CAREER DECISION-MAKING SELF-EFFICAC – Project topics materials

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Orientation to Life Questionnaire

The extant research has confirmed the reliability and validity of the OLQ. However, reliability of the OLQ was established in the present study. A cursory review of the distribution histogram and statistical test of normality confirmed that data was normally distributed. Further, an alpha coefficient was also determined for the OLQ in order to determine its internal consistency. In particular, the alpha was reported as α=0,85. This finding suggests that the OLQ maintained appropriate internal consistency and is congruent with earlier research. In particular, internal consistency for the OLQ scale has averaged 0,91 for published articles, 0,85 for theses and dissertations and 0,88 for unpublished studies (Antonovsky, 1993). Research within career decision making literature indicated that the alpha coefficient of the OLQ was 0,91 within their student research sample (Lustig & Strauser, 2002). The data from the OLQ was deemed reliable for the present thesis.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was executed on career thinking, vis-à-vis negative career thoughts and career decision making self-efficacy, and salutogenic factors, vis-àvis locus of control and sense of coherence with the adult non-student sample. Research has suggested that sample sizes of 300 provide stable factor solutions (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) however, data analysis found that the value of Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.813 (greater than 0.5) suggesting that the sample size of n=225 was more than adequate. Further, KMO values between 0.8- 0.9 are regarded as great (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999) suggesting that factor analysis would yield discrete and reliable factors. Moreover Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p< .000) indicating that factor analysis was suitable for research.
Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation yielded three components with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960). Factors were positive career thinking, salutogenic functioning and negative career thinking. These three factors accounted for a cumulative 76.95 % of the variance after rotation. Positive career thinking, salutogenic functioning and negative career thinking contributed 32.56%, 23.83 % and 20.56% of the variance respectively. Though career thinking was
conceptualized as both negative and positive career thoughts, analysis suggested that two distinct factors existed. Where salutogenic functioning was conceptualized as locus of control and sense of coherence, one factor was indicated.
It should be noted that within the salutogenic functioning factor, sense of coherence demonstrated significant values in factor loading where locus of control manifest a weak factor loading within the component. A value of 0.4 was used as a cut off point for interpretation (Steven’s, 1992). Locus of control demonstrated a value of -0.455 indicating a weak contribution to the factor. These findings are consistent with the literature (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2002).

Career Decision Making Self-efficacy SF

The CDMSE-SF represented positive career thinking in the present thesis. Its correlation with other variables is presented in table format (Table 7.7), discussed and interpreted regarding the present thesis.
Career decision making self-efficacy demonstrated significant correlations with locus of control and sense of coherence. In particular, the data suggested that a correlation of -0,307 existed between CDMSE-SF and I-E LOC. According to Cohen (1992), this value represented a medium effect size. In practical terms, individuals with greater levels of confidence in career decision making tasks also
maintain more internal attributions of personal control. This finding was consistent with earlier career decision making research (Luzzo, 1995; Luzzo, Funk & Strang, 1996; Taylor & Popma, 1990). The finding is inconsistent with one study pertaining to non-student adults however. In particular, despite a correlation between the CDMSE and I-E LOC (r= -0,02) results were not found to be statistically significant (Brown, Reedy, Fountain, Johnson & Dichiser, 2000). This incongruence may have been due to the abused female sample used in the noted tudy. Further investigation is warranted.
The CDMSE-SF also demonstrated a significant positive correlation with OLQ (0,552) meaning that individuals who have greater levels of confidence in their career decision making abilities also manifest greater sense of coherence.
Moreover, the CDMSE-SF demonstrated significant positive correlations with the OLQ subscales. In particular, correlations of 0,411, 0,502 and 0,511 were found for comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness respectively. These values represented large effect sizes (Cohen, 1992). In essence, individuals with greater career decision making self-efficacy also maintain stronger perceptions that stressor of career decision making is predictable, ordered and makes cognitive sense, and that they have internal and external resources to cope with career choice stress, and that this stressor is worthy of investing time and energy to address. The relationship between sense of coherence and general selfefficacy has been established in the literature (Felton, 1996; Jackson & Rothmann, 2001; Johnson, 2004; Rachman, 1990; Rothmann & Coetzee, 2003; Viviers & Cilliers, 1999). However, the relationship between sense of coherence and the ‘task specific’ career decision making self-efficacy has not been established. As such, these findings are new to the career development literature.

READ How to measure corporate reputation

CHAPTER1 SCIENTIFIC OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
1.1 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.3 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
1.4 PARADIGM PERSPECTIVE
1.4.1 The disciplinary relationship
1.4.2 The cognitive paradigm
1.4.3 The salutogenic paradigm
1.4.4 The functionalistic paradigm
1.4.5 Market of intellectual resources
1.4.5.1 Relevant metatheories
1.4.5.2 Behavioral models and theories
1.4.5.3 Applicable constructs
1.4.5.4 Research hypothesis
1.4.5.5 Methodological convictions
1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.6 RESEARCH METHOD
1.7 CHAPTER DIVISION
1.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 2 METATHEORETICAL CONCEPTS
2.1 CAREER DECISION-MAKING
2.1.1 Process and structure theories
2.1.2 Career decidedness
2.1.2.1 General factors
2.1.2.2 Cognitive factors
2.1.3 Meta analytic research
2.2 SALUTOGENIC COPING
2.2.1 Positive psychology
2.2.2 Cognitive expectancy
2.3 INTEGRATION
2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3 CAREER THINKING
3.1 NEGATIVE CAREER THOUGHTS
3.1.1 Conceptualization
3.1.2 Dimensions
3.1.3 Behavioral dynamics
3.1.4 Previous research on career thoughts
3.2 CAREER DECISION-MAKING SELF-EFFICAC
3.2.1 Conceptualization
3.2.2 Dimensions
3.2.3 Behavioral dynamics
3.2.4 Previous research on career decision-making self-efficacy
3.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4 SALUTOGENIC FUNCTIONING
4.1 INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL
4.1.1 Conceptualization
4.1.2 Dimensions
4.1.3 Behavioral dynamics
4.1.4 Previous research on locus of control
4.2 SENSE OF COHERENCE
4.2.1 Conceptualization
4.2.2 Dimensions
4.2.3 Behavioral dynamics
4.2.4 Previous research on sense of coherence
4.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL INTEGRATION
5.1 CONTEXTUALIZATION
5.2 CONCEPTUALIZATION
5.3 DIMENSIONS
5.4 BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS
5.5 PERSONALITY PROFILE
5.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6 EMPIRICAL STUDY
6.1 POPULATION AND SAMPLE
6.1.1 Population
6.1.2 Sampling techniqu
6.1.3 Sample characteristics
6.2 MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
6.2.1 Career Thoughts Inventory (CTI)
6.2.1.1 Rationale
6.2.1.2 Aim
6.2.1.3 Dimensions
6.2.1.4 Administration
6.2.1.5 Validity and reliability
6.2.1.6 Justification
6.2.2 Career Decision-Making Self-efficacy short form (CDMSE-SF)
6.2.2.1 Rationale
6.2.2.2 Aim
6.2.2.3 Dimensions
6.2.2.4 Administration
6.2.2.5 Validity and reliability
6.2.2.6 Justification
6.2.3 I-E Locus of Control Scale (I-E LOC)
6.2.3.1 Rationale
6.2.3.2 Aim
6.2.3.3 Dimensions
6.2.3.4 Administration
6.2.3.5 Validity and reliability
6.2.3.6 Justification
6.2.4 Orientation to Life Questionnaire (OLQ)
6.2.4.1 Rationale
6.2.4.2 Aim
6.2.4.3 Dimensions
6.2.4.4 Administration
6.2.4.5 Validity and reliability
6.2.4.6 Justification
6.2.5 Biographical questionnaire
6.3 DATA COLLECTION
6.4 DATA PROCESSING
6.5 HYPOTHESES
6.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 7 RESULTS
7.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
7.1.1 Career Thoughts Inventory
7.1.2 Career Decision Making Self-efficacy SF
7.1.3 I-E Locus of Control Scale
7.1.4 Orientation to Life Questionnaire
7.1.5 Biographical variables
7.2 RELIABILITY OF THE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
7.3 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTS
7.4 PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTS
7.5 CHAPTER SUMMAR
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS