Title: Facilitating%20Career%20Decision-Making
1Facilitating Career Decision-Making
- Itamar Gati
- The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
2 In this presentation, I will
- Discuss the decision-theory viewpoint
- Present the PIC 3-stage cdm model
- Introduce the CDDQ
- Describe the CDSQ cdm style
- Demonstrate MBCD - Making Better Career Decisions
- Review research and demonstrate applications
- Highlight the unique features of our approach
3Unique features of career decisions
- Quantity of Information Often large N of
alternatives and factors, within-occupation
variance ? information is practically unlimited - Quality of Informationsoft, subjective, fuzzy,
inaccurate, biased - Uncertainty aboutthe individuals future
preferences, future career options, unpredictable
changes and opportunities, probability of
implementing choice - Non-cognitive Factorsemotional and
personality-related factors, necessity for
compromise, actual or perceived social barriers
and biases
4From decision theory to career counseling
practice
- Many factors contribute to the complexity and
difficulties involved in career decision-making - The basic claim
- Career counseling may be viewed as decision
counseling, which aims at facilitating the
clients' decision-making process, and promotes
better career decisions
5If so evident, why was decision-theory not
adopted until recently?
- Because
- Normative decision theory (how individuals should
make decisions) is - too rational
- too arbitrary
- too quantitative
- exceeds humans information-processing
capability - Descriptive decision theory (how individuals
actually make decisions) is not helpful either
it mainly documents human weakness - heuristics, biases, and fallacies
- limited information-processing capabilities
6The Proposed Approach
- By adopting decision theory and adapting it to
the unique features of career decisions,
theoretical knowledge can be translated into
practical interventions to facilitate
individuals career choices - Specifically, we suggest focusing on a
prescriptive approach, and designing systematic
procedures that can help individuals make better
career decisions (not necessarily rational ones!)
7The first stage in helping clients is needs
assessment
- The 3 components of needs assessment are
- the individuals stage in the cdm
process(where) - the focuses of the individuals cdm difficulties
(what) - the individuals cdm style (who)
8 I - Stages in the career
decision-making process
The PIC model (Gati Asher,
2001) separates the career decision-making
process into 3 distinct stages - Prescreening
- In-depth exploration
- Choice
9Prescreening
- Goal Locating a small set (about 7) of promising
alternatives that deserve further, in-depth
exploration - Method Sequential Elimination
- Locate and prioritize relevant aspects or
factors - Explicate within-aspect preferences
- Eliminate incompatible alternatives
- Check list of promising alternatives
- Outcome A list of verified promising
alternatives worth further, in-depth exploration
10A Schematic Presentation of theSequential
Elimination Process (within-aspects,
across-alternatives)
Potential Alternatives
Aspects a (most important) b
(second in importance) c . n
1 2 3 4 .
. . . N
Promising Alternatives
11 Final step - Sensitivity Analysis
- The Goal
- Verifying the adequacy of the promising list
- The Method
- An alternative (compensatory-model-based) search
- why not
- almost compatible
- what if
- similar alternatives
12In-depth exploration
- Goal Locating alternatives that are not only
promising but indeed suitable for the individual - Method collecting additional information,
focusing on one promising alternative at a time - Is the occupation INDEED suitable for me?
- verifying compatibility with ones preferences in
the most important aspects - considering compatibility within the less
important aspects - Am I suitable for the occupation?
- probability of actualization previous studies,
grades, achievements - fit with the core aspects of the occupation
- Outcome A few most suitable alternatives (about
3-4)
13A Schematic Presentation of the In-depth
Exploration Stage(within-alternative, across
aspects)
Promising Alternatives
1 2 3
4 5 6
4
5
2
Suitable Alternatives
14Choice
- Goal Choosing the most suitable alternative, and
rank-ordering additional, second-best
alternatives - Method
- comparing and evaluating the suitable
alternatives - pinpointing the most suitable one
- Am I likely to activate it?
- if not - selecting second-best alternative(s)
- if yes - Am I confident in my choice?
- if not Return to In-depth exploration stage
- if yes Done!
- Outcome The best alternative or a rank-order of
the best alternatives
15 II - Career Decision-Making
Difficulties
- One of the first steps in helping individuals
make a career decision is locating the focuses of
the difficulties they face in the
decision-making process - Relying on decision theory, Gati, Krausz, and
Osipow (1996) proposed a taxonomy for describing
career decision-making difficulties
16Possible Focuses of Career Decision-Making
Difficulties (Gati, Krausz, Osipow, 1996)
17The Career Decision-making Difficulties
Questionnaire (CDDQ)
- The Career Decision-making Difficulties
Questionnaire (CDDQ) was developed to test this
taxonomy and serve as a means for assessing
individuals career decision-making difficulties - Cronbach Alpha internal consistency estimate of
the total CDDQ score is high (above .90) - The proposed structure was empirically supported
(N10,000) - For additional information see
www.cddq.org--- the CDDQ is offered free of
charge ---
18 www.cddq.org
19 20 21 The Four Stages of Interpretation
- Ascertaining Credibility, using validity items
and the time required to fill out the
questionnaire - Estimating Differentiation based on the standard
deviation of the 10 difficulty-scale scores - Locating the salient, moderate, or negligible
difficulties, based on the individual's absolute
and relative scale scores - Determining the confidence in the feedback and
the need to add reservations to it (based on
doubtful credibility, partial differentiation, or
low informativeness)
22The 4 Stages of Interpretation
1
Not Credible
Evaluating Credibility
Doubtful
Credible
Estimating Differentiation
2
Low
High
Questionable
3
Locate Salient Difficulties
Compute Informativeness (B /W )
Aggregate Reasons to Add Reservation (RAR)
B/W lt 1
RAR 3
B/W gt 1
RAR 2
Add Reservation to Feedback
No Feedback
Receives Feedback
4
23 Four Studies -for validating the proposed
interpretation
- Method
- Participants 15-30 career counselors and 25-80
graduate counseling students - Questionnaires including CDDQ responses
- - in Study 1 and 4 all possible responses
- - in Studies 2 and 3 responses of 16 actual
clients - Results
- High similarity within-groups as well as between
counselors and students judgments High
similarity between the experts judgments and the
proposed algorithm at each stage
24The distribution of types of feedback in the four
groups
25 Conclusions
- The incorporation of an intermediate level of
discrimination increases the usefulness of the
feedback and decreases the chances and
implications of potential errors -
- Adding reservations when appropriate is essential
for providing a meaningful feedback and
decreasing the chances of misleading conclusions
26 III Career Decision-Making
Styles
- Diagnosing the clients career decision-making
style is important in order to tailor the
career-counseling intervention to his or her
unique characteristics - Previous research often did not take into
consideration the complexity and variety of
aspects related to the decision process, and
classified decision-styles based only on a
single, most dominant characteristic (e.g.,
rational vs. intuitive)
27Goals
- Developing a multidimensional model for
describing career decision-making styles - Developing the Career Decision-making Styles
Questionnaire (CDSQ) for testing the model and
enabling a more accurate assessment of
individuals career decision-making styles - Empirically deriving a typology of the CDSQ
profiles from a large sample of individuals
28 Derivation of the 11 Dimensions
- Comparing the most common 12 prototypes deduced
from previous research to uncover the various
characteristics differentiating among them - From this list we derived 11 basic dimensions
relevant for characterizing individuals' cdm
styles. On each dimension, individuals can be
characterized along a continuum of a bipolar
scale e.g., on the dimension pattern of
information processing individuals can be
characterized from "analytical" to "holistic"
desire to please others "high" to "low"
29The 11 Proposed Dimensions
- Information processing (analytic vs. holistic)
- Information gathering (much vs. little)
- Amount of effort invested in the process (much
vs. little) - Consultation with others (frequent vs. rare)
- Aspiration for an "ideal occupation" (high vs.
low) - Willingness to compromise (high vs. low)
- Locus of control (internal vs. external)
- Procrastination in entering the process (high vs.
low) - Speed of making the final decision (fast vs.
slow) - Dependence on others (high vs. low)
- Desire to please others (high vs. low)
30The Career-Decision-making Style Questionnaire
(CDSQ)
- 44 statements (4 items x 11 dimensions)
- Response scale 1 Strongly disagree to
7 Strongly agree - The CDSQ is embedded in career-related self-help
Internet sites Future Directions (Hebrew),
CDDQ.ORG (English) - 3 Development samples (N230, 404, 411)
- Fourth sample - 479 subjects
31Results (Items)
- Scale Reliabilities
- median - .80, range .73 .85
- Factor analysis
- 10 factors
- Accounted-for Variance .65
- 2 dimensions were included in one factor(Speed
of making the final decision Procrastination) - Two items loaded higher on a neighbor factor
(Information-processing effort invested) - Cluster analysis
- Accounted-for Variance .81
- Items of 7 dimension clustered perfectly (4/4)4
dimension 3/4 items
32 Conclusions Implications
- The proposed and tested 11 dimensions can be used
to characterize individuals' career
decision-making styles - Using the CDSQ, homogeneous groups of clients
with similar career decision-making styles can be
empirically identified - The CDSQ allows a more accurate assessment of the
counselees' career decision-making styles, thus
better tailoring the intervention to the
individual - The CDSQ allows individuals to learn about their
career decision-making style, and thus to
consider adopting more desirable strategies
33So far, I reviewed
- 3 components of clients needs assessment
- The individuals stage in the cdm process
(Where) - The focuses of the individuals cdm difficulties
(What) - The individuals cdm style (Who)
- So, whats next?
- Some demonstrations of how can the
decision-making approach be implemented in order
to actually facilitate clients cdm
34- Specifically,if career decision-making requires
collectinga vast amount of information, and if
complex information-processing is needed, - we must then utilize the best available resource
- Career counselors expert knowledge, that
canbe elicited and transformed into Information
and Communication Technology-based systems - Indeed, - The computer-assisted career
guidance systems, based on a decision-theory
model, can help overcome humans cognitive
limitations - - There are several computer-assisted
career guidance systems available today on the
Internet
35 MBCD Making Better Career Decisions
- MBCD is an Internet-based career planning system
that is a unique combination of - a career-information system
- a decision-making support system
- an expert system
- Based on the rationale of the PIC model, MBCD
is designed to help deliberating individuals make
better career decisions
36 Making Better Career Decisions
http//mbcd.intocareers.org
37(No Transcript)
38(No Transcript)
39(No Transcript)
40(No Transcript)
41(No Transcript)
42However,
- Although Internet-based, career-related
self-help sites are flourishing, these sites vary
greatly in quality - Therefore,
- it is very important to investigate the
utility and validity of these self-help programs
43 So, Making
Better Career
Decisions
44Criteria for Testing the Benefits of Making
Better Career Decisions
- Examine users' perceptions of MBCD
-
- Examine changes in users decision status
-
- Examine perceived benefits
-
- Locate factors that contribute to these variables
45MBCDs Effect (Cohens d) on Reducing Career
Decision-Making Difficulties (Gati, Saka,
Krausz, 2003)
46Decision Status Before and After the Dialogue
with MBCD
47(No Transcript)
48 Predictive Validity of MBCD (Gati, Gadassi,
Shemesh, 2006)
- Design Comparing the Occupational Choice
Satisfaction (OCS) of two groups six years after
using MBCD and getting a list of occupations
recommended for further exploration - those whose present occupation was included in
MBCDs recommended list (44) - those whose present occupation was not included
in MBCDs recommended list (56)
49Method
- Participants
- The original sample included 123 clients who
used MBCD in 1997, as part of their counseling at
the Hadassah Career-Counseling Institute - Out of the 73 that were located after six
years, 70 agreed to participate in the follow-up
44 women (64) and 26 men (36),aged 23 to 51
(mean 28.4, SD 5.03)
50Frequencies of Occupational Choice Satisfaction
by Acceptance and Rejection of MBCD's
Recommendations (Gati, Gadassi, Shemesh, 2006)
51 Gender Differences in Directly Elicited and
Indirectly Derived Preferred Occupations (279
Women 79 Men, Mean Age23 Gadassi Gati,
2008)
52Summary of Major Findings
- PIC is compatible with peoples intuitive ways of
making decisions (Gati Tikotzki, 1989) - Most users report progress in the career
decision-making process (Gati, Kleiman, Saka,
Zakai, 2003) - Satisfaction was also reported among those who
did not progress in the process - Users are goal-directed the closer they are
to making a decision, the more satisfied they are
with MBCD - The list of recommended occupations are less
influenced by gender stereotypes (Gadassi Gati,
2008)
53In Conclusion Features of our Approach
- Prescreening is essential when the number of
potential alternatives is large - Instead of focusing on occupations (alternatives)
we suggest to focus on aspects - Instead of a snap-shot assessments of
vocational interests (e.g., the 3-highest RIASEC
Hollands code), use for prescreening a wide
range of factors elicited by a dynamic,
interactive process
54In Conclusion Features of our Approach (cont.)
- From the viewpoint of the individual, this
enables - Differentiating between relative
importance of factors, the optimal level, and
the willingness to compromise- Assessing the
individuals preference crystallization (does
s/he knows what s/he is looking for?) - With respect to occupations, this enables-
Characterizing occupations in terms of a range
of levels, representing the within-occupation
variance - Highlighting the essence of the
occupation (using the core aspects)
55We believe that . . .
- Computers can and should be used not only for
scoring, but also for monitoring a dynamic
interaction, and providing flexible
interpretations - Experts knowledge can and should be elicited and
transformed to design and improve interpretive
feedbacks on assessments - Career choices are the outcome of
decision-making processes therefore, career
counseling is, in fact, decision counseling - The goal should be promoting a systematic
decision making process not a rational one
56Finally, we also believe that . . .
- Career-related assessments can be transformed
into user-friendly Internet-based systems, which
can also be incorporated into counseling
interventions - Interpretive feedback is important but has to be
tailored and validated - Theory-based interventions should always be
tested for empirically validity as well as
practical effectiveness
57 www.cddq.org itamar.gati_at_huji.ac.il
58end
59 60Previous Research
- 1. 39 labels used for describing decision-making
styles were located - 2. In light of the high resemblance among some of
them (e.g., logical Arroba, 1977, rational
Harren, 1979, active-planning Jepsen, 1974,
systematic Johnson, 1978), these 39 types were
narrowed down to 12 prototypes - rational, perfectionist, procrastinator,
searching for tools, satisfying, hesitant,
impulsive, fatalist, intuitive, dependent,
rebellious, and pleasing.
61Alternative Explanations to MH were not
supported
- Differences in the lengths of the lists
- No difference was found in the OCS between
clients whose list included 15 or fewer
occupations and clients whose list included more
than 15 occupations - Clients who accepted MBCDs recommendations are
more compliant, and therefore more inclined to
report a high level of satisfaction - However, following the compensatory-model-base
d recommendations did not contribute to the OCS
62 Results - Typology
G7 G6 G5 G4 G3 G2 G1 Group
n64 n87 n47 n65 n79 n77 n38 DIMENSION
5.09 5.35 3.45 5.17 4.76 4.91 3.65 Information-processing
5.79 5.94 3.43 5.83 5.34 5.21 3.94 Information gathering
5.72 6.32 4.62 5.41 6.05 6.06 4.82 Amount of effort invested
5.83 5.64 5.33 4.02 6.26 5.58 5.64 Consultation with others
2.14 2.56 3.39 2.25 3.12 2.01 4.12 "ideal occupation"
3.03 3.60 5.12 3.33 4.91 4.81 3.08 Willingness to compromise
5.58 5.61 5.26 6.10 4.91 5.24 5.59 Locus of control
4.38 2.47 3.02 5.42 2.25 3.24 3.73 Speed of making decision
4.97 3.53 2.58 5.78 2.66 5.10 4.21 Procrastination
6.40 6.19 5.76 6.47 3.89 5.60 6.16 Dependence
5.99 5.94 5.79 5.69 4.26 4.72 5.88 Desire to please others
63Steps in Sequential Elimination
Locating and prioritizing aspects or factors
Explicating within-factor preferences in the most
important factor not yet considered
Eliminating incompatible alternatives
yes
Too many promising alternatives?
no
This is the recommended list of occupations
worth further, in-depth exploration