285

Relationships Among Measures of

Career Self-Efficacy, Generalized Self-Efficacy,
and Global Self-Esteem
Nancy E. Betz and Karla L. Klein
The Ohio State University

This study involved the examination of relationships among

behavior-domain-specific measures of career self-efficacy and
measures of generalized self-efficacy and global self-esteem.
Correlations of domain-specific measures were higher with
generalized self-efficacy than with global self-esteem and were
higher, in some cases significantly so, for male than for female
students. The domains most strongly correlated with generalized
self-efficacy were career decision-making self-efficacy in both sexes
and several of the Holland (1973, 1985) theme self-efficacy measures
in men.

One areaof increasing interest in career assessment is that of career self-

efficacy. Based on Bandura’s (1977, 1986) theory of self-efficacy expectations
as a major mediator of both behavior and behavior change, career self-
efficacy was first operationalized by Betz and Hackett (1981), who reported
that college students’ beliefs about their educational and occupational
capabilities were significantly related to the nature and range of the career
options they considered. Subsequent studies have led to the development and
investigation of measures of task-specific occupational self-efficacy, such as
the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS; Rooney &
Osipow, 1992) and the short form of the TSOSS (Osipow, Temple, & Rooney,
1993), mathematics self-efficacy (Betz & Hackett, 1983), career decision-
making self-efficacy (Taylor & Popma, 1990), self-efficacy with respect to
academic milestones (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984) and scientific or technical
careers (Lent et al., 1984), the Holland themes (Lenox & Subich, 1994), and
career search efficacy (Solberg et al., 1994), among other measures. Not only
has instrument development proceeded quickly, but meta-analyses and
reviews (Hackett & Lent, 1992; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Multon,
Brown, & Lent, 1991) strongly support the role of career self-efficacy,
variously measured, as a predictor of academic performance and persistence
and career decision-making intentions and behaviors.

We would like to thank Steven Anderson and Elizabeth Parsons for their assistance
in data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nancy E. Betz,
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 104 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil
Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

286

Although career self-efficacy has received widespread empirical attention,

one of the remaining theoretical questions concerns the relationship of
behavior-domain-specific expectations of efficacy to conceptually related
constructs (e.g., see Lent et al., 1994), including measures of generalized self-
efficacy and self-esteem. Bandura, in his original (1977) and continuing
elaborations of self-efficacy theory, suggested that the strengthening of
self-efficacy expectations relative to a specific domain of behavior should
generalize more broadly-specifically, experiences of personal mastery that
contribute to efficacy expectancies are postulated to generalize to other
behavioral domains in addition to the targeted behavior domain.
From these ideas has come the postulate that there are also individual
differences in generalized self-efficacy, a more generalized expectation of one’s
ability to succeed in or master new behavioral challenges (e.g., Sherer et al.,
1982). Stronger self-efficacy in specific domains should be related to, and
possibly contribute to, higher levels of generalized self-efficacy.
Another conceptually similar construct is global self-esteem, which is
an affective evaluation of self-worth. Bandura (1986) proposed that self-

efficacy, describing perceived capabilities, and self-esteem, describing

perceived self-worth, have no necessary relationship. He further proposed
that the relationship of these more general constructs to measures of career
self-efficacy is in need of examination as a means of further clarifying the
conceptual meaning and empirical limits of domain-specific measures of
career self-efficacy.

The present research was designed to examine the relationships among

several domain-specific measures of career self-efficacy, generalized self-
efficacy, and global self-esteem. It was postulated that domain-specific
measures of self-efficacy would be more highly correlated with a measure
of generalized self-efficacy than with a measure of global self-esteem.
Measures of self-efficacy should have a common focus on behavioral
competencies of one kind or another, whereas global self-esteem has a more
affective focus. Although this study produced two different data sets obtained
from two samples, the results are presented as one study to facilitate
comparisons of degrees of relationship between specific and general
measures.

Method
Overview
The present study involved two separate samples of college students.
The first sample of 200 students received the Career Decision-Making Self-
Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CDMSE-SF; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996), the
Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI; Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, in press; Betz,
Harmon, & Borgen, 1996), and the measures of generalized self-efficacy and
global self-esteem. The second sample of 147 students was administered the
CDMSE-SF, the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES; Betz & Hackett,
1981), the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale (Betz & Hackett, 1983), and
the measures of generalized self-efficacy and global self-esteem.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

 287

Measures
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CDMSE-SF)
The CDMSE measures an individual’s degree of belief that he or she can
successfully complete tasks necessary to making career decisions. The
original basis for scale construction was the five career choice competencies
postulated in Crites’s (1978b) model of career maturity and assessed in
the Career Maturity Inventory (Crites, 1978a). Therefore, the item content
includes behaviors pertinent to (a) accurate self-appraisal, (b) gathering
occupational information, (c) goal selection, (d) making plans to implement
the decision, and (e) problem solving. The original scale included 10 items
reflecting each competency area. The original scale and subscales were
highly reliable; values of internal consistency reliability ranged from .86 to
.89 for the subscales, and was .97 for the total score. The 6-week test-retest
reliability was .83 (Luzzo, 1993).
The 25-item short form was developed using the best 5 items from each
of the five subscales, based on criteria described in Betz, Klein, and Taylor
( 1996). The shorter scales had reliabilities ranging from .73 (Self-Appraisal)
to .83 (Goal Selection), with the 25-item total score having an alpha of .94.
Using Osipow’s (1987) Career Decision Scale and Holland, Daiger, and
Power’s (1980) Vocational Identity Scale as criteria, the short form is as valid
as the long form.

Thus, the CDMSE-SF consisted of five 5-item scales, or a total of 25

items. Responses were obtained using a 5-level confidence continuum,
ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Scale scores
were computed by summing the responses to each scale’s items, and the
total score was the sum of the five scale scores. Values of coefficient alpha
in the present sample were .71, .78, .83, .77, and .69 for Self-Appraisal,
Occupational Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and Problem Solving,
respectively. The alpha for the 25-item total CDMSE-SF was .93.
Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI)
The SCI is a 60-item measure of perceived self-efficacy with respect to the
six Holland (1973, 1985) themes. These six themes, Realistic, Investigative,
Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (henceforth abbreviated
RIASEC, respectively), have been among the major individual-differences
variables used in career theory, assessment, and counseling. Each theme is
measured by 10 items, including activities items (e.g., &dquo;build a dollhouse&dquo;),
because they are one of the most commonly used stimuli for the assessment
of self-efficacy (e.g., see Lenox & Subich, 1994; Rooney & Osipow, 1992;
Taylor & Betz, 1983), and school subjects (e.g., &dquo;art&dquo;). Respondents are
asked to indicate the degree of confidence in their abilities to perform that
activity or task on a 5-point scale ranging from &dquo;1 (no confidence at all) to
5 (complete confidence). For school subjects items (e.g., algebra, art, botany),
respondents were asked to indicate the degree of confidence in completing
the course successfully. Responses were obtained using the same 5-point
continuum used with the activities items.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

288

The SCI was normed in samples of 1,147 employed adults and 706 college
students. Values of coefficient alpha ranged from .84 to .87 in the student
sample and from .84 to .88 in the employed adult sample. Within this
range, the Enterprising scale had the lowest alpha (.84 in both samples), and
the Realistic scale had the highest alpha (.87 and .88, respectively). Validity
data are provided in the SCI manual (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, in press).
Values of alpha herein were .88 (R), .85 (1), .87 (A), .89 (S), .86 (E), and .89
(C).
Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES)
The 20-item OSES was developed by Betz and Hackett (1981) to measure
students’ perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to 20 commonly known
occupations. The instrument was originally developed to test the postulate
that the underrepresentation of women in many nontraditional (i.e., male-
dominated) career fields was due, in part, to women’s low expectations of
career-related self-efficacy with respect to male-dominated career fields.
Accordingly, the concept of traditionality versus nontraditionality was used
both to select occupational titles for inclusion in the instrument and as a
basis for scoring the instrument.
Based on percentages of women and men in the occupation, 10
traditionally female-dominated (traditional) and 10 traditionally male-
dominated (nontraditional) occupations were selected. Social worker and
engineer are examples of traditional and nontraditional occupations,
respectively. For each occupation, participants are asked to indicate the
strength of their beliefs that they could successfully complete the educational
requirements for that occupation. Responses were obtained on a 5-point
confidence continuum, ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete
confidence). Total scores for traditionally female and traditionally male
occupations were computed as the sum of the confidence ratings for the 10
occupations associated with each. Evidence for reliability and validity has
been reported by Zilber (1988) and Layton (1984). For example, Layton
reported statistically significant relationships between traditional self-
efficacy and range of traditional options (.19 and .18 in two samples of
college students) and between nontraditional self-efficacy and range of
nontraditional options (.33 and .44 in the two samples). Values of coefficient
alpha in the present study were .85 and .83 for the 10-item Traditional
and Nontraditional subscales, respectively.
Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale
The College Courses subscale of the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale
consists of 16 math or math-related college courses (e.g., computer science,
economics, geometry); the student is asked to indicate his or her degree of
confidence in the ability to complete each course with a final grade of A or
B. Responses were obtained on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (no confidence
at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Betz and Hackett (1983) reported a
coefficient alpha of .93, and subsequent research (Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke,
1993) has provided evidence for the validity of the scale. The value of
coefficient alpha in the present study was .91.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

 289

Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)

The GSES (Sherer et al., 1982) is a 23-item measure originally constructed
to reflect generalized self-efficacy expectations. Based on Bandura’s (1977)
postulate that increases in domain-specific self-efficacy expectations
generalize to other behavior domains, a more generalized expectation of
success, as opposed to failure, in new situations may be inferred; it is this
generalized expectation that Sherer et al. proposed to measure.
Following factor analysis of their original data set, Sherer et al. (1982)
concluded that the GSES was best considered as constituted of two subscales,
a 17-item General Self-Efficacy subscale, containing items such as &dquo;If I
can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can&dquo; and &dquo;I give up easily,&dquo;
and a 6-item Social Self-Efficacy subscale, containing items such as &dquo;It is
difficult for me to make new friends.&dquo; In the original research, values of
coefficient alpha of .86 and .71 were reported for the General and Social Self-
Efficacy subscales, respectively. Correlations with other measures of
personality traits, including locus of control, personal control, and self-
esteem, provided evidence of construct validity. Sherer and Adams (1983)
reported that the Generalized Self-Efficacy subscale was related to better
psychological adjustment, as measured by scales of the MMPI (Hathaway
& McKinley, 1967), and to masculinity (instrumentality), as measured by the
Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974). The correlation between generalized
self-efficacy and the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem scale was .51 (Sherer et
al.). The value of coefficient alpha for the Generalized Self-Efficacy subscale
was .88, herein. Because the focus of the present study was on generalized
self-efficacy, only that subscale was used.
Unconditional Self-Regard Scale (USRS)
The USRS (Betz, Wohlgemuth, Serling, Harshbarger, & Klein, 1995) was
used to measure global self-esteem. The conceptual basis for the scale
utilized herein was Carl Rogers’ (1957, 1961) notion of unconditional positive
regard for the client by the therapist, adapted to self-evaluation. The USRS
is also similar to Rogers’ notion of self-ideal self-congruence as the sine qua
non of mental health. As defined by the scale authors, unconditional self-

regard is a noncontingent valuing and acceptance of oneself. In other words,

self-liking or self-acceptance is not contingent on either one’s own
performances in various behavioral domains (e.g., athletic, academic, social)
or on others’ evaluations of one’s worth.

The 20 items of the USRS include 9 positively worded and 11 negatively

worded items; an example of a positively worded item is &dquo;Even though I make
mistakes, I feel good about myself as a person,&dquo; and an example of a
negatively worded item is &dquo;I can never quite measure up to my own
standards.&dquo; Responses to the items were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Scores were
computed by reverse-scoring all negatively worded items and then adding
the scores for all the self-esteem items. Values of coefficient alpha of .90 in
the development sample and .89 in a new sample of 98 undergraduates
indicated that the USRS is a homogeneous scale.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

290

Evidence for the validity of the USRS was shown by significant and
moderately sized relationships to other measures of self-esteem and
psychological adjustment (Betz et al., 1995) and to perceptions of both level
and unconditionality of regard from persons significant in the participant’s
childhood and adolescent years (Harshbarger, 1991). The value of alpha
herein was .92.

Participants and Procedures

The research participants were students enrolled in introductory
psychology classes. Students received course credit for participation, but
there were other ways of earning this credit, and students could choose from
a large variety of research studies in which to participate. The first sample
of 200 students, 133 female and 67 male, was administered the CDMSE-SF,
the SCI, and the measures of generalized self-efficacy and global self-
esteem. The second sample of 147 students, 60 male and 87 female, was
administered the CDMSE-SF, the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale, the
OSES, and the measures of generalized self-efficacy and global self-esteem.
Analysis of Data
Means, standard deviations, and gender comparisons of scores using t tests
were derived; data were analyzed for the combined samples for measures
administered in both (i.e., the CDMSE-SF, USRS, and GSES).
Correlations between domain-specific and general measures of self-
efficacy were calculated separately for men and women. The statistical
significance of differences between correlations in the male and female
subsamples was evaluated using the z test for the difference between
independent correlation coefficients (Glass & Hopkins, 1984), after
conversion to Fisher’s z.
Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the predictive
utility of domain-specific measures in the prediction of generalized self-
efficacy. Predictors available from Sample 1 were the CDMSE-SF and the
SCI. Those available from Sample 2 were the CDMSE-SF, the OSES, and
the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale.

Results
Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, and t tests of gender
comparisons of the major variables. As shown in Table 1, male students
reported significantly higher levels of unconditional self-regard and
significantly higher scores on SCI Realistic and Conventional confidence
scales, the total SCI score, the nontraditional OSES, and the Mathematics
Self-Efficacy Scale. Female students reported significantly higher scores on
the SCI Social confidence scale. No significant gender differences in career
decision-making self-efficacy, traditional occupational self-efficacy, or on
the Investigative, Artistic, or Enterprising confidence scales were found.
Table 2 shows the correlations among total scores on the measures of
general and specific self-efficacy and unconditional self-regard. Correlations
in the upper row are those for male students, and those in the lower row are

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

 291

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and t Tests of
Gender Comparisons of Major Variables

an = 220. bn = 125. cn = 133. dn = 67. en = 87. fn = 60.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

292

for female students. Several patterns may be noted. Career decision-making

self-efficacy is the specific domain of career self-efficacy most strongly
related to both generalized self-efficacy and global self-esteem (r .59 and =

.50 with the former and .43 and .39 with the latter). The SCI total score and
the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale score are significantly related to
generalized self-efficacy in both men and women, but only the SCI total score
is significantly related to global self-esteem.
A significant gender difference in pattern occurs in the relationships of
occupational self-efficacy to generalized self-efficacy and global self-esteem,
in which correlations are higher among male students. Although only the
difference for nontraditional occupational self-efficacy with unconditional
self-regard is statistically significant (r .32 among male students, and .01 =

among female students), differences of .37 versus .10 (nontraditional

Table 2
Correlations Among Specific Measures of Career Self-Efficacy and
Measures of Generalized Self-Efficacy and Unconditional Self-Regard

*p<.05.**p<.01.***p<.001.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

 293

occupational self-efficacy with generalized self-efficacy) and .30 versus .05

(traditional occupational self-efficacy with generalized self-efficacy) also
follow the pattern of closer relationships among male than among female
students.
Among the general measures, generalized self-efficacy and global self-
esteem, measured by the USRS, were moderately related, as shown on
as
Table 2 (.53 in male and .43 in female students). These values indicate
some shared variance, as well as substantial distinctiveness, in both male
and female students.
Table 3 shows the correlations between subscales of the SCI and the
general measures of self-efficacy and global self-esteem. It may be noted first,
that, like the other career self-efficacy measures, self-efficacy with respect
to the RIASEC themes is more closely related to generalized self-efficacy
than to global self-esteem. Correlations with generalized self-efficacy among
male students were highest with the Realistic (r .53), Investigative (r = =

.45) and Conventional (r .46) themes, although all confidence-generalized

=

self-efficacy correlations among male students were above .36. In contrast,

correlations among female students ranged from .04 (Artistic) to .31
(Enterprising).
Some of the gender differences in the magnitude of correlations are
statistically significant-the correlation between Realistic confidence and
generalized self-efficacy in male students (r .53) is significantly (p < .001) =

greater than that in female students (.09), as is the Artistic and generalized
self-efficacy correlation (.38 vs..04, p < .01). The other correlations between
RIASEC theme confidence and generalized self-efficacy also fit the pattern
of closer relationships in male versus female students, although none of these

Table 3
Correlations
Among Scales and Subscales of the Measures of RIASEC
Self-Efficacy, Generalized Self-Efficacy, and Unconditional Self-Regard

an=67.bn=133.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

294

differences (.45 vs..27 for Investigative, .37 vs..25 for Social, .39 vs..31 for
Enterprising, and .46 vs..28 for Conventional) are statistically significant.
Correlations between unconditional-self-regard and RIASEC self-efficacy
scores are smaller in magnitude, although many are statistically
significant-the values range from .08 (Conventional) to .26 (Realistic) in
male students and from .11 (Realistic) to .32 (Enterprising) in female
students. Those for Realistic, Social, and Enterprising are statistically
significant among male students, and those for Investigative, Artistic,
Social, and Conventional are statistically significant among female students.
Because of the strong relationships of the career self-efficacy measures
to generalized self-efficacy, especially among male students, regressions
designed to indicate the strongest predictors of generalized self-efficacy
were undertaken separately within Samples 1 and 2 and within the male
and female subgroups. Table 4 provides the results of these regression
analyses. The first set of results is from the 200 students who were
administered the CDMSE-SF and the SCI, and the second set is from the
sample of 147 students who were administered the CDMSE-SF, the OSES,
and the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale.
It is evident from the data shown in Table 4 that career decision-making
self-efficacy is the most consistent predictor of generalized self-efficacy. In
Sample 1, the CDMSE-SF and generalized self-efficacy had in common
35% and 59% of their variance in female and male students, respectively,
with the RIASEC self-efficacy scores making little significant independent
contributions. When occupational and math self-efficacy as well as the
CDMSE-SF were used as predictors in the smaller sample, predictive
utility was reduced. The CDMSE -SF and math self-efficacy were
significantly related to generalized self-efficacy in female students. The
CDMSE-SF was the only significant predictor of generalized self-efficacy
in male students.

Discussion
The present study was designed to evaluate the relationships of domain-
specific measures of career self-efficacy to measures of generalized self-
efficacy and global self-esteem. Correlational data, analyzed separately
within gender, indicated generally stronger relationships of career self-
efficacy measures to generalized self-efficacy than to global self-esteem.
For example, in men, all five domain-specific measures of self-efficacy were
significantly related to generalized self-efficacy, but only the CDMSE-SF,
SCI total score, and OSES-nontraditional were significantly related to
global self-esteem. Among women, the CDMSE-SF, SCI, and Mathematics
Self-Efficacy Scale were significantly related to generalized self-efficacy, but
only the former two were related to global self-esteem. This pattern of
findings is consistent with theoretical expectation, in that domain-specific
self-efficacy is postulated to generalize to some degree to a belief in one’s
competence to handle new situations and behavioral challenges (generalized
self-efficacy), but not necessarily to a more affectively focused measure of
global self-esteem. However, the lower, but still statistically significant,

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

 295

correlations of some domain-specific measures with global self-esteem do

suggest some degree of overlap between cognitive and affective self-
evaluations.

Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Generalized Self-Efficacy From
Domain-Specific Measures of Career Self-Efficacy

Note. CDMSE-SF Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form; SCI

= =

Skills Confidence Inventory; OSES Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. =

aN 200. bn 133. ~n 67. dN 147. en 87. fn 60.

= = = = = =

*p < .05. **so < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

296

Especially noteworthy were gender differences in the magnitude of the

correlations between domain-specific and generalized self-efficacy and, to
some extent, global self-esteem. The differences characterized both RIASEC
theme confidence scores and occupational self-efficacy. Significant larger
correlations among men in the relationships between RIASEC self-efficacy
and generalized self-efficacy included values of .53 versus .09 on Realistic
and .38 versus .04 on Artistic, although the RIASEC self-efficacy scores were
not differentially related (by gender) to global self-esteem. Correlations of
occupational self-efficacy to generalized self-efficacy and global self-esteem
were moderate and statistically significant in men but essentially zero in
women.

The finding that occupational self-efficacy is more strongly related to

global self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy in men than in women
makes sense if one assumes that men in our society are more likely to be
taught that their self-worth is contingent on the ability to succeed
occupationally. Whether this stronger relationship between specific
competencies and global self-evaluations may characterize men in domains
not related to career (e.g., interpersonal competence) was not directly
examined herein. However, assuming some interpersonal relevance of the
Social confidence scale from the SCI, correlations between social confidence
and global self-efficacy and global self-esteem were moderate in size (r .22 =

to .37) and comparable in both sexes.

More generally, these data indicate differential relationships of domain-
specific career self-efficacy to generalized measures in men versus women,
specifically, a closer relationship in men. Practically speaking, this suggests
that women may not be as likely to generalize from specific areas of
competency to a more generalized expectation of success. This lesser
tendency would merit counseling focus, because part of the postulated
benefit of domain-specific self-efficacy interventions is a more generalized
belief in one’s competency or instrumentality. On the other hand, the close
relationship of career decision-making self-efficacy and generalized self-
efficacy in both sexes suggests that interventions designed to increase the
former may positively affect more generalized self-efficacy in women as
well as in men. The results of this study do suggest that specific and
generalized measures of self-efficacy are assessing some overlapping, but also
some distinct, elements. Why the behavioral competencies included in the
CDMSE, as opposed to those of the other domains assessed herein, would
be most closely related to generalized self-efficacy is not immediately
apparent conceptually.
Although no causal inferences can be made from this research, the
potential impact of interventions designed to increase domain-specific
career self-efficacy on generalized self-efficacy should be considered and
further explored. If interventions designed to increase career decision-
making self-efficacy were found to increase the client’s or student’s
generalized beliefs of competence, the benefits of intervention would
obviously be two-fold. And because it probably is easier to target specific
behavior domains using the four sources of efficacy information postulated
by Bandura (1977, 1986)-performance accomplishments, vicarious learning

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

 297

or modeling, anxiety management, and verbal persuasion and support-than

to target a generalized sense of competence, domain-specific interventions
may have utility in both general and specific ways.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bem, S. J. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (in press). M anual for the Skills Confidence
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations
to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
399-410.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations
to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-
345.
Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationship of self-efficacy for the
Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90-98.
Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career
Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47-57.
Betz, N. E., Wohlgemuth, E., Serling, D., Harshbarger, J., & Klein, K. L. (1995). Evaluation
of a measure of self-esteem based on the concept of unconditional self-regard. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 74, 76-83.
Crites, J. O. (1978a). Career Maturity Inventory. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Crites, J. O. (1978b). Career Maturity Inventory: Theory and research handbook. Monterey,
CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. (1984). Statistical methods in psychology and education (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in counseling
psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent, Jr. (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 419-452). New York: Wiley.
Harshbarger, J. (1991). An exploration of the relationship between self-esteem and
unconditional regard from significant others. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Holland, J. L., Daiger, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). My Vocational Situation. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Layton, P. L. (1984). Self-efficacy, locus of control, career salience, and women’s career choice.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Lenox, R. A., & Subich, L. M. (1994). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and
inventoried vocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 302-313.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015

298

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.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to
academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and
success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
42, 223-236.
Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Value of career decision-making self-efficacy in predicting career
decision making attitudes and skills. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 194-199.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38,
30-38.
Osipow, S. H. (1987). Career Decision Scale. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Osipow, S. H., Temple, R. D., & Rooney, R. A. (1993). The short form of the Task Specific
Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 13-20.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and
social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of the therapeutic personality
change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21,95-105.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale:
The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 14-32.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale.
Psychological Reports, 53,
899-902.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.
(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-
671.
Solberg, V. S., Good, G. E., Nord, D., Holm, C., Hohner, R., Zima, N., Heffernan, M., &
Malen, A. (1994). Assessing career search expectations: Development and validation of the
Career Search Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 111-124.
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding
and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63-81.
Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). Construct validity of the Career Decision-Making Self-
Efficacy Scale and the relationship of CDMSE to vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 37,17-31.
Zilber, S. M. (1988). The effects of sex, task performance, and attributional styles on task
and career self-efficacy expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on January 4, 2015