
doi: 10.1037/a0019177
pmid: 21133575
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" (Armstrong & Vogel, 2009). The comments made by Lent et al. and Lubinski highlight a number of important theoretical and methodological issues, including the process of defining and differentiating between constructs, the assumptions underlying Holland's (1959, 1997) RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, 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.
Motivation, Career Choice, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Individuality, Aptitude, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Psychological, Achievement, Social Environment, Self Efficacy, Vocational Guidance, Humans, Internal-External Control
Motivation, Career Choice, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Individuality, Aptitude, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Psychological, Achievement, Social Environment, Self Efficacy, Vocational Guidance, Humans, Internal-External Control
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 11 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
