Facilitating%20Career%20Decision-Making - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Facilitating%20Career%20Decision-Making

Description:

Facilitating Career Decision-Making Itamar Gati The Hebrew University of Jerusalem – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:154
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 64
Provided by: tal48
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Facilitating%20Career%20Decision-Making


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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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
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 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)

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
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 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
  1. Ascertaining Credibility, using validity items
    and the time required to fill out the
    questionnaire
  2. Estimating Differentiation based on the standard
    deviation of the 10 difficulty-scale scores
  3. Locating the salient, moderate, or negligible
    difficulties, based on the individual's absolute
    and relative scale scores
  4. Determining the confidence in the feedback and
    the need to add reservations to it (based on
    doubtful credibility, partial differentiation, or
    low informativeness)

22
The 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

24
The 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)

27
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

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"

29
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)

30
The 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

31
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

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

33
So 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)
42
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

43
So, Making
Better Career
Decisions
  • Does it really work?

44

Criteria 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

45
MBCDs Effect (Cohens d) on Reducing Career
Decision-Making Difficulties (Gati, Saka,
Krausz, 2003)
46
Decision 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)

49
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)

50
Frequencies 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)
52
Summary 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)

53
In 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

54
In 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)

55
We 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

56
Finally, 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
58
end
  • --

59
  • ------sfsfsf------------

60
Previous 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.

61
Alternative 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
63
Steps 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com