1. Presentation by Patsy Dougherty
Career Decision Scale
Test created by Samuel H. Osipow, Clarke G. Carney, Jane Winer, Barbara Yanico, and Maryanne Koschier
Presentation by Patsy Dougherty

2. Try out the sample question!
Pass out handouts. Have everyone complete the sample question on the handout… These are the types of questions included on the Career Decision Scale.

3. More samples: Exactly like me Very much like me Only slightly like me
Not at all like me
I have decided on a career and feel comfortable with it. I also know how to go about implementing my choice. 4 3 2 1
I know what I’d like to major, in but I don’t know what careers it can lead to that would satisfy me.
None of the above items describe me. The following would
describe me better: (write your response below).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The first question is one of the two for the Certainty Scale. The other one only differs by replacing “career” with “major.”
The second question counts toward the Indecision Scale.
The third question is the last question on the assessment.

4. Career Decision Scale
The Career Decision Scale was designed as a “rapid and reliable instrument for surveying high school and college students about their status in the decision-making process.” It “provides an estimate of career indecision and its antecedents as well as an outcome measure for determining the effects of interventions relevant to career choice and development.”
Also… This scale provides a simple way of identifying the principal barriers which interfere with an individual's ability to make a required educational or vocational decision.

5. Career Decision Scale High School and College students Development:
Special Populations: Adults in Continuing Education Programs and Women Returning to College
Specialty Versions: Spanish, medical students, rewording for graduate students, rewording for high school students
Development:
Part of a proposed modular system to promote self-counseling about career indecision
16 items (The Indecision Scale)
18 items (The Certainty Scale)
19 items (Open-ended Questions)
-> Normed according to Grade and Gender… Also includes Age norms from validity studies, manual doesn’t use age because of the correlation with grade… but neighter of these are very accurate norm groups
- Specialty versions NOT available for use…. Used in validity studies. Any rewording was modest ( and the HS rewording was deemed unnecessary since it was already normed on Hsers)

6. Factor Structure Original Study VS. Further Examination Stability?
Lack of Structure and Confidence
External Barrier to a Preferred Choice
Difficulty Choosing among Options
Personal Conflict
Original Study VS. Further Examination
Stability?
Differences may be due to item interpretation
Still, the study has a good predictability!
Factor Analysis only conducted for the Indecision Scale
- All factors are associated with decision-making! (Not just lack of structure in life)

7. Reliability – Test Manual
Osipow, Carney, and Barak (1976)
Individual Items and Indecision Scale
Test-retest correlation, 0.9 and 0.82
Item correlations for Certainty and Indecision Scales
Mostly
Slaney, Palko- Nonemaker, and Alexander (1981)
Test-retest over 6 weeks
Certainty and Indecision Scale
Item correlation from
CDS total = 0.70
** Not alternate forms ***
.8 = acceptable
.7 = can still be useful DEF room for improvement

8. Validity – Test Manual
Group Comparison and Correlations with Other Instruments
Assessment of Career Decision Making (ACDM)
Occupational Alternative Question
Career Maturity Inventory (CMI) - Attitudes Scale
Holland and Holland Scale
Treatment Studies
Career Counseling Interventions
College Residential Career Exploration Program
Career Planning Discussion Groups
Career Exploration Class
Career Development Workshops
Relationships with Other Personality Variables
External Locus of Control
Fear of Success
Relationships with Demographic Variables
Age Differences
Grade Level
Sex Differences
Ethnic Difference
GPA
Achievement Type
Aptitude
Area of Study

9. Validity – Test Manual Methods Results
Slaney (1980): Group Comparisons and Correlations with Other Instruments
Occupational Alternatives Question
First choice and no alternatives
First choice plus alternatives
Methods
N = 232
Male and female college students
Comparison of scores for both tests
No first choice with alternatives
Neither a first choice or alternatives
Results
Concurrent Validity: Clearly differentiated subjects into same categories in both tests
Concurrent Validity… which as we learned in class can be a double edged sword because it assumes the other instrument is valid. May not be the best test of validity, but it is a strong example of the validity that the CDS has.

10. Predictive Validity of the Career Decision Scale Administered to High School Students
Hartman, Fuqua & Hartman (1983)
N = 205
Chicago, urban, middle income community
High school seniors enrolled in specific coursework
Two categories:
Decided-No change
Undecided-Still Undecided
Methods
In-person administration
Follow-up phone interview
Final phone interview
Results
Predictive Validity: strong, increasing
over time
Factor Structure:
After one year, only 3 relevant. After two years, only 2.
Problem with this study is the focus on using the CDS in high schools, when the CDS is already normed for high schools. Actually relatively useless study.
**No treatment
Thought this would be an interesting study to analyze because it is mentioned in the manual as a specialty version, and represents yet another conflicting finding of the factor structure of the CDS. This is PART TWO (the second year) of the study that is not included in the manual.

11. Proposed Validity Study
500 students in First Year College Program, NCSU
Treatment Group: 250 students
Control Group: 250 students
Pre-test: August
Post-test: December
Treatment/Intervention:
Bi-weekly group workshops and individual advising meetings
Topics including:
Career Information
Decision-Making Strategies
Interest Inventories
Convenience sampling (use the students available at state)… Ask for volunteers in the First Year College Program
 Wanted to look at this type of validtiy study because there were some conflicting results reported on these category of studies in the manual.
Would assume that the results of this study would indicated PREDICTIVE VALIDITY that students who received the treatment/intervention would have increased certainty ratings and decreased indecision ratings.

12. Results of Administration
2 = Male
3 = Female
5 = College
1 Freshman (Male)
1 Sophomore (Male)
1 Junior (Female)
2 Seniors (Females)
Individual administration
Convenience sampling

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

14. Percentile Distribution
Uncertain
Certain
Decisive
Indecisive
Medium
Further need for assessment
Explain that there are two distributions that should be inversely correlated. If you score the same range in each, then it is likely that the data is inaccurate. If you score opposing scores than your results are more clearly defined as to whether you need interventions (Cer-Low, Ind-High) or don’t (Cer-High, Ind-Low).
If you fall in the middle for either scale, you require more assessment. Unspecified whether you would benefit from intervention.
Low
High 16 84

15. Participant 1 6 58 28 Senior 78 Female, College Total 1-2 Total 3-18
Normative Group
% ile
Cer 6
Female, College 58
Ind 28
Senior 78
Interpretation ****
Participant one falls in the Middle range for both scores. These scores are about average, and the participant would benefit from additional testing

16. Participant 2 8 100 23 Senior 52 Female, College Total 1-2 Total 3-18
Normative Group
% ile
Cer 8
Female, College
100
Ind 23
Senior 52
Interpretation ****
8 = 100th percentile… didn’t know you could have that.

17. Participant 3 5 21 34 Junior 84 Female, College Total 1-2 Total 3-18
Normative Group
% ile
Cer 5
Female, College 21
Ind 34
Junior 84
CER – Actually 1 SD below the mean for her Grade! Could be signficantly low for certainty…. Is almostttt significantly high for Indecision
High for Indecision, VERY close to Low for Certainty…. “High likelihood of need for intervention”

18. Participant 4 8 100 30 Freshman 55 Male, College Total 1-2 Total 3-18
Normative Group
% ile
Cer 8
Male, College
100
Ind 30
Freshman 55
Interpretation ****
100 on the certainty scale, again, is a strange percentile
Also, while he was VERY extroidinarily high on certainty, he was in the middle for Indecision, where as these two are intended to be inversely correlated. This means that Participant 5 would likely benefit from additional assessment in order to more effectively analyze his needs.

19. Participant 5 8 100 25 Sophomore 42 Male, College Total 1-2 Total 3-18
Normative Group
% ile
Cer 8
Male, College
100
Ind 25
Sophomore 42
Interpretation ****

20. Means and Standard Deviations
Manual Includes:
High School (Sample S and Sample W)
Sex
Grade
Age **
College
Sex
Grade
Age **
College of Study **
Age – Asked on the test booklet, but it is not normed. Only mentioned in the standard deviations
College of Study - NOT mentioned in the manual or asked for on the test… ** -> comes from various validity studies listed in manual

21. Means – College Females
Biggest differences are Participant 2 who is low on Indecision, which is good.. That means she is likely more decisive
While Participant 3 is about 7 scale points HIGHER than the mean on Indecesion

22. Means – College Males

23. Problems Successes Response Rate Out-of-date Instruction Scoring
Time commitment
Successes
Response rate: had to ask around to a few people before receiving 5 completed assessments
Out-of-date: THIS WAS TEST-TAKER REPORTED. Some of the questions apparently seemed unclear, and the wording is somewhat out-of-date.
Instruction: Very easy instruction, and easily self-administered
Time commitment: Very short assessment, so people were more willing to take and complete the assessment

24. Summary Positive Aspects: Reliable instrument
Validity studied extensively
Proven predictability
Points for Consideration:
Certainty Scale unclear
Factor instability
Aged test instrument

25. References
Hartman, B. W., Fuqua, D. R., & Hartman, P. T. (1983) Predictive validity of the Career Decision Scale administered to high school students. Psychological Reports, 52, doi: /pr
Osipow, S. H. (1980). Career decision scale: Manual. (3rd rev.) Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting & Press, 1980.
Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Kochier, M. (1976). The Career Decision Scale (3rd revision). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

26. Questions?