1 / 63

Facilitating Career Decision-Making

Facilitating Career Decision-Making. Itamar Gati The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 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

roy
Download Presentation

Facilitating Career Decision-Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Facilitating 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 cdmmodel • 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

  3. Unique features of career decisions • Quantity of Information:Often large N of alternatives and factors, within-occupation variance  information is practically unlimited • Quality of Information:soft, subjective, fuzzy, inaccurate, biased • Uncertainty about:the individual’s future preferences, future career options, unpredictable changes and opportunities, probability of implementing choice • Non-cognitive Factors:emotional and personality-related factors, necessity for compromise, actual or perceived social barriers and biases

  4. From 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

  5. If 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 human’s information-processing capability • Descriptive decision theory (how individualsactually make decisions) is not helpful either – it mainly documents human weakness • heuristics, biases, and fallacies • limited information-processing capabilities

  6. The 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!)

  7. The first stage in helping clients is needs assessment: The 3 components of needs assessment are: • the individual’s stage in the cdm process(“where”) • the focuses of the individual’s cdmdifficulties (“what”) • the individual’s cdmstyle (“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

  9. Prescreening • 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

  10. A 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”

  12. In-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 one’s 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)

  13. A 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

  14. Choice • 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

  16. During the Process Prior to Engaging in the Process Lack of Readinessdue to InconsistentInformationdue to Lack of Informationabout Lack of motivation Indeci-siveness Dysfunc-tionalbeliefs Cdmprocess Self Occu- pations Unreliable Info. Internal conflicts Externalconflicts Ways of obtaining info. Possible Focuses of Career Decision-Making Difficulties (Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996)

  17. The 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 CDDQscore is high (above .90) • The proposed structure was empirically supported (N=10,000) • For additional information – see www.cddq.org--- the CDDQ is offered free of charge ---

  18. www.cddq.org

  19. The Four Stages of Interpretation • Ascertaining Credibility,using validityitems and the time required to fill out the questionnaire • Estimating Differentiationbased on the standard deviation of the 10 difficulty-scale scores • Locating thesalient,moderate, or negligibledifficulties,based onthe individual's absolute and relative scale scores • Determiningthe confidence in the feedback andthe need to addreservationsto it (based on doubtful credibility, partial differentiation, or low informativeness)

  20. The 4 Stages of Interpretation 1 Not Credible Evaluating Credibility Doubtful Credible Estimating Differentiation 2 Low Questionable High 3 Locate Salient Difficulties Aggregate Reasons to Add Reservation (RAR) Compute Informativeness (B /W ) B/W < 1 RAR = 3 B/W > 1 RAR ≤ 2 Add Reservation to Feedback Receives Feedback No Feedback 4

  21. 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

  22. The distribution of types of feedback in the four groups

  23. Conclusions • The incorporation of an intermediate level of discriminationincreases the usefulness of the feedback and decreases the chances and implications of potential errors • Addingreservationswhen appropriate is essential for providing a meaningful feedback and decreasing the chances of misleading conclusions

  24. III – Career Decision-MakingStyles • Diagnosing the client’s 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)

  25. Goals • 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

  26. 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"

  27. The 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)

  28. The Career-Decision-making Style Questionnaire (CDSQ) • 44 statements (4 items x 11 dimensions) • Response scale: 1 – Strongly disagree to7 –Strongly agree • The CDSQ is embedded in career-related self-help Internet sites Future Directions (Hebrew), CDDQ.ORG (English) • 3 Development samples (N=230, 404, 411) • Fourth sample - 479 subjects

  29. Results – (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

  30. 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

  31. So far, I reviewed 3 components of client’s needs assessment: • The individual’s stage in the cdm process (“Where”) • The focuses of the individual’s cdm difficulties (“What”) • The individual’s cdm style (“Who”) So, what’s next? • Some demonstrations of how can the decision-making approach be implemented in order to actually facilitate clients’ cdm

  32. 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 human’s cognitive limitations - There are several computer-assisted career guidance systems available today on the Internet

  33. 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, MBCDisdesigned to help deliberating individuals make better career decisions

  34. Making Better Career Decisionshttp://mbcd.intocareers.org

  35. However, 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

  36. So,MakingBetterCareerDecisions Does it really work?

  37. Criteria for Testing the Benefits ofMaking Better Career Decisions • Examine users' perceptions of MBCD • Examine changes in user’s decision status • Examine perceived benefits • Locate factors that contribute to these variables

  38. MBCD’s Effect (Cohen’s d)on Reducing Career Decision-Making Difficulties(Gati, Saka, & Krausz, 2003)

  39. After the dialogue Before the dialogue 1 2 3 4 5 1- no direction 34 7 6 7 0 2 - only a general direction 41 66 15 9 5 3 - considering a few specific alternatives 27 58 84 30 6 4 - would like to examine additional alternatives 23 51 35 54 6 5 - would like to collect information about a specific occupation 9 20 21 41 28 6 - sure which occupation to choose 3 0 1 9 16 Decision StatusBefore and After the “Dialogue” with MBCD

  40. 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 wasincluded in MBCD’s recommended list (44%) • those whose present occupation wasnot included in MBCD’s recommended list (56%)

  41. Method • 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)

  42. Frequencies of Occupational Choice Satisfaction by “Acceptance” and “Rejection” of MBCD's Recommendations(Gati, Gadassi, & Shemesh, 2006)

More Related