Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.

com/
Career Assessment

Assessing Perceptions of Career-Related Barriers: The Career Barriers Inventory

Jane L. Swanson, Kimberly K. Daniels and David M. Tokar
Journal of Career Assessment 1996 4: 219
DOI: 10.1177/106907279600400207

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/4/2/219

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jca.sagepub.com/content/4/2/219.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 1996

What is This?

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 219

Assessing Perceptions of Career-Related

Barriers: The Career Barriers Inventory
Jane L. Swanson and Kimberly K. Daniels
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

David M. Tokar
University of Akron
The number and type of barriers that one perceives can be a
limiting factor in career choice and implementation, and the
construct of perceived career barriers has been increasingly
recognized as an important and useful explanatory variable in
research regarding career choice. This article addresses the
assessment of career barriers and includes two foci. First, we
describe the development and subsequent revisions of the Career
Barriers Inventory (CBI; Swanson & Daniels, 1995c; Swanson &
Tokar, 1991b) and summarize empirical evidence from studies using
the CBI. Second, we discuss how the construct of perceived barriers
relates to the recently articulated social cognitive model of career
development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and offer some
suggestions for research and practice regarding assessment of career
barriers.
An understanding of factors that interfere with the career development
process is important to career researchers and to career counselors who hope
to assist their clients in overcoming these impediments. One such factor is
people’s perceptions of barriers to making and implementing career choices.
Early discussions of barriers primarily were limited to literature describing
the career development of women (Farmer, 1976; Fitzgerald & Crites, 1980;
Matthews & Tiedeman, 1964; O’Leary, 1974; Zytowski, 1969). These early
career theorists hypothesized barriers as explanatory concepts that might
(a) account for the gap between women’s abilities and their achievements
(Farmer; Matthews & Tiedeman), (b) interact to inhibit career aspirations
among women (O’Leary), and (c) moderate the relation between women’s
career aspirations and their range of perceived career options (Farmer).

Although discussions of barriers focused initially on the career psychology

of women, recent empirical studies have begun to address the applicability
of the barriers construct to other populations. For example, we identified the

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jane L. Swanson,

Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 (e-mail:
swanson@siu.edu).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

220

barriers and concerns that both female and male college students experienced
when faced with common career-development tasks such as selecting a
major or career and entering the job market after college (Swanson &
Tokar, 1991a). In another study of college students (both men and women),
Lucas and Epperson (1990) implicated perceptions of barriers as an
important dimension of career indecision. Additional research has revealed
racial-ethnic background differences in the types of barriers college students
perceived (Luzzo, 1993; Slaney, 1980; Slaney & Brown, 1983). Based on
their findings, Slaney and his colleagues postulated that the perception of
barriers may play a moderating role in the compromise of career goals
among African American college students.
The literature on barriers reviewed herein strongly supports both the
viability of the construct of career barriers and the utility of the construct
in understanding the career-development process. However, this body of
theoretical and empirical writings has been hampered by two major
problems: (a) The barriers construct has lacked a firm theoretical framework
into which research findings could be incorporated and from which
subsequent research hypotheses could be derived, and (b) most of the
empirical research has been conducted with measures that have been
idiosyncratic to the investigators’ particular studies.
Toward a Theoretical Framework for Understanding Barriers
The first of these concerns is evidenced by a lack of consensus in the
literature regarding both a clear conceptualization of the barriers construct
and the domain of potential barriers people may perceive. Among the
earliest scholars to discuss career barriers was Crites (1969), who described
them as &dquo;thwarting conditions&dquo; that may impede the career development
process. Crites distinguished two major categories of barriers: internal
conflicts (e.g., self-concept, motivation to achieve) and external frustrations
(e.g., discrimination in the workplace, wages). Subsequent writers tended
to adopt Crites’s internal-external dichotomy. O’Leary (1974), for example,
hypothesized six internal (e.g., fear of failure) and four external (e.g., sex-
role stereotypes) barriers to upward career aspirations in women. Similarly,
Farmer (1976) postulated six internal or self-concept barriers and three
environmental barriers to women’s career achievement, whereas Harmon
(1977) described both psychological and sociological barriers to women’s
career development.
More recently, researchers have begun to challenge the internal-external
dichotomy that previously had guided much of the discussion of barriers. For
example, we sorted 1,098 student-generated barriers to common career-
related experiences into 109 categories that then were further classified into
three broad barriers clusters (Swanson & Tokar, 1991a): social/interpersonal
(e.g., multiple role obligations, job relocation), attitudinal (e.g., self-concept,
attitudes toward work), and interactional (e.g., discrimination, lack of
qualifications). Although subsequent research (Swanson & Tokar, 1991b)
provided only modest support for this three-way classification system, data
were even less supportive of an internal-external barriers dichotomy.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 221

Given the lack of clarity and cohesiveness in previous conceptualizations

of and empirical approaches to barriers, the application of an appropriate
theoretical framework to future discussions of perceptions of career-related
barriers could prove useful for several reasons. First, the incorporation of
theory may offer insight into background factors and mechanisms that
contribute to or mediate the development of perceptions of barriers
throughout the career-development process. Second, an appropriate
theoretical model would guide hypotheses for future investigations of
variables that may influence the development of or that may result from
barriers. Finally, a useful theory would allow for the intelligible organization
and integration of past and future barriers-research findings.
One particularly promising model for understanding career-related
barriers is Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s (1994) recent application of Bandura’s
(1982) social cognitive theory to career development. Lent et al. hypothesized
that primary sociocognitive mechanisms (i.e., self-efficacy and outcome
expectations) figure prominently in the development of vocational interests.
These emergent career interests are postulated to exert influence on career
choice goals (i.e., aspirations, expressed choices) that, in turn, give rise to
career-related choice behaviors. In addition to influencing the career choice
process indirectly through interests, self-efficacy and outcome expectations
are postulated to exert a direct effect on choice goals and actions.

Lent et al. (1994) further hypothesized that certain person (e.g., race,
gender, ability), contextual (e.g., opportunity structure, emotional and
financial support, discrimination), and experiential (e.g., social persuasion,
modeling, prior failures/successes) factors may be important influences on
the development of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Thus, these
factors may moderate the hypothesized relationships among these
sociocognitive variables, interests, goals, and choice behaviors. Contextual
influences, in particular, are postulated to moderate the relationships of self-
efficacy and outcome expectations to interests, of interests to choice goals,
and of choice goals to choice actions.
Lent et al.’s (1994) social cognitive theory of career development seems
to provide an ideal backdrop for the barriers construct for several reasons.
First, barriers may be conceptualized as self-reflective processes (e.g., &dquo;Am
I capable of succeeding?&dquo;) or as self-referent perceptions of the academic or
work environment (e.g., &dquo;Will I experience discrimination in my pursuit of
this career?&dquo;). Thus, the barriers construct fits nicely into Lent et al.’s
social cognitive framework, which emphasizes the role of cognitive appraisal
processes in guiding vocational behavior. In fact, certain types of barriers,
for example, Swanson and Tokar’s (1991a) attitudinal barriers, appear to
overlap considerably with the two social cognitive mechanisms Lent et al.
hypothesized as particularly relevant to career development: outcome
expectations and self-efficacy beliefs. Additionally, it is plausible that
perceptions of barriers may contribute to, result from, or even represent some
of the person, contextual, and experiential inputs that Lent et al.
hypothesized to moderate key relationships among sociocognitive variables,
interests, and choice behaviors. In summary, based on our review of the

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

222

extant literature on perceptions of career-related barriers, we recommend

Lent et al.’s social cognitive theory as an appropriate framework to guide
future inquiry in this area.

Initial Development of the CBI

The second major problem hampering the barriers literature, lack of a
standardized measure, was addressed in our development of the CBI
(Swanson & Tokar, 1991b), a multidimensional self-report instrument
designed to tap a broad domain of barriers that might occur across a range
of career-related events (e.g., choosing a career, job performance, work-
family interface). To ensure comprehensive coverage of the barriers domain,
the initial pool of 112 CBI items was rationally derived from a thorough
review of the relevant theoretical and empirical literature on perceptions
of barriers to career development (Falk & Cosby, 1978; Farmer, 1976;
Harmon, 1977; Matthews & Tiedeman, 1964; Nieva & Gutek, 1981; O’Leary,
1974; Russell & Rush, 1987; Swanson & Tokar, 1991a). Participants in the
initial CBI development sample (313 female and 245 male college students)
rated the potential impact on their careers of each of the 112 barriers (e.g.,
&dquo;Not being able to find a job after graduation,&dquo; &dquo;Stress at work affecting my
life at home&dquo;) using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 would not hinder at all,
=

7 = would completely hinder).

Principal-components analyses of the 112 CBI items guided the formation
of 18 factorially-derived barriers scales. The psychometric adequacy of the
18 CBI scales was then evaluated through reliability analyses of each scale,
scale intercorrelations, and item-scale intercorrelations. Results revealed
that items belonged on the scales to which they had been assigned based on
the principal-components analysis and that CBI scales were internally
consistent (median alpha estimate of .81) and factor pure (median
intercorrelation of .32).
In the second phase of our investigation, we explored the possibility that
the latent structure and salience of the 18 CBI variables might differ
between women and men (Swanson & Tokar, 1991b). To test this possibility,
mean CBI scale scores were compared by sex, and separate principal-

components analyses of CBI scale intercorrelations were performed for

each sex. Results indicated that men and women differentially perceived the
potential impact of certain barriers: women were more concerned than men
were about discrimination in the workplace and about children interfering
with their career plans; men expressed greater concern than women did
about a physical disability hindering their work, uncertainty regarding
plans for marriage and children, and sex-role conflict. Results of principal-
components analyses corroborated sex differences observed at the scale
level; that is, the structure and composition of the dimensions underlying
the intercorrelations among CBI scales differed between men and women.
Taken collectively, we believe that the initial work culminating in
the CBI (Swanson & Tokar, 1991a, 1991b) represents a major contribution
to an understanding of career barriers. The CBI measure represents
a comprehensive, psychometrically sound tool for the assessment of
career-related barriers and for future investigation of the relationship of

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 223

perceptions of barriers to other relevant career-related constructs (e.g., ’

career indecision, self-esteem, self-efficacy expectations).

The CBI is beginning to be acknowledged as a useful instrument,

particularly as researchers are increasingly recognizing the potential role
of perceptions of barriers in career choice (Hackett & Lonborg, 1993; Russell
& Eby, 1993). However, the original version of the CBI has several
shortcomings. First and foremost, the length of the CBI precluded its use
in many research projects, so a shortened version of the CBI was needed to
further the study of career-related barriers. Second, the item content of
several scales needed revision, via rewriting items for clarity, deleting
items with overlapping content, or reassigning items to scales. To address
these issues, a shortened and revised version of the CBI was developed, as
described hereafter.

Revising the CBI

Revision of the CBI was completed in two steps, encompassing several
goals. The initial goal in revising the CBI was to reduce the length-the
original length of 112 items made the CBI prohibitively time-consuming.
Further, many scales seemed considerably longer than was necessary to
adequately measure the constructs. The objective at the outset of the
revision process was to leave the items and scales of the CBI relatively
intact, but to reduce the number of items.
In the course of this initial revision, several other changes were made.
Some items were rewritten slightly to clarify meaning, and some items
were shifted from one scale to another within the instrument, based either
on empirical or rational reasons. These changes resulted in an 84-item
version of the CBI, with 16 scales.
Our plan at the outset was to terminate the revision process with the 84-
item shortened version of the CBI. We undertook an analysis of several
independent samples to evaluate the decisions made regarding which items
to delete and which items to reassign to scales. The primary task was to
confirm earlier decisions regarding which items to eliminate from the
instrument. However, in evaluating the available evidence, it became clear
that further revisions would benefit the instrument, most notably by
providing more narrowly defined scales. Essentially, in evaluating the
shortened version of the CBI, we discovered more far-reaching concerns
that could be ameliorated with further refinement of the instrument.
We then made a decision to reintroduce a rational perspective into the
structure of the CBI because the development of the CBI had been primarily
driven by empirical concerns. Scales of the original CBI were formed by
factor analytic methods, and, although purity of factors and clarity of
interpretation were important in choosing a factor solution (Swanson &
Tokar, 1991b), the definition of scales was determined by the empirical
results of the factor analyses. In the most recent revision of the CBI,
resulting in the current version (the CBI-R), the goal evolved so that the
rational aspects of content and definition of the scales were considered on
an equal footing with empirical considerations and, at times, took precedence
over empirical evidence.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

224

Step 1: Developing a Shortened Version of the CBI

The original development and validation sample of 558 college students
(Swanson & Tokar, 1991b) was used to develop a shortened version, the CBI-
Short (CBI-S; Swanson, 1994). Items were evaluated based on item-scale
correlations, item intercorrelations within scales, and item content. Three
types of revisions were made: (a) Twenty-eight items were deleted, reducing
the number of items from 112 to 84 and reducing the number of scales
from 18 to 16; (b) 7 items were reassigned to other scales; and (c) 6 items
were rewritten to increase clarity. In deleting items, care was taken to
eliminate redundancy and maintain unique content. A series of factor
analyses was conducted to examine the underlying structure of the CBI-S.
Based on the factor solutions, a 16-scale structure was retained.
These decisions were then evaluated using several data sets. The primary
source of information was a sample of 222 college students (79 men and 143
women) who took the 84-item CBI-S (Swanson & Daniels, 1994b). Two
additional samples were used to provide supplementary information: (a) a
sample of 177 college students (76 men and 101 women) who took the
original 112-item CBI (Subich & Tokar, 1995) and (b) a sample of 279 college
women who took the original 112-item CBI (Shuttleworth, 1992). Subjects
in both of these secondary data sets responded to the original 112-item
CBI, so the decisions to eliminate items could be reexamined in these
samples, allowing us to determine whether our revision decisions were
based on idiosyncrasies of the original development sample. In general,
the decisions to eliminate or reassign items were not contraindicated by data
obtained in these three samples.

Step 2: Reexamining and Redefining the CBI Scales

In the second phase of revising the CBI, the goal broadened beyond
shortening the instrument to incorporating a more extensive evaluation
and revision of the structure and definition of the CBI scales. Based on
analyses from the samples described earlier, the CBI was thoroughly
reevaluated and revised. Five types of revisions were made: (a) 12 new
items were written to expand the scope of coverage (such as increasing the
number of items on the Racial Discrimination scale and creating a new
Job Market Constraints scale), (b) 21 items were eliminated, (c) 4 items that
initially had been dropped in the previous phase of the revision were
reinstated, primarily to insure adequate coverage of specific content, (d) all
of the items were reviewed for clarity of wording, and (e) the items were
presented in random order on the instrument rather than with other items
from the same scale.
In the current version of the CBI, reassignment of items was usually
based on rational consideration of the content and occasionally meant
overriding the prevailing empirical evidence. For example, in the original
version, &dquo;Experiencing sex discrimination in hiring for a job&dquo; loaded on a
factor with items related to racial and age discrimination in hiring and so
was placed on the Age and Racial Discrimination scale. However, in the
current version, this item was moved to the Sex Discrimination scale where
its content clearly fit better.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 225

Changes wording of items were minor and were designed to

in the
(a) make items personally relevant (e.g., changing &dquo;My boss or
more

supervisor is biased against men/women&dquo; to &dquo;Having a boss or supervisor

who is biased against people of my own sex&dquo;), or (b) clarify the intent of the
item, such as adding examples of gender-nontraditional careers.
The final change made in the current version of the CBI was to randomize
the order of presentation of items within the instrument. Previously, items
were arranged according to approximate stages of career development,
such as choosing a major, getting a job, advancing in career, and balancing
work and family concerns. However, items occasionally seemed to be
empirically related to one another primarily because of their contiguous
placement, so we decided to rearrange the items to remove this effect.
Current Version: The CBI-Revised
The current version of the CBI, the CBI-Revised (CBI-R; Swanson &
Daniels, 1995c), consists of 70 items scored on 13 scales. The scales cover
a wide range of barriers that college students might perceive, as evidenced

by our initial findings via free-response solicitation of potential barriers

(Swanson & Tokar, 1991a), plus additional barriers incorporated during
the revision process described earlier. The scales are described below, and
summary data is presented in Table 1.
Sex Discrimination
The Sex Discrimination scale consists of seven items, such as
sex discrimination in hiring for a job.&dquo; The original version
&dquo;Experiencing
of the scale consisted of 14 items and was targeted as needing considerable
reduction in length. Items were retained that clearly reflected discrimination,
rather than tokenism or underrepresentation of one sex. Items reflect
several aspects of sex discrimination, including barriers related to financial
impact and workplace climate.
Lack of Confidence
The Lack of Confidence scale consists of four items, such as &dquo;Not feeling
confident about my ability on the job.&dquo; This scale underwent substantial
changes during revisions of the CBI. The original version was entitled
&dquo;Lack of Confidence, Ability, or Interest&dquo; and consisted of 16 items reflecting
a diversity of content. We decided to substantially redefine the scale and
narrowed the content to include four items directly related to confidence and
self-esteem.

Multiple-Role Conflict
The Multiple-Role Conflict scale consists of eight items, including &dquo;Stress
at work affecting my life at home.&dquo; During the revision, we considered
whether this scale and Conflict between Children and Career Demands
were measuring redundant constructs. We decided to maintain these as
two separate scales because issues related to children are very specific,
whereas Multiple-Role Conflict reflects barriers that are more general in
nature.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

226

Table 1
Characteristics of the 13 CBI-R Scales

aMeans, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients were derived from a sample of 100
college students (Swanson & Daniels, 1995a). bcorrelations were derived from the
pooled data set (n =
1637).

Conflict between Children and Career Demands

This scale contains seven items related to balancing work responsibilities
with child-rearing responsibilities, such as &dquo;Feeling guilty about working
when my children are young.&dquo; In the current version of the CBI, the scale
name was changed from &dquo;Children Interfere with Career&dquo; to more precisely
reflect the scale’s content and to shift the placement of the source of the
conflict from children per se to the interaction between children and career
demands.
Racial Discrimination
The current version of this scale consists of six items and reflects some

major changes made during revisions of the CBI. The primary change was
to delete items related to age discrimination and focus specifically on racial
discrimination. The original version of this scale exemplified a disadvantage
of using a predominantly empirical approach to scale construction; items
representing heterogeneous content were grouped together based on factor
analytic results, yet the content was too diverse to be useful. In the most

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 227

recent revision, we wrote four new items to reflect broader aspects of racial
discrimination. These items paralleled sex discrimination items in format
and content (e.g., &dquo;Experiencing racial harassment on the job&dquo;).
Inadequate Preparation
The Inadequate Preparation scale consists of five items, such as &dquo;Lacking
the required skills for my job (e.g., communication, leadership, decision-
making).&dquo; Like other scales, the current version of this scale also represents
more narrowly defined item content. The previous version combined items
related to an individual’s underpreparedness and concerns about the job
market. We decided to focus on an individual’s perceptions of being
inadequately prepared and created a separate scale with an emphasis on the
job market. The former seemed to reflect barriers that are internal in
nature, whereas the latter reflected barriers that are external.
Disapproval by Significant Others
The Disapproval scale consists of three items, focusing on different
sources of disapproval about one’s career choice, such as &dquo;My parents/family
don’t approve of my choice of job/career.&dquo; Scores on this scale typically have
been fairly low, usually the lowest among the CBI scales. However, our
clinical experience suggested that many college students do report lack of
approval of their career decisions by significant others and that this
disapproval can serve as a barrier to career progress. Therefore, we decided
to retain the three-item scale, with no changes in any version of the CBI.

Decision-Making Difficulties
The Decision-Making Difficulties scale consists of eight items, such as &dquo;Not
being sure how to choose a career direction.&dquo; As with the Inadequate
Preparation scale, this scale underwent substantial modifications to narrow
the focus of item content. The original version was entitled &dquo;Indecision or
Lack of Information,&dquo; reflecting the two types of items comprising the scale.
We decided to eliminate items related to lack of information, reasoning
that the absence of information was more accurately conceptualized as a
deficit rather than as a barrier. Two new items were written to reflect
indecision (e.g., &dquo;Changing my mind again and again about my career

plans&dquo;).
Dissatisfaction with Career
This scale consists of five items, such as &dquo;Being dissatisfied with my
job/career.&dquo; The items also reflect boredom or disappointment in one’s career
progress.

Discouraged from Choosing Nontraditional Careers

This scale consists of five items, such as &dquo;Being discouraged from pursuing
fields which are nontraditional for my sex (e.g., engineering for women,
nursing for men).&dquo; Although the scale has evidenced relatively low means
across samples, literature regarding nontraditional career choice suggests
that support from others is critical to pursuing such fields (Burlew &
Johnson, 1992).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

228

Disability/Health Concerns
The Disability/Health Concerns scale consists of three items, such as
&dquo;Having a disability which limits my choice of careers.&dquo; In contrast to other
scales, we broadened the scope of this scale from its original focus, which
was solely on physical disability. We revised the wording of items and the
title of the scale from &dquo;physical disability&dquo; to &dquo;disability.&dquo;
Job Market Constraints
The Job Market Constraints scale added to the CBI in the mostwas
recent revision and consists of four items, such as &dquo;No demand for my area
of training.&dquo; The scale was added to address the external barrier items
that were removed from the Inadequate Preparation scale. Two of the items
were moved from other scales, and two new items were written to reflect
barriers related to a tight job market and to future employment outlook.

Difficulties with Networking/Socialization

This scale also was added to the CBI in the most recent revision to
address issues related to work adjustment and socialization and consists of
five items, such as &dquo;Unsure of how to advance in my career.&dquo; The scale was
constructed by using two items that had previously been assigned to other
scales and writing three new items to reflect the intended purpose of the
scale.
Scales Deleted in the Current Version
Seven scales were deleted from the original version of the CBI. Four of
these were deleted due to vague content and definition of the scale, such as
Concerns about Sex-Role Conflict, Uncertainty about Future Lifestyle,
Uncertainty regarding Plans for Marriage/Children, and Overqualified for
the Job Market. Two scales were deleted because the original number of
items decreased as items were moved to other scales (Lack of Spouse
Support and Need to Relocate). Finally, Unsure of How to Find a Job was
deleted because most of the items seemed to reflect skill deficits rather
than barriers (e.g., &dquo;Unsure of how to write my resume&dquo;).

Empirical Evidence Regarding Barriers

Existing evidence for the CBI addresses three questions. First, how does
the CBI fare psychometrically, such as internal consistency reliability and
replicability of its scale structure? Second, how do individuals respond to
different formats, representing various components, of perceived barriers?
Third, how do perceived barriers relate to demographic characteristics and
to other variables such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, career
indecision, and vocational identity? Seven data sets were available for
analysis, representing almost 1,700 college students. Four of the samples
were described earlier: (a) the original development sample of 558 subjects
(Swanson & Tokar, 1991b), (b) 177 college men and women (Subich & Tokar,
1995), (c) 279 college women (Shuttleworth, 1992), and (d) 222 college men
and women (Swanson & Daniels, 1994b). Data sets a, b, and c contain the
original 112-item CBI; data set d contains the shortened 84-item version of
the CBI.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 229

Three additional samples were available: (a) 242 college students (102 men
and 140 women) who took a modified version of the original 112-item CBI
to examine components of perceived barriers (Swanson & Daniels, 1994a);
(b) 96 African American college students (52 men and 44 women) who took
the 84-item CBI as part of a study examining college achievement (Robinson,
1995); and (c) a sample of 100 college students (48 men and 52 women)
that was collected to examine the most recent revision of the CBI (Swanson
& Daniels, 1995a).
The revisions leading to the current version of the CBI were completed
very recently, and only one of the seven samples (Swanson & Daniels,
1995a) was collected specifically with the new version. However, the previous
samples can be rescored using the recently revised CBI scales, and, with a
few minor exceptions, the scales are extremely comparable across the three
versions of the CBI.

Psychometric Characteristics of the CBI

Scale Means and Distributions
Figure 1 shows the mean scores on the revised CBI scales across the
seven samples. Although significant differences do exist on some scales
between samples, the overall profile of results across the 13 scales and
seven samples is strikingly similar: Scale scores show similar patterns
relative to one another. For example, Inadequate Preparation and
Dissatisfaction with Career are among the highest scales in all of the
samples, and Disapproval by Significant Others and Discouraged from
Choosing Nontraditional Careers are the lowest scale scores. Moreover,
the deviations from these patterns occur in predictable ways. For example,
Sex Discrimination is one of the highest scales in the female sample
(Shuttleworth, 1992), and Racial Discrimination is one of the highest scales
in the African American sample (Robinson, 1995).
The pattern revealed in Figure 1 is particularly noteworthy in that the
scales represent different versions of the CBI. The same pattern is revealed
when means were plotted for the scales that were most appropriate for
each sample. That is, the original scales (CBI) were scored in four samples
(Shuttleworth, 1992; Subich & Tokar, 1995; Swanson & Daniels, 1994a;
Swanson & Tokar, 1991b), the shortened scales (CBI-S) were scored in two
samples (Robinson, 1995; Swanson & Daniels, 1994b), and the current
revised (CBI-R) scales were scored in the most recent sample (Swanson &
Daniels, 1995a). As noted in Table 1, high correlations were found between
the original and revised versions for most of the scales, which is further
supported by the pattern in Figure 1. This pattern suggests that comparisons
across samples and versions are warranted; this allows us to use the data
sets collected with earlier versions of the CBI to further examine the
construct of perceived barriers.
Figure 1 also illustrates the differences in responses among the scales,
suggesting that subjects do differentiate among the types of barriers
represented by the CBI scales. Across samples, scale means ranged from 1.95
to 5.16. Moreover, individuals within these samples evince mean scale
scores covering the full range of possible scores (i.e., 1.00 to 7.00).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

230

~~~~
Cd -41 4-10
CZ (a)> ’!&dquo; 0
;..0cd
11@Nnjo/
o ^,
§1~~
-~ !-< _CZ
~ co bjo
~ ~ 0 <~ ~ !=!
C>
hi§£11$*
CZ
X cz
mQN,_,p
cz
Cd
~ ~.j3g
~,, I I ,. ~ A &dquo;-~,-~d c~
cz bz Cd
II ~ ~ II
P-4
~ :~ ~ ~
~oU o.°
~ o cd
#£~’§flg§
~, i I o U
r--4
t?£$Qj/#
bo
0
~ C) ~ ~ 5 ~
Pa P~ P~ ~’
nIfI
~ <u’Q cj ~ 5!
~ct
E-.i
&dquo;

°’ ~ z
c~ . ,~ a~ a~
I(£tlJg£
,ifi,Qp~~£1o
b~O ’0 c:i a) a

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 231

Internal Consistency
Achieving adequate internal consistency reliability has been a goal
throughout the development of the CBI, and, in many cases, it guided the
revision of specific scales. In reviewing the original 18-scale version of the
CBI, several of the longer scales had alpha coefficients exceeding .90 and
were targeted for item reduction. On the other hand, several scales had alpha
coefficients lower than .60 and were frequently very short scales; these
scales were identified for further evaluation and revision.
As noted in Table 1, internal consistency coefficients of the revised scales
range from .64 to .86 in the most recent sample, with a median of .77
(Swanson & Daniels, 1995b). Although most are at acceptable levels, some
of these coefficients are considerably lower than corresponding coefficients
in previous samples. For example, the three items on the Disapproval by
Significant Others have not been altered in any way throughout the revision
of the CBI, yet the alpha coefficient was substantially lower (.64) in the most
recent sample compared to previous samples (range from .76-.89). Likewise,
Conflict between Children and Career Demands had an alpha coefficient of
.75 in the most recent sample, compared to a range of .81 to .86 in previous
samples. The most likely reason for these differing coefficients is that we
reordered the presentation of items in the revised CBI. For example, in the
previous versions, the three items on Disapproval by Significant Others were
contiguously arranged, whereas in the CBI-R they were distributed
throughout.
Scale Intercorrelations
Intercorrelations among the CBI scales are shown in Table 2. Correlations
were generally high, although substantial variation existed. Correlations
ranged from .27 to .80, with a median of .60. The highest correlation was
Racial Discrimination with Sex Discrimination, and the lowest correlation
was Disapproval by Significant Others with Disability/Health Concerns. The
scale intercorrelations are somewhat higher in the most recent sample
(Swanson & Daniels, 1995a). However, as with the mean scores across
samples, the scale intercorrelations differ in elevation across samples, yet
similar patterns emerge regarding the relationship among scales. For
example, the correlation between Multiple-Role Conflict and Conflict
between Children and Career Demands is among the highest correlations
in each sample, and the correlations of Disapproval by Significant Others
with other scales are the lowest in each sample.

Components of Perceiving Career Barriers

During the initial development of the CBI, we considered whether there
are distinct components in how individuals perceive barriers. An early

pilot test of the CBI indicated that different item formats produced different
ratings. For example, subjects who responded to &dquo;barriers for women in
general&dquo; indicated higher likelihood that barriers would occur, as well as a
greater degree of hindrance than those who responded to a format eliciting
perceptions of barriers for themselves. Further, ratings of the likelihood of
experiencing barriers were consistently lower than ratings of degree of

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

232

<
0
0
.
Q

td
~!
co

’s
0
C%
&dquo;5
s
I:J
Q)
~

a
c~
w
0~
0~
-

Vi
0
m
’í3td
0)
Q
Cd 4
Q
7) ~
o
9 rJ1

)&horbar;< s
ro
PQ ~
u 03
m m
V-4
QI1 Q) ’so
4) 4
, -oa
b
~
,a C4.4 f
0 0
o
E-4 m M
a a~
0
01’&dquo;1
-fa Õ
u
ca
o
Q)$4 o
~
~ 4-~
o W
Q U
$4
Q) ~<
1:1 S
1-1
$
rJ1
td

So
’ll
&dquo;’0
U
>
’s
U
~
0)
...
U

rJ1
S
o
..¡..J
rio
U
t
o .
( ’li oo
U

.
~S
0

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 233

hindrance of barriers. These results suggest that the chosen format may
affect results and that the likelihood and hindrance components may be
interwoven in perceptions of barriers.
To examine this question further, 279 subjects (161 women, 118 men)
took a modified version of the original 112-item CBI. In the modified version,
subjects responded twice to each item: (a) rating the likelihood that they
would experience the barrier, using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from not at all likely to very likely, and (b) rating the degree of hindrance
if the barrier was encountered, using a 7-point scale ranging from would not
hinder at all to would completely hinder.
The questions of interest in these analyses were: (a) Did subjects respond
differently to item formats designed to elicit likelihood of occurrence and
degree of hindrance? (b) What differences occurred between likelihood and
hindrance formats across the CBI scales? Results indicated significant
interactions between gender and item format, suggesting that the pattern
of likelihood versus hindrance ratings differed between women and men. In
addition, significant main effects were found by gender and by item format
for many of the CBI scales. In general, ratings of the likelihood of barriers
occurring were lower than ratings of how much barriers would hinder
career progress.
These results indicate that individuals do respond differentially to scales
measuring perceptions of career-related barriers, depending on how the
item format is constructed. The specific item format should be carefully
chosen to correspond to the component the researcher intended to measure,
and it must be clearly taken into account when interpreting findings-
different formats yield different results. The CBI uses the hindrance format;
however, other formats may provide additional relevant information. As will
be discussed later, these results also may have implications for how the
construct of barriers is defined.

Relation of the CBI to Other Variables

Two types of information have been gathered to examine the relationship
between perceptions of barriers and other relevant variables: (a) data
related to the demographic characteristics of sex and race or ethnicity and
(b) data related to psychological or career variables, such as self-esteem, self-
efficacy, locus of control, and career indecision.
Demographic Variables
The first category of variables, demographic data, has shown expected
relationships to CBI scales and provides the strongest and most consistent
evidence for the construct validity of the CBI.
Sex Differences. Sex differences have been evident throughout the
development of the CBI, and results across the seven samples are strikingly
consistent. Women typically score higher on a number of CBI scales,
indicating greater perceptions of barriers. For example, in the combined data
set (60% women) scored on the 70-item revised CBI, women scored higher
than men on 7 of the 13 scales: Sex Discrimination, Lack of Confidence,
Multiple-Role Conflict, Conflict between Children and Career Demands,

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

234

Inadequate Preparation, Decision-Making Difficulties, and Dissatisfaction

with Career. These results provide confirmatory evidence for the early
speculations about barriers that women experience, the very speculations
that were the impetus for initial development of the CBI (Farmer, 1976;
Matthews & Tiedeman, 1964; O’Leary, 1974). These results also are
corroborated by other research documenting greater perceptions of barriers
by women than by men. For example, Luzzo (1995) reported that women
were considerably more likely than men were to cite family-related concerns
as potential barriers to their career plans (over 60% of women vs. 6% of men).

Racial Differences. In the combined sample, 21% (n 341) of subjects

=

indicated racial-ethnic minority status. Scored on the current 70-item

version of the CBI, significant racial differences emerged on 8 of the 13
scales. The most predictable difference was that racial-ethnic minority
subjects scored higher than Caucasian subjects on Racial Discrimination;
this was also the largest difference in means between the two groups. The
remaining eight score differences were higher for Caucasian subjects than
for minority subjects: Caucasians scored higher on Lack of Confidence,
Multiple-Role Conflict, Inadequate Preparation, Disapproval by Significant
Others, Dissatisfaction with Career, Discouraged from Choosing
Nontraditional Careers, and Disability/Health Concerns.
The accumulated evidence regarding racial-ethnic differences in perceived
barriers presents an interesting picture. Observed racial differences have
been fewer than might be predicted and often were in an unexpected
direction. There appear to be few group differences in the number of barriers
listed, but some variety in the types of barriers listed (Luzzo, 1993; Slaney,
1980; Slaney & Brown, 1983), suggesting that examination of within-group
factors may be more fruitful than between-group comparisons. For example,
Slaney and Brown reported differences between socioeconomic groups within
their African American subsample that were as noteworthy as differences
between the subsample and Caucasian subjects.
Relation to Other Career Variables
Several of the data sets contained additional variables that could be
examined relative to CBI scores. These variables included locus of control,
self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Swanson & Daniels, 1994b) and career
indecision and vocational identity (Swanson & Daniels, 1995a, 1995b). Two
types of predictions were made regarding these variables. First, we
hypothesized that specific scales would be associated, such as the CBI
Decision-Making Difficulties scale with the Career Decision Scale (CDS;
Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, & Koschier, 1979). Second, we expected
to observe some relationships between CBI scales, in general, and other
variables. For example, we predicted that higher self-efficacy would
be related to lower perceptions of barriers and, similarly, that higher
self-esteem or internal locus of control would be related to lower perceptions
of barriers.
Initial results indicated little relationship between CBI scales and other
variables. However, further analyses examining the correlations separately
by sex revealed quite different patterns between men and women. The

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 235

correlations were higher for men than for women between the CBI and the
CDS (Osipow et al., 1979) and My Vocational Situation (MVS; Holland,
Daiger, & Power, 1980). For example, of the 52 possible correlations, 10 were
in the .30s and 16 were in the .20s for men, whereas only 1 correlation
was in the .30s and 2 were in the .20s for women. For men, career indecision
and vocational identity were related to many CBI scales (Swanson &
Daniels, 1995a). The strongest relationships were a positive association
between career indecision and Discouraged from Choosing Nontraditional
Careers and a negative association between vocational identity and Multiple-
Role Conflict. Further, for men, self-esteem was negatively related to
Disapproval by Significant Others, Lack of Confidence, and Difficulties
with Networking/Socialization (Swanson & Daniels, 1994b). In contrast, for
women, there were few relationships between CBI scales and the CDS or
MVS scores. Career indecision was negatively associated with Sex
Discrimination, external locus of control was positively associated with
Disapproval by Significant Others, and self-efficacy was negatively related
to Discouraged from Choosing Nontraditional Careers (Swanson & Daniels,
1994b; Swanson & Daniels, 1995a).
A surprising result to emerge from the analyses of MVS scores is that the
MVS Overcoming Obstacles scale (Holland et al., 1980) shows little
association with any of the CBI scales. This MVS scale seems to be
measuring a very similar construct to that measured by the CBI, yet only
two correlations exceeded .20, both for men-the MVS Overcoming Obstacles
scale was negatively related to Discouraged from Choosing Nontraditional
Careers and to Disapproval by Significant Others. One possible reason for
not finding greater association between the two measures is that they have
quite different content, formats, and purposes. The MVS scale is a four-item
scale with a yes-no response format, and the items cover a wide range of
potential obstacles. It was not intended to be a comprehensive assessment
of perceived barriers. In contrast, each of the CBI scales has been developed
to focus on a narrow range of content, and evidence cited earlier suggests
that individuals tend to differentiate among types of barriers as measured
by the CBI.
Summary of Empirical Evidence
The available evidence regarding the CBI presents a promising, yet
insufficient, picture. On one hand, the internal characteristics of the revised
instrument are solid. Alpha coefficients indicate adequate internal
consistency reliability, particularly given that the dual goals of the revisions
of the CBI were to both shorten and strengthen many of the scales. Scale
intercorrelations suggest logical relationships among scales, such as a
strong association between scales measuring barriers related to lacking
confidence and barriers related to difficulties in making career decisions and
a weak association between scales measuring barriers related to feeling

disapproval from family and friends and barriers related to a restricted job
market. Further, CBI scales show expected group differences that contribute
to its validity, including differences between men and women and between
members of racial-ethnic majority and minority groups.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

236 J

On the other hand, the results related to other psychological and career-
related variables raise more questions than they answer. We expected to find
strong associations between perceptions of barriers and variables that
seemed to be theoretically related, such as self-efficacy, locus of control, and
vocational identity. Our results indicated that these associations are not as
strong as we expected, but, further, that they are more complex than we
anticipated. Differential patterns were observed for men and women in
how perceived career barriers were related to other variables. As will be
discussed in the next section, continued attention to these variables is
clearly needed.
Conceptual and Theoretical Issues
The primary focus of our recent work examining career-related barriers
has been to further refine and strengthen the CBI. In addition to producing
a revised instrument, our efforts raised many conceptual issues. In this final
section, we will offer some speculations about these issues, centering around
two interrelated questions: What is a barrier? How does the construct of
barriers fit within the framework of social-cognitive theory? We will then
provide suggestions for future directions in research regarding career
barriers and discuss implications for assessing career barriers in practice.

What Is a Barrier?
Throughout our work on barriers, we have repeatedly returned to a
fundamental question: What are we measuring when we ask subjects to rate
these barrier items? Or, more succinctly, what is a barrier?
This question has been most evident in two situations. First, the series
of recently completed revisions have forced the question, in that the original
goal of shortening the instrument was soon superseded by a more complex
goal of refining the instrument. The seven scales that we deleted from the
original 112-item version of the CBI were not purged simply to produce a
shorter instrument, but rather because our definition of what constituted
a &dquo;barrier&dquo; was more precisely outlined. Many of the deleted scales no

longer fit the definition in that they tapped skill deficits, such as lack of
knowledge of how to prepare a resume, versus a true barrier.
The second situation that prompted the question, &dquo;What is a barrier?&dquo;
arose from a consideration of the data set containing different item formats
(Swanson & Daniels, 1994b). The differences in mean scale scores between
the two formats, and between this sample and the original development
sample, may indicate that what is tapped by asking about barriers varies
according to how the question is asked.
A participant at a recent convention roundtable discussion suggested
that the term barrier may connote to research participants something that
is impenetrable (M. Lynn, personal communication, August 13, 1995;
Swanson & Ryan, 1995). This interpretation is contrary to our definition of
barriers. We have conceptualized barriers as external conditions or internal
states that make career progress difficult, but we do not adhere to a narrow
definition of a barrier as being impenetrable. In our view, barriers are

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 237

capable of being overcome, although with varying degrees of difficulty

according to the specific barrier and the individual.
In spite of our definition of barriers, we have anecdotal evidence from
participants completing the CBI that there is some confusion about how they
are supposed to respond to the items. For example, one participant stated
that she did not plan to have children, therefore, none of the statements
regarding children would be a hindrance to her. She asked whether she
should respond by considering the likelihood of the barrier occurring or
respond regarding how much the barrier would hinder her if it did indeed
occur, despite her current expectations. This example occurred in collecting
data using a version of the CBI that contained only the hindrance item
format, yet it clearly reflects the type of process explicitly described in the
version using both likelihood and hindrance formats (Swanson & Daniels,
1994a). Statements such as this suggest that the standard format of the CBI
may be measuring something different in different participants, depending
on their interpretations of the task.

So what do individuals really consider when asked how much a barrier

will hinder their career progress? Figure 2 suggests that a two-step process
occurs when an individual is presented with a barrier item. Participants first
ask themselves, &dquo;Is this likely to happen to me?&dquo; If the respondent believes
the barrier is likely to occur, then he or she ask may ask, &dquo;Can I overcome
this barrier?&dquo; Thus, in considering how to respond to a potential barrier, an
individual first considers how likely it is that the barrier will occur, and only
then considers how much of a barrier it will be.
There are several implications of this two-step process. First, asking for
ratings of hindrance may not be enough. It is important to know how likely
an individual believes a barrier is to fully understand how she or he is
perceiving barriers. We are suggesting that this two-step process occurs even
when likelihood is not explicitly assessed. Second, the two types of response
are probably confounded when one asks solely for ratings of hindrance,
and low ratings of hindrance may be disguising quite different types of
people or responses. We hypothesize that a low probability estimate of the
occurrence of the barrier would result in a low hindrance rating; further,

answering, &dquo;Can I overcome the barrier?&dquo; in the affirmative also would

result in a low hindrance rating. Thus, low ratings of perceived barriers may
include two groups of people: those who have low ratings because they
think the likelihood of occurrence is low and those who have low ratings
because they think the event will occur, but that they will be able to overcome
it. This distinction is crucial to the social cognitive model, as described
hereafter, and, further, may explain why relationships between barriers and
other variables have been less than expected. As noted in Figure 2,
something occurs between the ratings of likelihood and hindrance, and it
would be interesting to determine what intervening variables influence
one’s self-assessment of the &dquo;Can I overcome the barrier?&dquo; question.
Asking the question, &dquo;What is a barrier?&dquo; leads to a reexamination of how
the construct of barriers fits with the social cognitive theoretical framework
discussed earlier. Further, how barriers are defined, and how this definition

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

238

Figure 2. Diagram of the hypothetical process occurring when individuals

respond to barrier items.

fits into theory, may shed light on the unexpected and complex results
between CBI scales and other variables.

How Do Barriers Fit Into the Social Cognitive Framework?

Social cognitive theory provides a framework for conceptualizing the
effect of person, contextual, and experiential factors on career-related choice
behavior (Lent et al., 1994). According to our understanding of the theory,
constructs such as locus of control and self-esteem, along with various
demographic variables, fall within the rubric of &dquo;person inputs&dquo; and are
hypothesized to have a direct influence on learning experiences and an
interaction with contextual factors both proximal to and distal to choice
behavior. The theory states that self-efficacy and outcome expectations
play a central role in the career choice process and, thus, have direct and
indirect influences on interests, choice goals, choice actions, and performance.
As we seek to place the construct of barriers into the social cognitive
framework, the central question is, &dquo;Where do barriers fit?&dquo;
An answer to this question requires consideration of the question
previously raised, &dquo;What is a barrier?&dquo; Barriers, as we have conceptualized
them and as measured by the CBI, do not fit neatly into one particular
aspect of the Lent et al. (1994) model. The CBI is intended to be a
multidimensional assessment of potential barriers, measuring barriers
arising from a variety of origins, including internal, external, and

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 239

interactional sources. Certain barrier scales clearly are most closely related
to the person factors (e.g., lack of confidence and decision-making
difficulties), whereas other barriers (e.g., racial discrimination, sex
discrimination, discouraged from choosing nontraditional careers,
disability/health concerns) are more appropriately considered contextual
influences.
An additional question is how barriers are related to self-efficacy and
outcome expectations. Lent et al. (1994, p. 83) defined outcome expectations
as &dquo;personal beliefs about probable response outcomes&dquo; and suggested that
outcome expectations address the question, &dquo;If I do this, what will happen?&dquo;
Based on this description, there seems to be a strong relationship between
outcome expectations and barriers. Lent et al. stated that individuals likely
consider both their capabilities and response outcomes in making important
decisions. As an example, they noted that someone may avoid a science-based
career despite having high math self-efficacy simply because he or she may
anticipate negative outcomes (e.g., nonsupport of significant others, work
and family conflict). These negative outcomes used in the example by Lent
et al. are identical to two CBI scales (Disapproval by Significant Others and
Multiple-Role Conflict), therefore suggesting that barriers either influence
one’s outcome expectations or may be considered as synonymous with
outcome expectations.
Determining where barriers fit in the social cognitive framework also
influences what predictions to make about the relationship of barriers to
other constructs. Our original predictions using the social cognitive model
as a framework were that a strong negative correlation would exist between
self-efficacy and perceptions of barriers, suggesting that those who have high
self-efficacy would perceive fewer barriers because they would have
confidence in their abilities to overcome them. In contrast, if barriers are,
indeed, analogous to outcome expectations, then social cognitive theory
does not predict a strong correlation between barriers and self-efficacy, as
we originally hypothesized. As noted in the earlier example, it is quite

possible that one could have high self-efficacy for math, yet not choose a
math-related career because of expected negative outcomes (i.e., barriers).
Lent et al. (1994, p. 89) noted that &dquo;in the course of interest formation, it
is likely that outcome expectations will partly be determined by self-
efficacy.&dquo; However, this does not suggest a strong relationship between
self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and, by the same token, neither
should we expect a strong relationship between self-efficacy and anticipated
barriers.
Another consideration in the effort to specify how barriers fit into social
cognitive theory relates to our earlier discussion of how individuals respond
to likelihood and hindrance formats. Although we did not intend to measure
self-efficacy for overcoming barriers when the two-format components
version of the CBI was administered (Swanson & Daniels, 1994b), in
retrospect, that may have been what we were measuring with the hindrance
ratings. The instructions asked participants to respond to each CBI item
twice. First, respondents were to &dquo;think about how likely it is that the
barrier will happen to you.&dquo; The second instruction was to &dquo;think about how

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

240

much the barrier would hinder your career progress. How much would the
barrier interfere with your career or make your progress difficult?&dquo; Self-
efficacy is defined as &dquo;people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances&dquo;
(Lent et al., 1994, p. 83). We are suggesting that, each time participants
responded to an item, the hindrance rating reflected their assessment of their
abilities to perform the necessary actions to overcome the barrier, that is,
self-efficacy. Thus, if an item was rated by a particular respondent as
something that would &dquo;completely hinder&dquo; her or his career progress, this
indicates that she or he has low self-efficacy for that barrier. Another
consideration in the components study is what was measured by the
likelihood rating. Perhaps responses to the question, &dquo;How likely is it that
you will experience this barrier?&dquo; are a reflection of their outcome
expectations.
If there is truth to the notion that likelihood ratings are approximately
equivalent to outcome expectations and hindrance ratings are approximately
equivalent to self-efficacy, then social cognitive theory suggests that we
need to continue to assess both of these components. This conclusion is in
concordance with our earlier observation that individuals seem to consider
both components, even when explicitly responding to only one format. The
availability of a shortened version of the CBI would make this dual-format
task far less onerous, allowing us to begin to examine these questions.
Thus, assessment of both components may be important both for
theoretical and applied reasons. Assessing likelihood and hindrance
separately may be requisite to determining how perceived barriers influence,
directly or indirectly, other features of the social cognitive model. In
counseling, assessing how likely an individual believes barriers to be and
how much barriers will hinder career choice and implementation is crucial
in determining the most appropriate counseling interventions.
To add a further level of complexity to this discussion, it is possible that
self-efficacy enters in at a different juncture, depending on the nature of the
barrier. For barriers that are more internal in nature (e.g., self-confidence),
self-efficacy may affect the estimation of how likely the barrier is. On the
other hand, estimating the likelihood of barriers that are more external in
nature (e.g., racism or sexism) may not be at all affected by level of self-
efficacy. However, self-efficacy would be a factor later in the process in
determining whether or not the barrier would hinder career progress. In
other words, self-efficacy plays a somewhat different role in the decisional
process, depending on whether the barrier is internal or external. Our
initial attempts to determine the relationship between self-efficacy and
barriers were too simplistic. The results do not necessarily mean that there
is no relationship between barriers and self-efficacy; rather, we probably have
not reached the level of sophistication in research methodology that is
necessary to delineate the complex relationships that exist between self-
efficacy and perceived barriers. For example, we used a general measure of
self-efficacy; yet, a more theoretically consistent approach is to assess self-
efficacy for each specific type of barrier (e.g., overcoming barriers due to
racial discrimination or to multiple-role conflict).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 241

As is obvious from the preceding discussion, we have continued to refine

not only the barriers instrument, but also the definition of the construct of
barriers, particularly vis-A-vis an integrative theoretical framework.
Although the precise location of barriers in the social cognitive model is not
yet determined, the framework provided by the model can help further
delineate the construct of barriers.
Future Research Directions
Our research to date has focused primarily on the development of a
psychometrically sound instrument. We now have a shorter instrument,
one that is, thus, more feasible to use, with promising psychometric qualities.
The task ahead is to use this instrument to explore the impact of barriers
on vocational behavior.

Our initial attempts to examine relationships between barriers and other

internally-focused career-related barriers (i.e., locus of control, self-esteem,
and self-efficacy) were approached from the same atheoretical stance that
characterized the initial development of the CBI. The application of social
cognitive theory as a framework for the construct of barriers offers a new
perspective on future research regarding barriers.
Lent et al. (1994) provided numerous hypotheses regarding the effect of
contextual influences on career interest development and career choice
and performance behaviors. For example, one hypothesis states that the
relationships between interests and choice goals and between choice goals
and choice actions will be stronger when opportunity and support are
perceived and that these relations will be attenuated when perceived
barriers are high. Therefore, an important future direction for research on
barriers is to test these hypotheses.
An avenue for examining barriers regarding opportunity and support is
to sample men and women who are in careers that are nontraditional for
their sexes. Previous research suggests that women in nontraditional
careers differ from women in traditional careers in perceived barriers

(Chatterjee & McCarrey, 1989) and personality characteristics; however, very

little is known about men in nontraditional fields (Chusmir, 1990; Hayes,
1989; Swanson, 1992).
Another future direction for research is to further understand the gender
and racial differences reported in perceptions of barriers. Once again, social
cognitive theory is a source of testable hypotheses for addressing these
issues. It does little good in terms of planning interventions to know that
race or sex differences exist unless we can determine the underlying causal
factors. As noted earlier, examination of within-group differences appears
to be a more promising avenue than between-group comparisons.
In addition to explicating the role of barriers in the career choice process,
future research should address the role of barriers in performance
attainment, another aspect of the social cognitive model. Work by other
researchers regarding perceived barriers has focused on women in
management positions (Russell & Rush, 1987; Russell & Eby, 1993).
Management is a field in which women have made substantial gains in
terms of opportunities for employment and career advancement, yet many

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

242

internal and external barriers continue to impede women’s career progress

(Russell, 1994). Future studies could investigate the perception of barriers
among women in management and examine the reciprocal interaction of
work and family roles (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991).
Finally, future research regarding barriers could benefit from broadening
the types of samples and subjects that are studied. The development of
the CBI included deriving items from thought-listing by college students,
and, thus far, samples have consisted entirely of college students. This
raises the question of the generalizability of the barriers construct as
measured by the CBI. For example, we know little about perceptions of
barriers for employed adults. Another sampling issue that deserves further
consideration is examining perceptions of barriers based on gender-
traditionality of one’s career choice. Our previous attempts have been
hampered by small base rates of nontraditional careers within our general
samples; we need to explicitly sample individuals in careers that are
nontraditional for their sexes.

Implications for Career Assessment

As mentioned earlier, determining precisely what is being measured by
the CBI is particularly important if it is used in applied settings. A career
counselor may want to assess whether a client has an awareness of barriers
that he or she is likely to encounter (i.e., is the client realistic?) and then
address in counseling whether the client’s perceptions match with the
realities of the world of work. Further, a counselor may want to know what
barriers the client believes will hinder her or his career progress so that the
counselor can assist in developing strategies to overcome the barriers or find
ways to help the client raise her or his self-efficacy for specific situations.
Perhaps the most important finding from research examining career
barriers is that college students clearly do perceive the existence of barriers,
whether they are asked in an open-ended manner to list possible barriers
or respond to a structured questionnaire such as the CBI. The types of
barriers that students perceive cover a wide range of situations and vary in
the degree to which the barrier may be overcome. It is, therefore, imperative
that career counselors consciously assess the types of barriers that clients
may perceive as interfering with implementing their career plans and
assist them in responding to these barriers in an appropriate manner.

References
Bandura, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological
perspectives on the self (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burlew, A. K., & Johnson, J. L. (1992). Role conflict and career advancement among
African American women in nontraditional professions. Career Development Quarterly, 40,
303-312.
Chatterjee, J., & McCarrey, M. (1989). Sex-role attitudes of self and peers, performance,
and career opportunities reported by women in nontraditional vs. traditional programs. Sex
Roles, 21, 653-670.
Chusmir, L. H. (1990). Men who make nontraditional career choices. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 69, 11-16.
Crites, J. O. (1969). Vocational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

 243

Falk, W. W., & Cosby, A. G. (1978). Women’s marital-familial statuses and work histories:
Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 126-140.
Farmer, H. S. (1976). What inhibits achievement and career motivation in women? The
Counseling Psychologist, 6, 12-14.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Crites, J. O. (1980). Toward a career psychology of women: What do
we know? What do we need to know? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 44-62.

Hackett, G., & Lonborg, S. D. (1993). Career assessment for women: Trends and issues.
Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 197-216.
Harmon, L. W. (1977). Career counseling for women. In E. Rawlings & D. Carter (Eds.),
Psychotherapy for women. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Hayes, R. (1989). Men in female-concentrated occupations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 10, 201-212.
Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). My Vocational Situation. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory
of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,
79-122.
Loscocco, K. A., & Roschelle, A. R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and nonwork
life: Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 182-225.
Lucas, M. S., & Epperson, D. L. (1990). Types of vocational undecidedness: A replication
and refinement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 382-388.
Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Ethnic differences in college students’ perceptions of barriers to
career development. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 21, 227-236.

Luzzo, D. A. (1995). Gender differences in college students’ career maturity and perceived
barriers in career development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 319-322.
Matthews, E., & Tiedeman, D. V. (1964). Attitudes toward career and marriage and the
development of lifestyle in young women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11, 374-383.
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Woman and work: A psychological perspective. New
York: Praeger.
O’Leary, V. E. (1974). Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women.
Psychological Bulletin, 81, 809-826.
Osipow, S. H., Carney, C., Winer, J., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. (1979). The Career
Decision Scale. Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting.
Robinson, K. (1995). [The effect of racial identity attitudes, concrete academic attitudes,
and perceived career-related barriers on the academic achievement of African American
college students]. Unpublished raw data, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Russell, J. E. A. (1994). Career counseling for women in management. In W. B. Walsh &
S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Russell, J. E. A., & Eby, L. T. (1993). Career assessment strategies for women in
management. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 267-293.
Russell, J. E. A., & Rush, M. C. (1987). A comparative study of age-related variation in
women’s views of a career in management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 280-294.
Shuttleworth, C. (1992). [College women’s perceptions of career barriers]. Unpublished raw
data, Ohio State University.
Slaney, R. B. (1980). An investigation of racial differences on vocational variables among
college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 197-207.
R. &
Slaney, B., Brown, M. T. (1983). Effects of race and socioeconomic status on career
choice variables among college men. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 257-269.
Subich, L. M., & Tokar, D. M. (1995). [Career barriers, self-esteem, and locus of control in
college students]. Unpublished raw data, University of Akron.
Swanson, J. L. (1992). Vocational behavior, 1989-1991: Life-span career development and
reciprocal interaction of work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 101-161.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014

244

Swanson, J. L. (1994). The Career Barriers Inventory ( ). Unpublished manuscript,

Short Form
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Swanson, J. L., & Daniels, K. K. (1994a, August). Examining the components of career-
related barriers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Los Angeles.
Swanson, J. L., & Daniels, K. K. (1994b). [The relation of perceived career barriers to self-
esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control]. Unpublished raw data, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.
Swanson, J. L., & Daniels, K. K. (1995a). [Evaluation of the Career Barriers
Inventory&mdash;Revised]. Unpublished raw data, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Swanson, J. L., & Daniels, K. K. (1995b, October). Measuring the perceptions of career
barriers. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Division 17 Regional
Conference, Memphis, TN.
Swanson, J. L., & Daniels, K. K. (1995c). The Career Barriers Inventory&mdash;Revised.
Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Swanson, J. L., & Ryan, N. (1995, August). Overcoming career barriers. In M. L. Savickas
(Chair), Innovations in vocational interventions. Roundtable discussion conducted at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
Swanson, J. L., & Tokar, D. M. (1991a). College students’ perceptions of barriers to career
development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38,92-106.
Swanson, J. L., & Tokar, D. M. (1991b). Development and initial validation of the Career
Barriers Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39,344-361.
Zytowski, D. G. (1969). Toward a theory of career development for women. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 47, 660-664.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at OhioLink on August 11, 2014