Tristman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to
choice behavior in engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 50, 458 – 465.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster,
C. S., . . . Treistman, D. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic
interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at
historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,
84 –92.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Lopez, F. G., & Sheu, H. (2008). Social
cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals
in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73,
52– 62.
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H., & Brown, S. D. (2010). The self-efficacy–interest
 COMMENT ON LENT, SHEU, AND BROWN (2010) AND LUBINSKI (2010)
relationship and RIASEC type: Which is figure and which is ground?
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 219 –225.
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., &
Gloster, C. S. (2008). Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome
expectations, interests and major career goals in engineering students.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 328 –335.
Lubinski, D. (2010). Neglected aspects and truncated appraisals in voca-
tional counseling: Interpreting the interest– efficacy association from a
broader perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 226 –238.
McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1999). Holland’s theory and occupational
information. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 74 – 85.
Nauta, M. N., Kahn, J. H., Angell, J. W., & Cantarelli, E. A. (2002).
Identifying the antecedent in the relation between career interests and
self-efficacy: Is it one, the other, or both? Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 49, 290 –301.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predic-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 43, 971–990.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and
the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81, 524 –539.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R.
(2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of person-
ality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting
important life outcomes. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 313–
345.
Rottinghaus, P. J., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). The relation of
self-efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 62, 221–236.
247
Rounds, J. (1995). Vocational interests: Evaluating structural hypotheses.
In D. J. Lubinski & R. V. Dawis (Eds.), Assessing individual differences
in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 177–232).
Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Rounds, J., & Day, S. X. (1999). Describing, evaluating and creating
vocational interest structures. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.),
Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp.
103–133). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2002a). Development of interests and competency beliefs:
A 1-year longitudinal study of fifth- to eighth-grade students using the
ICA–R and structural equation modeling. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 49, 148 –163.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2002b). Personal Globe Inventory: Measurement of the
spherical model of interests and competence beliefs. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 60, 113–172.
Tracey, T. J. G. (in press). Relation of interest and self-efficacy occupa-
tional congruence and career choice certainty. Journal of Vocational
Behavior.
Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1995). The arbitrary nature of Holland’s
RIASEC types: A concentric-circles structure. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42, 431– 439.
Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996). The spherical representation of
vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 3– 41.
Received February 4, 2010
Revision received February 10, 2010
Accepted February 10, 2010 䡲