The Component Structure of Career

Decision-Making Self-Efficacy for

Underprepared College Students
Shari L, Peterson, Ph.D.
Robert C. delMas, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota y
Following the successful application of Bandura's (1977) theory of
self-efficacy to the treatment of career indecision (Betz & Hackett,
1981; Hackett & Betz, 1981), Taylor and Betz (1983) developed the
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy (CDMSE) scale. CDMSE identi-
fies the extent to which students have confidence (self-ef^cacy) in
their ability to engage in educational and occupational planning and
decision-making. The Taylor and Betz (1983) study identified five
suh-scales: Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection,
Planning, and Problem-Solving. Each sub-scale consisted often items.
Using principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation,
the total variance accounted for hy factor scores of the five sub-scales
equaled 52%. However, it was noted that since most of the items had
relatively large loadings on more than one factor, the stnicture was
not clear-cut, and therefore, the scale potentially represented a single
and rather large general factor.
Research has provided support for the validity of the CDMSE in-
strument (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Robbins, 1985; Taylor & Popma,
1990), and the concept has been widely adapted (Brown, Lent, &
Larkin, 1989; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984, 1986, 1987; Lent, Larkin,
& Brown, 1989; Nevill & Schlecker, 1988; Peterson, 1993a, 1993b;
Rotberg, Brown, & Ware, 1987; Shelton, 1990; Stumpf & Brief, 1987).
However, the nature of career decision-making self-efficacy, as a con-
struct is still being explored.
Address correspondence to Shari L. Peterson, Ph.D., University of Minnesota College
of Education and Human Development, 1954 Buford Ave., #325R, St. Paul, MN 55108.
I
Journal of Career Development, Vol. 24(3), Spring 1998
O 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc. MM
810 Joumal of Career Development
The focus of the present study was to clarify the nature of career
decision-making self-efficacy, as a construct, for the application of re-
search to the practice of career counseling and career development.
The present study also explored the potential for reducing the 50-item
CDMSE scale to a smaller set of items, for purposes of efficiency and
repeat testing. Perhaps more importantly, the present study exam-
ined the instrument and the construct within a theoretical foundation
of student persistence and with a specific population of underpre-
pared college students.
Background
Previous research has shown the construct, CDMSE, to he one-
dimensional, representing a global or general construct (Blustein,
1989; Shelton, 1990; Taylor & Betz, 1983; Taylor & Popma, 1990).
However, there is evidence to support the position that self-efficacy is
task-specific (Bandura, 1977) as in mathematics or career adjustment
(Betz & Hackett, 1981, 1986). According to Shelton (1990), an individ-
ual's performance is affected both by specific and general self-efficacy.
General self-efficacy influences an individual's specific self-efEicacy re-
garding a specific task, but the result of this specific experience pro-
vides positive or negative reinforcement or feedback to the individ-
ual's general self-efficacy. Thus, general self-efficacy apparently
influences and is infiuenced by specific self-efficacy.
Robbins (1985) proposed that career decision-making self-efficacy
might be considered a measure of career-specific self-efficacy expecta-
tions, reporting considerable overlap between the subscales. Question-
ing the usefulness of the individual subscales, Robbins (1985) concluded
that career decision-making self-efficacy is a measure of generalized
self-efficacy rather than career-specific self-efficacy. Taylor and Popma
(1990), finding that the five factors accounted for only 26% of the total
variance, concluded that the principle components factor analysis re-
vealed a factor structure only slightly more clear-cut than that of the
original Taylor and Betz (1983) study. They suggested that this com-
parison underscores variability across samples, and furthermore, sug-
gested that since CDMSE seems to measure efficacy expectations
across a broad range of career decision-making self-efficacy behaviors
and situations and appears to be characterized as a generalized mea-
sure, that it may not be useful in future studies to use factor scores.
However, they were careful to add that this conclusion does not apply
if the item scores are to be used in the development of interventions
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas 811
aimed at increasing confidence and skill in specific career decision-
making tasks. The consensus of these studies seems to be that career
decision-making seif-efficacy represents a general factor, and that fac-
tor scores for sub-scales are not useful in identifying unique aspects
of CDMSE unless those sub-scales are to be used in the development
of interventions to increase CDMSE.
Previous studies have been conducted with samples of traditional
college students, typically represented by college freshmen enrolled in
an introductory psychology course (Taylor & Betz, 1983; Taylor &
Popma, 1990). The present factor analytic study of the CDMSE scale
is based on a different sample of college studentsunderprepared
students. Underprepared students are those who enter postsecondary
educational institutions with lacking or underdeveloped skills in
reading, writing, or math. These students differ from the traditional
college population not only in preparedness, but also in age, enroll-
ment patterns, and previous college experience. Students who are un-
derprepared are at-risk of attrition, i.e., leaving the educational insti-
tution prior to completing tbeir courses, programs, or degrees.
Peterson (1993a) suggested tbat the general versus specific nature
of the CDMSE scale needs to be explored furtber for this under-
prepared population, due to the relationship between tbeir career de-
cision-making self-efficacy and aspects of persistence behavior. Work-
ing within the theoretical framework ofthe Tinto (1975, 1987) model
of institutional departure, Peterson (1993a) found that, of all tbe
background characteristics, only career decision-making self-efficacy
contributed significantly to tbe variance in tbe social and academic
integration of underprepared students. It is social and academic inte-
gration that has the most influence on student retention (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991; Schwartz, 1990; Tinto, 1975, 1987). In addition,
CDMSE scores and their relationship with measures of integration
varied with respect to background characteristics sucb as ethnicity,
age, and registration patterns of underprepared students (Peterson,
1993b).
Purpose of the Study
One purpose ofthe current study was to determine whether tbe 50-
item Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy instrument (CDMSE) can
be reduced to a smaller set of items, wbile retaining intemal consis-
tency and structure. A shorter questionnaire that retains previous
higb levels of intemal reliability should appeal to researchers and
212 Joumal of Career Development
career counselors for several reasons. If diagnostic implications of ca-
reer decision-making self-efficacy emerge, then a shorter version of
the instrument may be appropriate so that it can be administered
more efficiently. A sborter questionnaire takes less time to score, can
be included in a battery of tests or questionnaires for comparative
purposes, and lends itself to repeat testing with the same partici-
pants.
The primary purpose of this study, however, was to determine
whether the single-component structure and general nature of career
decision-making self-efficacy identified in previous studies would
emerge for an underprepared population. This clarification is impor-
tant because identification of a multi-component structure can inform
the development and assessment of specific interventions designed to
increase confidence in tbe performance of tasks related to each com-
ponent. If CDMSE is better represented as a multi-component con-
struct for a given population, then questions about the unique contri-
bution of eacb component are relevant. Knowledge of the variability
of the component structure across student populations can inform re-
search studies wbicb look at interrelationships among CDMSE and
selected student characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, age, gender, registra-
tion patterns, academic preparedness). If the construct is multi-
dimensional, it may be that different aspects of CDMSE are not af-
fected in tbe same manner by the same experience. Similarly, the
different aspects of CDMSE may have varying influence on relation-
ships with other outcomes sucb as social integration, academic inte-
gration, and retention. Research on the factor component of tbe CDMSE
can be used to inform practice, specifically the development of popula-
tion-specific interventions to increase student retention, including the
retention of underprepared students at risk of attrition.
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 418 underprepared students enrolled in
the developmental education unit of a large midwestem urban land-
grant research university. Self-reported background characteristics
were collected by questionnaire, wbile other information was obtained
from college records. Higb scbool rank and grade point average (GPA)
are not required for admission to this developmental unit of the uni-
versity. Thus, 46% were missing information on high scbool GPA and
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas 218
nearly 25% were missing information on high school rank. Of those
for whom the data were available, 21.8% had a high school GPA below
2.00, while the mean GPA was 2.04; the mean senior class rank was
37.3, and 58.1% ranked below the 50th percentile rank. The under-
preparedness of the sample is therefore, in part, reflected by their
GPA and their high school rank. The respondents, 48% male and 52%
female, ranged in age from 18 to 48, with nearly one-fourth aged 24
and older. With respect to their ethnic backgrounds, 70% were Cauca-
sian, 13% were African American, 8% were Asian, 5% were Native
American, and 4.5% were Hispanic. Sixty-nine percent were em-
ployed and 47% worked 16 hours per week or more.
The total sample equaled 418 (representing a 62% response rate),
but was randomly split into two equally representative groups in or-
der to test for the robustness of the component structure of the
CDMSE scale in this underprepared college population, as well as to
select items of the CDMSE that loaded consistently across subsam-
ples on identified components. According to Stevens (1986), a sample
size of 200 is adequate for producing reliable results in factor analytic
studies
Each group initially consisted of 209 students. The sample sizes
were reduced by eliminating participants who did not give a response
for all 50 items of the CDMSE questionnaire. This reduced the sam-
ple size of Group 1 to 178 and the sample size of Group 2 to 191. As
can be seen in Table 1 and Table 2, there were no significant differ-
ences between the groups with respect to several demographic vari-
ables, precollege measures of academic ability, and prestudy mea-
sures of college performance.
Table 1
Comparison of the Two Random Subsamples on Prestudy
Categorical Variables
Females
Caucasian
Received Financial Aid
Group
n
178
163
177
Note. None of the test statistic values were s
1
%
55
73
64
Group
n
191
170
190
2
%
51
71
62
df
1
1
1
itatistically significant (all p > .05).
/
.52
.65
.21
314 Joumal of Career Development
Table 2
Comparison of the Two Random Subsamples on Prestudy
Continuous Variables
Group 1 Group 2
M SD n M SD df
Age in years 178 22.1 4.38 191 22.4 5.14 367 0.65
High School
Percentile
Rank 135 38.2 18.51 144 36.8 18.21 277 0.64
High School
GPA 99 2.02 0.52 100 2.09 0.57 197 0.90
Previous
College
Credits 144 9.3 5.33 162 8.3 5.53 304 1.59
Previous
College GPA 149 2.67 0.63 164 2.66 0.64 311 0.10
Note. None of the t-values were statistically significant (all p > .05).
Instrumentation
The Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy (CDMSE) scale was ad-
ministered by mail. High internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's
a = .97) was reported for the CDMSE instrument in both the Taylor
and Betz (1983) study and in the current study. The CDMSE scale
identifies the extent to which students have confidence (self-efficacy)
about their ability to engage in educational and occupational informa-
tion-gathering and goal-planning activities. A single CDMSE contin-
uous score, derived by summing the score of each of the 50 questions
and computing the mean, was identified for each participant, as mea-
sured on a ten-point scale (0 = No Confidence, 9 ^ Complete Confi-
dence).
Procedure
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (1988). Princi-
pal components analysis with varimax rotation was used to deter-
mine the component structure of the CDMSE in the given population
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas 818
of students. However, before the initial component structure could be
rotated, the number of components to rotate needed to be determined.
One method for determining the number of components is the scree
test (Cattell, 1966). A disadvantage of the scree test is that when in
error, it tends to overestimate the number of components (Crawford &
Koopman, 1979; Rummel, 1970; Zwick & Vehcer, 1986), although it is
not always in error and does perform better than some methods (Cattell,
1966; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977; Hakstian, Rogers, & Cattell, 1982).
Coovert and McNelis (1988) suggest that multiple methods should be
used to determine the nimiber of factors. They identify three different
types of method: Mathematical approaches such as the Guttman (1940)
Weakest Lower Bound, rules of thumb such as the scree test and discon-
tinuity analysis (Coovert & McNelis, 1988), and inferential approaches
such as parallel analysis (Horn, 1965). Parallel analysis, while reliable in
identifying the true number of components (Allen & Hubbard, 1986;
Horn, 1965; Humphreys & Dgen, 1969; Montanelh & Humphreys, 1976;
Zwick & Velicer, 1986) also can be in error. S-index analysis is a stepwise
method of component elimination in which a criterion is increased from
one level to the next. The number of components is defined as those
components with s-indices that remain stable and do not drop off toward
zero across different levels of the criterion (Cattell, Balcar, Horn, &
Nesselroade, 1969; Walkey & McCormick, 1985).
In this study, the decision was made to use two rule of thumb
methods, the scree test and discontinuity analysis, and two inferential
methods, s-index analysis and parallel analysis. Taking a conservative
approach, the number of components to rotate was defined as the low-
est number of components identified by all four methods. Once the
number of components was determined, principle components analysis
with varimax rotation was performed using the entire sample.
Results
As a result of the separate principal components analysis per-
formed for each group of students, application of the scree test to the
eigenvalue plots for the two samples of students made it difficult to
determine whether a two or three component solution best repre-
sented the component structure of CDMSE. The results of parallel
analysis, discontinuity checks, and inspection ofthe s-indexes all sug-
gested that CDMSE was best represented by a two-component struc-
ture for nontraditional and underprepared students. Thus it was de-
216 Journal of Career Development
cided to take a conservative approach and extract two components
with varimax rotation for the CDMSE items. The first component,
labeled Information Gathering, represented students' confidence in
their abihty to gather information that could be used to make a ca-
reer decision. The second component, labeled Decision Making, repre-
sented students' belief in their ability to make career choices and de-
cisions.
The two-factor solution accounted for 50% of the variance in Group
1 and 52% of the variance in Group 2. The first component accounted
for 45% and 48% of the variance among items in Group 1 and Group
2, respectively, while the second component accounted for an addi-
tional 5% and 4.5%, respectively. Several variables loaded uniquely
on one of the two factors.
The next phase of the analysis had two purposes. The first purpose
was to determine whether or not the components represented mean-
ingful dimensions of CDMSE. The second purpose was to reduce the
length of the CDMSE questionnaire without disrupting its structure
and internal reliability. The component-variable correlations, or fac-
tor loadings, were used to accomplish both tasks. Items with the high-
est loadings on a particular component are typically used for inter-
pretation (Harman, 1983; Joliffe, 1986; Stevens, 1986). An arbitrary
criterion was set for a minimum factor loading of .55 (i.e., a minimum
of 30% shared variance between an item and a component). To aid the
deletion of items from the CDMSE scale while retaining the compo-
nent structure, it was required that an item have a factor loading of
.40 or less (i.e., that it account for no more than 16% of the variance)
on other components. According to tables provided by Stevens (1986),
the critical value is .364 to test that a correlation coefficient is greater
than zero with a significance level of .01 and a sample size of 200.
While the limit for the second criterion was slightly above this value,
the combination of both criteria should identify items that make sig-
nificant and unique contributions to a component. To summarize, the
two criteria were applied to the two samples using the following rule:
In order for an item to be retained, the item had to have a factor
loading of .55 or greater in both samples with a factor loading of .40
or less on the other component in both samples. This rule was used to
assure identification of a robust component structure and a robust set
of items that are likely to generalize across samples from the target
population. Factor loadings for the Career Decision-Making Self-Effi-
cacy items are presented in Table 3.
Sixteen items were identified. Principal components analyses were
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas S17
Table 3
Factor Loadings for the CDMSE Items
CDMSE Item No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Group 1
(n = 178)
Factor 1 Factor 2
.18
.58
.13
.25
.61
.47
.68
.37
.51
.51
.21
.54
.21
.69
.56
.36
.72
.31
.73
.62
.53
.72
.36
.43
.32
.48
.51
.56
.69
.38
.65
.77
.28
.66
.22
.11
.57
.41
.43
.27
.64
.51
.53
.73
.43
.79
.16
.33
.60
.26
.57
.19
.32
.48
.25
.28
.48
.38
.65
.55
.24
.30
.43
.43
.23
.83
Group 2
(n = 191)
Factor I Factor 2
.41
.58
.08
.14
.43
.39
.64
.21
.41
.30
.53
.54
.31
.54
.48
.27
.70
.29
.48
.53
.37
.78
.34
.49
.36
.48
.40
.42
.74
.60
.37
.68
.43
.55
.27
.80
.69
.57
.56
.37
.78
.60
.60
.51
.52
.74
.30
.41
.71
.33
.69
.53
.48
.69
.24
.28
.47
.45
.60
.69
.32
.06
.20
.65
.35
.66
218 JoumaJ of Career Development
Table 3 (Continued)
CDMSE Item No.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
again conducted for each subsample using only those 16 items of the
reduced scale as variables. Tahle 4 presents the results. The first com-
ponent accounted for 50% and 52% of the variance among items in
Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, while the second component ac-
counted for an additional 10% and 11%, respectively. Application of
the deletion criteria to the results of the factor analysis resulted in
the retention of all 16 items. Item 7 was retained even though it
failed to meet the criteria precisely. This item was retained because it
showed high factor loadings on the first component for both suhsam-
ples, represented only a minor violation of the second criterion for
Group 2, and was judged to measure the same type of information
represented by the other items with high loadings on the first com-
ponent. The two-factor solution accounted for 60% of the variance
among items for Group 1 and 63% of the variance among items in
Group 2.
Ten items were identified to be highly representative of the first
Group 1
(n - 178}
Factor 1 Factor 2
.39
.57
.40
.68
.33
.41
.35
.50
.60
.56
.73
.43
.31
.72
.44
.57
.35
.67
.37
.60
.26
.75
.62
.55
.51
.33
.42
.37
.34
.59
.31
.38
.31
.23
Group 2
(n = 191)
Factor 1 Factor 2
.52
.49
.44
.60
.43
.51
.59
.41
.62
.43
.73
.49
.37
.80
.27
.66
.49
.57
.49
.56
.46
.74
.60
.51
.61
.41
.61
.40
.40
.48
.32
.58
.27
.23
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas
219
Table 4
Factor Loadings for the Reduced Set of 16 CDMSE Items
CDMSE Item No.
Information Gathering
2
7
17
22
29
32
42
44
47
49
Decision Making
3
4
8
13
16
18
n = 178
"n = 191
Factor
Group 1
.68
.73
.74
.76
.76
.76
.61
.76
.76
.57
.16
.26
.34
.23
.31
.28
1 Loading
' Group 2"
.58
.67
.75
.83
.73
.73
.68
.77
.83
.69
.15
.21
.26
.35
.31
.30
Factor 2
Group V
.14
.27
.27
.23
.25
.22
.37
.39
.25
.31
.83
.65
.77
.79
.71
.65
Loading
Group 2"
.32
.40
.31
.18
.09
.30
.33
.33
.25
.19
.84
.76
.82
.74
.72
.71
component, labeled Information Gathering. Among the 10 Informa-
tion Gathering items, seven represented the subscale called Occupa-
tional Information and three represented the suhscale called Planning
hy Taylor and Betz (1983). Self-efTicacy in Information Gathering
includes the perception of confidence regarding such behaviors as con-
sulting with faculty ahout graduate schools, majors, and joh oppor-
tunities; consulting with people employed in the field of interest; find-
ing information about employment trends, educational opportunities,
and occupations; and managing the job interview process.
The second component, labeled Decision Making, consisted of six
items. Among the six Decision Making items, four of the items repre-
sented the subscale called Goal Selection by Taylor and Betz (1983),
220 Joumal of Career Development
one represented Planning, and one represented Self-Appraisal. Self-
efTicacy in Decision Making includes the perception of confidence re-
garding such behaviors as selecting a major, occupation, and career;
making long-range plans; matching ideal career and lifestyle choices;
and not worrying about choices, once made.
To test for the generalizability of the component structure across
samples, factor scores were calculated based on the factor loadings
(Harman, 1983; Stevens, 1986). Two factor scores for the Information
Gathering component were calculated for each participant based on
the factor loadings obtained from Group 1 (Score 1) and from Group 2
(Score 2; see Table 5). Similarly, two factor scores for the Decision
Making component were computed (Score 3 and Score 4 based on fac-
tor loadings from Group 1 and Group 2, respectively). If the factor
structure is reliable across samples, then high correlations between
Score 1 and Score 2 and between Score 3 and Score 4 are expected
(Stevens, 1986). All other correlations are expected to be near zero if
the components are independent and uncorrelated. Table 5 indicates
that each of the ahove expectations was met. For both subsamples,
correlations between factor scores that represent the same component
were greater than .98, while all other correlations did not differ sig-
nificantly from zero.
Cronbach's alpha for the total sample of 369 students who had mea-
sures on all 50 items of the CDMSE was found to be .97, which repli-
cates the same high internal reliability found in previous studies.
When calculated for the reduced set of 16 items, Cronbach's alpha
was found to be .93 for the 398 students who responded to all 16
items. While there was a slight drop in reliability, overall reliability
remained respectably high in the reduced set of items. Analyses per-
formed on each CDMSE subscale produced similar results (Gathering
Informationalpha = .92, N - 398; Decision Makingalpha ^ .88,
N = 398). As can be seen in Table 6, these trends were consistent and
stable across the two groups.
/ ' . Discussion
The present study provides evidence that Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy consists of at least two distinct components for under-
prepared college students of varying ages and registration patterns.
The two-factor solution based on the total set of 50 items accounted
\for 50% of the variance in Group 1 and 52% of the variance in Group
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas
Table 5
Correlations Among Four Factor Scores Across the
Two Subsamples
Factor Score" 2 3 4
Group l(n = 178)
1 .99*** .00 .02
2 .03 .04
3 .99***
Group 2(n = 191)
1 .99*** -. 02 -. 01
2 -. 02 -. 02
ii . Ji7
Information Gathering Factor Scores
Score 1: +.174(12) -.145(13) -.072(14) +.163(17) -.075(18) -.114(113) -.071(116)
+ .165(117) - .066(118) + .180(122) + .175(129) + .184(132) + .102(142)
+ .146(144) +.175(147) +.104(149)
Score 2: +.101(12) -.131(13) -.097(14) +.108(17) -.097(18) -.054(113) -.061(116)
+ .150(117) - .061(118) + .200(122) + .190(129) + .147(132) + .124(142)
+ .153(144) +.186(147) +.158(149)
Decision Making Factor Scores
Score 3: -.096(12) +.318(13) +.216(14) -.057(17) +.248(18) +.282(113) +.231(116)
-.058(117) +.212(118) -.079(122) -.071(129) -.084(132) +.014(142)
-.014(144) -.070(147) -.003(149)
Score 4: -.000(12) +.288(13) +.244(14) +.014(17) +.260(18) +.210(113) +.210(116)
-.037(117) +.208(118) -.103(122) -.116(129) -.038(132) -.013(142)
-.034(144) -.076(147) -.070(149)
* p < .05
**p < .01
***/) < .001
Table 6
Reliability Coefficients for Total and Subscale Scores Across
the Two Subscales
Group 1 Group 2 All Subjects
(n = 178) (n = 191) (n = 369)
Information Gathering Items .92 .93 .92
Decision Making Items S! .89 .88
All 16 Items .93 .94 .93
222 Joumal of Career Development
2. These values are higher than results for the five-factor solution
reported by Taylor and Popma (1990) in which the variance accounted
for 26%, and similar to the five-factor solution obtained by Taylor and
Betz (1983) in which the variance accounted for 52%. Both ofthe lat-
ter studies concluded that Career Decision-Making Seif-EfTicacy rep-
resents a general measure due to the unclear structure of the factors
(i.e., most items had significant factor loadings on several factors). In
both of the former studies, the first component accounted for a rela-
tively small portion of the variance with total variance accounted for
being distributed across the five factors more evenly than indicated
by the present results. In the present study, the first component ac-
counted for a large portion of item variance with the second compo-
nent accounting for an additional 5%. The two-component structure
also appears robust given that similar component structures were
found for two independent samples from the same population.
The present results also indicate that several variables load uniquely
on one of the two factors, suggesting that the two factors are distin-
guishable and measure different aspects of CDMSE. Sixteen items
were identified that define two independent components of CDMSE
(Information Gathering and Decision Making). These two components
accounted for at least 60% of the variance among the sixteen items in
both samples, a higher percentage than reported in previous studies.
With respect to underprepared college students, the results indicate
that the CDMSE questionnaire can be reduced in length without sac-
rificing the component structure or high internal reliability of the
scale. Research is needed to determine whether or not the two-factor
structure is unique to underprepared students, particularly since pre-
vious research has suggested that career decision-making self-efficacy
may comprise a single general factor. It would be purely speculative
to suggest that the single two-factor structure is due to the adult and
non-traditional nature or underpreparedness of the sample, but the
current findings do raise this additional research question.
The shortened version of the CDMSE can be administered more
efficiently, hut it remains to be determined how different manipula-
tions affect or are affected by each component of the CDMSE. The
two-component structure makes it possible to determine whether
each component makes unique contributions toward explaining vari-
ability in outcome variables such as social integration, academic inte-
gration, and student persistence. We suggest that longitudinal causal
analyses be conducted to determine (a) if these two components of
CDMSE are causally related to student persistence, and (b) if differ-
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas
ent models exist for students of varying races, ages, registration pat-
terns, and other background characteristics. Before these implica-
tions can be investigated, however, it would be necessary to validate
the 16-item two-component scale, by extending the research to new
samples of underprepared students and conducting a confirmatory
factor analysis to vaUdate these findings. When conducting such a
study of validity, it is suggested that a subgroup of individuals from
the sample be selected for an interpretive study in which their per-
ceptions of the instrument, interpretation of their scores, and aware-
ness of the impact of self-efficacy is explored.
Self-efficacy can be acquired, and thus altered, in a variety of ways
(Bandura, 1977, 1986): (a) PerformanceIndividuals tend to have
confidence in their ability to perform tasks which they have already
performed successfully; (b) Vicarious modelingObserving others
successfully performing a task increases individuals' expectations
that they, too, can perform that task; and (c) Verbal persuasion-
Having positive feedback and encouragement from others, particularly
significant others (e.g., fi-iend, teacher, spouse), increases individuals'
beliefs that they can successfully complete a task. Interventions could
be developed for use in the classroom or by student services based on
those approaches. Furthermore, if a model can be developed to iden-
tify a relationship between the components of CDMSE and student
persistence, then the rationale exists for the design and testing ofthe
interventions developed for the purpose of increasing the two compo-
nents of career decision-making self-efficacyInformation Gathering
and Decision-Making.
CDMSE has been identified as a scale with two factors (Informa-
tion Gathering and Decision Making) for a population of underpre-
pared college students. Knowledge of the ways in which self-efficacy
can by acquired (Bandura, 1977) can be applied to develop interven-
tions which may differentially impact student confidence when gath-
ering information and/or making decisions. Such interventions need
to be evaluated to determine which components of the CDMSE scale
are affected. Results of such evaluative studies should further our
understanding of the relationship between changes in CDMSE com-
ponents and persistence.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Tb'ward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psy-
chology Review, 84, 191-215.
224 Joumal of Career Development
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theOTy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 390-453.
Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expecta-
tions to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseline
Psychology, 28, 399-410.
Betz, N., & Hackett. G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to understanding
career choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4 (3), 279-289.
Brown, S., Lent, R., & Larkin, K. (1989). Self-efTicacy as a moderator of scholastic
aptitudeacademic performance relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 35
64-75.
Blustein, D. (1989). The role of goal instability and career self-efRcacy in the career
exploration process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 194-203.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavior
Research, 1, 245-276.
Cattell, R. B., Balcar, K. R., Horn. J. L.. & Nesselroade, J. R. (1969). Factor matching
procedures: An improvement ofthe s index with tables. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 29, 781-792.
Cat;teli, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial ofthe scree and kg crite-
ria for determining the number of factors, the Journal of Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 12, 289-325.
Coovert. M. D.. & McNelis, K. (1988). Determining the number of common factors in
factor analysis: A review and program. Educational and Psycholoeical Measurement
48, 687-692.
Crawford. C. B., & Koopman. P. (1979). Note: Inter-rater reliability of scree test and
mean square ratio test of number of factors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 223-
226.
Fox. R. (1986). Application of a conceptual model of college withdrawal to disadvan-
taged students. American Education Research Journal, 23 (3), 415-424.
Guttman. L. (1940). Multiple rectihnear prediction and the resolution into components
Psychometrika, 5, 75-99.
Hackett. G., & Betz, N. E, (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.
Hakstian, A, R., Rogers. W. T. & Cattell, R. B. (1982). The behavior of number-of-
factors rules with simulated data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 193-219.
Harman. H. (1983). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis
Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
Humphreys, L. G., & Ilgen, D. R. (1969). Note on a criterion for the number of common
factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 571-578.
JolifTe. I. T (1986). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.
Lent, R., Brown, S., & Larkin, K. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to aca-
demic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31 (3), 356-
362.
Lent. R., Brown, S., & Larkin, K. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic
performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33 (3),
Lent, R., Brown. S., & Larkin, K. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived
variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest congru-
ence, and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (3), 293-298.
Lent, R., Larkin, K., & Brown. S. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to inventoried voca-
tional interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 279-288.
Montanelli, R. G., & Humphreys. L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlations
on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study Psychometrika, 41, 341-348,
Shari L. Peterson and Robert C. delMas
Multon, K., Brown, S., & Lent, R. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38 (1),
30-38.
Nevill. D. , & Schlecker, D. (1988). The relation of self-efficacy and assertiveness to
willingness to engage in traditional/nontraditional career activities. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 12, 91-98.
Pascarella, E., & Iferenzini, P. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51 (1), 60-
75.
Pascarella, E., & Iferenzini, P. (1983). Predicting voluntary freshman year persistence/
withdrawal behavior in a residential university: A path analytic validation of Tinto's
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (2), 215-226.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). Career choice and development. In E. Pascarella
& P Tferenzini (Eds.), How CoUege Affects Students (pp. 424-499). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, S. (1993a). Career decision-making self-efTicacy and institutional integration
of underprepared college students. Research in Higher Education, 34 (6), 659-685,
Peterson, S. (1993b). Career Decision-making self-efficacy and social and academic in-
tegration of underprepared college students: Variations based on background charac-
teristics. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 18 (1), 77-115.
Robbins, S. (1985). Validity estimates for the career decision-making self-efficacy scale.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling Development, 64-71.
Rotberg, H.. Brown, D., & Ware, W. (1987). Career self-efficacy expectations and per-
ceived range of career options in community college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 34 (2), 164-170.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press.
Schwartz, S. (1990, April). Application of a conceptual model of college withdrawal to
technical college students. Paper presented to the American Education Research As-
sociation, Boston.
Shelton, S. (1990). Developing the construct of general self-efRcacy. Psychology Reports,
66, 987-994.
SPSS-X, User's Guide (3rd ed.). (1988). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stumpf, S., & Brief, A. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related
events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91-108.
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the under-
standing and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63-
81.
Taylor, K., & Popma, J. (1990). An examination ofthe relationship among career deci-
sion-making self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 17-31.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent re-
search. Review of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Walkey, F. H., & McCormick, I. A. (1985). Multiple replication of factor structure: A
logical solution for a number of factor problems. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
20, 57-67.
Zwick, W. R., & Vehcer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the
number of components to retain. Psychlogical Bulletin, 99, 432-442.