Confidence in Career Decision-Making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students By Jay T. Killough, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation In Family and Consumer Sciences Education Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved Karen L. Alexander, Ph.D. Chair of Committee Barbara N. Allison, Ph.D. Bret Hendricks, Ed.D. Roxie V. Godfrey, Ed.D. Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School Texas Tech University December 2016
Transcript
Confidence in Career Decision-Making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students
By
Jay T. Killough, B.A., M.A.
A Dissertation
In
Family and Consumer Sciences Education
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to begin by sincerely thanking my committee for guiding me and
encouraging me in this process. Dr. Barbara Allison, Dr. Roxie Godfrey, Dr. Bret
Hendricks, thank you for your wisdom and direction.
A very special thank you goes out to my chair, Dr. Karen Alexander. I could not
have asked for a better, more understanding, empathetic, encouraging, and motivating
chair. You are a fantastic mentor, and thank you for everything you taught me.
Thank you to all my classmates. Dr. Wade Redman, Dr. Ericka Hendrix, Dr.
Cindy Miller, Brooke, Amanda, LaToya, Jaime, and David. Thank you for providing a
fun and engaging learning environment.
To Dr. Pickering, thank you for allowing me to use your instrument in my
research study. It was kismet that it worked out the way it did through finding out about
your research through Denise Wright Smith at Old Dominion. To the late Dr. Shane
Lopez, thank you for dedicating your life to the research of hope and strengths. You were
always encouraging and I will never forget your smile and kindness. I would like to thank
Mark Pogue. Your direct influence on my life and my strengths journey is immeasurable.
You have played a significant role in my life.
I would like to thank Rodrigo y Gabriela, the Deftones, and Beethoven for
providing the soundtrack to my dissertation. Your songs helped me focus and stay
motivated to write.
As for my family, a huge thank you to my in-laws Johnny and Diane Actkinson,
along with my extended family. Thank you for your understanding and support during
this process.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
iii
To the smartest person I know, my sister Kara. Thank you for always making me
think outside the box and strive to be a better, more compassionate, harmonistic human. I
think of you daily and constantly ask myself, “What would Kara do”?
To my parents, Weldon and Marilyn Killough, thank you for believing in me and
providing a foundation of education in my life. I would not be who I am today without
you. You have always been there for me when I have needed you. I owe it all to you.
Thank you and I love you both.
Finally, to my loving family, Lacey, Graham, Lu, and our soon to arrive daughter.
Thank you for supporting me for the past 6 years in this process. Without your support
and encouragement, I would not have been able to complete this education. Thank you
for allowing me to take off numerous weekends to write and research. I love you all
dearly with all my heart. 1 Peter 4:10.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................x I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
Background Information ....................................................................................1
Positive Career Self-Efficacy for Students ..................................................1
Focusing on talent and strength through positive reinforcement .................4
Defining positive psychology and its application ........................................4
Utilization of StrengthsQuest to identify talent ...........................................6
3.4. Results of Q1 to determine eligibility to participate ......................................63
3.5. Discussion of career through person-centered coaching .................................64
4.1. Pearson’s r correlations among research variables ..........................................69 4.2. Dimension reductions for the two function hierarchies ..................................69 4.3. Canonical solution for Satisfaction and Strengths Self-Efficacy predicting
Career Planning Confidence (CPC) for function 1 .........................................70
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
x
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1. Flow Theory ...................................................................................................5
4.1. Canonical Correlation Model ........................................................................72
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background Information
A major concern among university administrators and faculty, career services
professionals, parents, and graduating seniors is whether or not graduates are finding
gainful employment upon graduation. An area of specific concern is finding gainful
employment in the field of study from which the students are graduating. The U.S.
Department of Education states preparation of students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation needs to be addressed, and has proposed regulation of university
career education programs, such as particular career certification programs, or specific
areas of study within the university (Cooper, 2010).
Career development continues to be an important issue on university campuses.
Aspects of society including technology, a global economy, a changing population and an
evolving workforce makes the challenge of helping students make strategic and confident
career choices more important than ever (Brown & Isaacson, 2000). Career professionals
who work in Career Services offices, or who play a role in career education programs,
face challenges such as, dissemination of information, utilization by students of the career
services, and facilitation of positive career choices among students (Brown & Isaacson,
2000).
Positive career self-efficacy for students. In the early 1980’s researchers Taylor
and Betz (1983) defined career decision-making self-efficacy as an individual’s belief
that he/she can carry out tasks necessary in the career decision-making process. In recent
decades, career decision-making self-efficacy has garnered large volumes of research in
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
2
the area of career, because of its importance to the career decision-making process, as
well as career interventions (Betz & Paulsen, 2004). Throughout 30 years of career
research, Betz (2004, 1992) has found a significant relationship between self-efficacy
expectations and the influence that those self-efficacy expectations play in career choice,
performance, and persistence on the job. Included in the research, Betz and Paulsen
(2004) found that career decision-making self-efficacy is measured using a series of
domain tasks. Among these tasks are accurate assessments of one’s self, occupational
information gathering, setting goals, planning and problem solving through critical
thinking (Betz & Paulsen, 2004). Research indicates that career decision-making self-
efficacy is also related to high and low levels of vocational self-efficacy, which is
addressed in the review of literature of this dissertation (Betz & Paulsen, 2004).
The National Career Development Association (NCDA) revised national
standards for career counseling in 1997 and again in 2009. The revised career counseling
competencies must be addressed in career counseling programs at the master’s and
doctoral level. There are 11 competencies a career counselor must meet before seeing
students, or clients. In order to work as a professional engaged in career counseling, the
individual must demonstrate minimum competencies in eleven designated areas. These
eleven areas are: career development theory, individual and group counseling skills,
individual/group assessment, information/resources, program management and
implementation, consultation, diverse populations, supervision, ethical/legal issues,
research/evaluation, and technology (Career Counseling Competencies, 2009).
In regard to the dissemination of information and facilitation of positive career
choices among students, a relatively new and evolving strategy for career professionals to
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
3
utilize, is the use of a student's strengths to assist in the strategic career search and
decision-making process. Students choose their majors and make career choices based on
their self-efficacious beliefs, regardless if they are positive or negative beliefs (Pajares,
1996). Undergraduates choose areas of study in which they believe they will succeed and
be most comfortable. Understanding the differences between our students is vital for
success both for career professionals and their students (Barr & Desler, 2000). Although
students develop individually at different rates, they all have a particular set of strengths
that are taken into consideration when engaging in the job search and decision-making
process.
A popular question posed to college seniors as they approach graduation from
school is "What are you going to do?" (Tieger & Tieger, 1995). Pressure from society,
communities, families, peers and instructors often contribute to a student's motivation to
get a job. Nearly most of our waking hours are spent at work; students wish to find a
career they will love, not just a job. However, this expectation leads to possible
procrastination, or delay of the job search if students are not ready for their career search.
Instead of finding any job for a paycheck, career professionals may suggest finding a job
that suits the strengths of the student (Tieger & Tieger, 1995). Therefore, it is important
for students in the career decision-making process to develop a positive self-efficacy
around their career-decision-making process. Research postulates that higher levels of
career-decision-making self-efficacy lead to an attitude of approaching a task, whereas a
low level of career-decision self-efficacy can lead to avoidance of the task (Betz, 2004).
The importance of self-efficacy flows into other areas of life as well, and there is an
assumption that if an individual has high self-efficacy in their decision-making process
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
4
regarding their occupation, they will be able to engage in the process easier, and make a
confident decision. However, if they lack self-efficacy they might not only avoid the task
of finding a job, but they could also become depressed, or stressed (Moseley, Reinke, &
Bookout, 2002). In choosing to embark on a career search, it is important to engage in the
search process and approach it with confidence. Avoiding the job search process will
only delay the inevitable of not finding a job. This concept of approach versus avoidance
behavior is very basic in counseling. However, even though it is a simplistic concept, it
has a very profound impact when it comes to career counseling (Betz, 2004).
Focusing on talent and strength through positive reinforcement. Research
shows the ideology of focusing on the positive by using one’s individual strengths to
make decisions and find satisfaction at work is not new. Dating back to the early 20th
century, parents and mentors urged their children and mentees to focus on their strengths
to find a job, and excel at the job. Home economists Elizabeth Sage and Anna Cooley
(1905) noted that happy kids are busy kids, and in order to stay busy, they must be
interested, and have a natural talent in what they are doing. Sage and Cooley believed in
focusing on a child’s strengths in order for them to be productive and happy. They also
believed that mindless, difficult tasks that children are not interested in lead to a decrease
in a love for that task (Sage & Cooley, 1905). A few others such as, Abraham Maslow,
William James, and Gordon Allport also focused on a positive psychological approach to
working with people (Buck, Carr, & Robertson, 2008).
Defining positive psychology and its application. Later in the 20th century,
researchers like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and his flow theory, also helped define
positive psychology. Dr. Martin Seligman describes flow theory as being engaged in
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
5
one’s work to the point where time flies by, anxiety is at low levels, and the person
experiences satisfaction to the point they want to do whatever it was they were doing
again (Seligman, 2006). Seligman also goes on to state that people who engage their
strengths in the workplace are happy and less depressed.
Figure 1.1 Illustrates Flow Theory In order to engage in the workplace, Seligman recommends focusing on one’s greatest
talents or strengths (Seligman, 2006). Conversely, the first half of the 20th century was
spent on negative attributes within individuals, and the darker side of human nature
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
6
(Buck et al., 2008). Many studies exist on topics such as, anger, shame, guilt, and
depression, but fewer empirical studies exist regarding positive attributes such as
gratitude, admiration, or advancing oneself morally (Buck et al., 2008). With a need to
find a balance in the amount of literature available on positive psychology, researchers
have placed an emphasis on making sure more research is conducted and published. The
potential benefits of positive psychological research for educators include
recommendations to improve students’ motivation, academic engagement and self-
efficacy (Buck et al., 2008).
Utilization of StrengthsQuest to identify talent. In 1999, The Gallup
Organization developed a program to identify a student's strengths called StrengthsQuest.
StrengthsQuest is a program used to help individuals identify their talents and strengths.
The program includes an online assessment titled StrengthsFinder™, which consists of
177 items on a continuum where students self-select their behaviors. Accompanying the
online assessment are resources and suggestions to develop individual strengths. The
outcome of StrengthsFinder ™ is a student's top five talents, which then can be
developed into strengths with career coaching, and development through discovery of
talent, development of talent, and application of talent (Anderson & Clifton, 2002).
Gainful employment outcomes. Accountability in today’s higher education
environment includes measures of employment outcomes both at the internal level within
each University, but also at the federal level. Many motivating factors contribute to the
desire to obtain this information, but a main factor is the continuing rise in tuition and
fees at public and private universities, as well as for-profit and non-profit universities.
Government officials, parents, administrators, faculty, and students all want to know their
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
7
return on investment when a college degree is completed. Traditionally, University
Career Centers have been responsible for gathering the data on first destination
employment among college graduates. However, more and more institutional research
offices also play a large role in collecting this data.
Obtaining gainful employment is a hot topic in postsecondary education. Are
students finding jobs upon graduation? Gainful employment outcomes among students
vary from university to university because there is no universal measure for reporting
gainful employment. In an article prepared for the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS), there are 1,759 public institutions and 859 private institutions that
are required to report gainful employment outcomes (Sykes, 2011). Some universities are
better than others, but placement is an ongoing struggle for most universities because of
many factors inhibiting the placement process. Sykes (2011) reported that institutions
struggle with reporting gainful employment because the methodology for calculating
gainful employment is not universal from institution to institution and from state to state.
Additionally, students do not always report if they are gainfully employed or not. Return
rates on surveys for most universities are relatively low. The frequent low response rate
may, in part, be attributed to out-of-date addresses. Once students leave their universities,
it is not an easy process to track their correct addresses, and many students do not
maintain current contact information with their alma maters.
NCDA commissioned the Gallup Organization to survey Americans regarding
their opinions on career trends such as technology, the increased demand for training and
certifications, and the effects of globalization on careers. Specifically, the survey asked
questions about the following topics related to this study; the need for help in the last year
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
8
with selecting or getting a job, sources of help and information in selecting, changing, or
getting a job, evaluation of availability and usefulness of information, use of job or career
counseling, and finally, satisfaction with current job and reasons for leaving a job.
Results of the survey report 39 percent of Americans utilized a career counselor to help
obtain their job, either through a university, or private practice (NCDA, 2000).
Person-centered coaching is hypothesized to provide students with individual
growth and development. As students become more self-actualized, a second independent
variable is added to the mix, which is the StrengthsFinder ™ assessment. In an empirical
study at a large public university, students gained confidence in their ability to make goal
oriented decisions, as well as increase their hope (Hodges & Harter, 2005). Upon
completion of this study, the hope is to find a significant correlation between utilization
of strengths in a person-centered coaching session in order for students to be more
confident in their first destination employment decisions. Similarly, do one-on-one,
person-centered coaching, or utilization of strengths, independently influence students’
confidence in career-decision-making? Finally, do neither utilization of strengths, nor
one-on-one person-centered coaching increase confidence in students’ career decision-
making regarding first destination employment?
Statement of Purpose
The overall purpose of this study was to compare the relationships in the
confidence in career decision-making upon first post-graduation employment among
seniors and graduate students at Texas Tech University. What are the relationships
between confidence in their career decision-making of first post-graduation employment
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
9
after (a) taking StrengthsFinder ™ and receiving individual person-centered career
coaching (b) taking StrengthsFinder™ and not receiving individual person-centered
career coaching, (c) not taking StrengthsFinder™ and receiving individual person-
centered career coaching, or (d) not participating in either StrengthsFinder™ or
individual person-centered career coaching?
As higher education evolves, the value of a college education is scrutinized.
According to recent Pew data from an article titled, The Rising Cost of Not Going to
College, the path to success and satisfaction in the workplace runs through earning a
college degree (Going to College, 2014). Students who obtain a college degree far
outpace those who do not when it comes to career satisfaction and success. However,
there is growing concern from many different areas including, university administrators,
career counseling professionals, students and parents regarding whether or not students
are becoming gainfully employed upon graduation. According to the National
Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) First-Destination Survey, with over 200
colleges and universities participating and over 274,000 bachelor degreed students
represented in the survey, over 60 percent of college graduates were employed at
graduation. Nearly 17 percent of 2014 college graduates chose to continue their education
by going to graduate or professional school (Koc, 2015). According to the NACE
Outcomes Survey, college students who chose a specific area of study with a career
oriented emphasis were more likely to find employment upon graduation versus students
who chose a major in the liberal arts and sciences that were more likely to attend graduate
or professional school (Koc, 2015).
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
10
According to the research, the majority of people’s lives are spent at work.
Therefore, if a person’s quality of life is struggling at work, it is hypothesized they may
not be using their natural talents, or strengths in the workplace (Harter & Rath, 2010).
However, if a person is thriving at work, there is significant correlation they are using
their natural talents and strengths and building their lives around them in the workplace.
In a recent article published by the Gallup Organization in their Business Journal,
Asplund and Elliot (2015) claim that employees who use their strengths in the workplace
outperform those who do not use their strengths. According to the findings, employees
who use their strengths everyday at work are three times more likely to thrive in their
quality of life. Furthermore, their engagement at work is increased six times than that of
an employee who does not use their strengths, along with an eight percent increase in
productivity. One final statistic in the findings is employees who used their strengths at
work were 15 percent less likely to quit their job (Asplund & Elliot, 2015).
The results published by Asplund and Elliot (2015), show support for continuing
to expose students to the StrengthsFinder™ assessment and encourage them to participate
in the program. The 177 items included in the StrengthsFinder™ assessment measure an
individual’s top five consistent, near perfect performances in specific activities, otherwise
known as one’s top five strengths. When students takes StrengthFinder™ the goal is to
identify naturally reoccurring patterns of talent or strength, in order to develop and apply
those talents or strengths in various areas of one’s life. For the purpose of this study,
strength identification is correlated with the job search and confidence in finding a job.
However, as mentioned by Lopez (2009), simply taking StrengthsFinder™ and becoming
aware of one’s strengths by itself may not be sufficient. There are five areas that need to
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
11
be addressed in order to have a successful outcome with the StrengthsFinder™
assessment. First, measurement is key in the process simply by taking an assessment such
as StrengthsFinder™ to measure one’s strengths. Second, after an individual takes an
assessment such as StrengthsFinder™, they need to have an individualized conversation
focused on the unique characteristics of each strength, preferably by a counselor, or
Gallup strengths coach. Third, sharing of one’s strengths, or networking with the
strengths allows for feedback and awareness of one’s strengths. Networking provides
necessary feedback to an individual to help clarify each strength. Fourth, an individual
should have deliberate application of the strengths in order to experience the trial and
error of success and failure with each strength. Once this deliberate application of
strengths is practiced, the fifth recommendation is intentional development on a regular
basis (Lopez, 2009). In regard to outcomes from taking StrengthsFinder ™ if students
develop their strengths as described above, the individual perspective is that they have
greater awareness of their strengths have greater self-confidence, along with a stronger
sense of self and direction (Lane & Chapman, 2011).
With the above recommendations for strengths development through person-
centered coaching, the empirical literature provides support for utilizing StrengthsFinder,
and person-centered coaching, with career coaching in order to assist students in
becoming more confident as they make their first destination employment decisions.
Research Questions
Research Question 1 What is the relationship of strengths self-efficacy and confidence in decision-making upon first destination employment?
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
12
Research Question 2 What is the relationship of satisfaction with individual, person-centered career coaching and confidence in decision-making upon first destination employment?
Research Question 3 Is the combination of strengths self-efficacy and individual,
person-centered career coaching related to five aspects of career planning confidence?
Research Question 4 Is there a significant difference in confidence in decision-making
between those who received individual, person-centered career coaching and those who did not?
Personal Rationale
After spending more than 14 years at a public four-year university working in the
University Career Center at Texas Tech University, I have directly and indirectly been
involved with placement data for students and their first destination employment choices.
Whether it be through a formal survey, or a qualitative means of gathering the data, I
have participated in hearing the excitement, the anxiety, the fear and the trepidation
college students possess when it comes to searching for and obtaining their first career
after college. Based on personal observation, a fundamental problem among a portion of
college graduates is their indecisiveness when it comes to making a career choice. My
belief is students often times choose a career solely because of their major, but fail to take
into account other aspects of the job search. For other students, they might make a
decision on their first destination employment based on availability. In other words, they
will take what they are offered, which may or may not be a good decision in the long run.
The Family and Consumer Sciences Education (FCSE) Doctoral program at Texas Tech
University motivated me to focus my research on career decision-making. As I learned
more about the Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) profession I began to see the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
13
relevance of career decision-making, and career wellbeing, as a part of the history and
philosophy of the profession, which will be examined in the next section.
Family and Consumer Sciences Relationship to Career Decision-Making
Family and Consumer Sciences is an interdisciplinary profession that focuses on
education in areas such as, career and technical education, nutrition, financial planning,
apparel design, early childhood education, agricultural extension and others. Stemming
from the inception of the profession, the overall arching mission for FCS is to help enrich
and improve quality of life. The profession is also focused on the wellbeing of
individuals and families in society. A correlation exists between having a thriving
wellbeing and its tie to one’s occupation. According to Harter and Rath (2010), people
are twice as likely to have a thriving wellbeing if they like what they do everyday at
work. Liking what one does everyday at work results in application of strength in the
workplace (Harter & Rath, 2010). The rationale for further research in the career
decision-making process and how confident students are in their decisions is related to
the FCS philosophy. Adults spend the majority of their time at work. If individuals are
engaged in their work and satisfied, the chance they have a positive wellbeing is
increased. The profession of family and consumer sciences promotes this philosophy.
The American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) mission
statement is “To provide leadership and support for professionals whose work assists
individuals, families, and communities in making informed decisions about their
wellbeing, relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life.” According to
the AAFCS website (www.aafcs.org),
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
14
“Family and consumer sciences (FCS) is the comprehensive body of skills, research, and knowledge that helps people make informed decisions about their wellbeing, relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life. The field represents many areas, including human development, personal and family finance, housing and interior design, food science, nutrition, and wellness, textiles and apparel, and consumer issues.”
In order to have an optimal quality of life, a person’s occupation has the potential to be a
determining factor.
The National Association of State Administrators for Family and Consumer
Sciences (NASAFACS) developed national standards in May 1995 in order to celebrate
state philosophies and blend diverse education delivery systems (www.nasafacs.org).
Complementing the AAFCS mission statement, the NASAFACS provides specific career
related mission and vision statements as well. According to the NASAFACS website
(www.nasafacs.org),
“The mission statement for Family and Consumer Sciences Education, is to prepare students for family life, work life and careers in Family and Consumer Sciences by providing opportunities to develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors needed for: • Strengthening the wellbeing of individuals and families across the life span. • Becoming responsible citizens and leaders in family, community, and
work settings. • Promoting optimal nutrition and wellness across the life span. • Managing resources to meet the material needs of individuals and families. • Balancing personal, home, family, and work lives. • Using critical and creative thinking skills to address problems in diverse
family, community, and work environments. • Successful life management, employment, and careers development. • Functioning effectively as providers and consumers of goods and services. • Appreciating human worth and accepting responsibility for one's actions and
success in family and work life.” The NASAFACS National Standards sets forth an opportunity for states to link their own
standards with the national standards. This research study is related specifically to the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
15
bullet statement regarding successful life management, employment, and careers
development.
A Brief history of FCS education. The relationship between family and
consumer sciences education and this study are directly related in the sense that from the
establishment of the profession, FCS, or Home Economics as it was previously called,
directly and indirectly impacts all of humanity on some level. Ellen S. Richards founded
AAFCS in 1909. After studying at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Richards
dedicated her life to advocating for consumer education, nutrition, child development,
public health, career education, women’s rights and much more. Richards’s forward
thinking, hard work ethic, and ability to understand the need for a quality family life
helped establish the foundation of the family and consumer sciences profession. For the
first 60 years of the profession, home economics played a significant role in regard to
providing resources, education and training to young people in the areas of textiles and
clothing, housing and interior design, home management, consumer studies, foods and
nutrition, child development and family relations (Richards, 2000).
Occupational home economics. Secondary and postsecondary occupational
home economics programs expanded dramatically in the 1970s to include a focus on
preparing students for gainful employment (Olson, 1995). As the profession evolved with
the changing world, home economics was renamed Family and Consumer Sciences
(FCS) in 1993. Occupational home economics continued to grow, and along with societal
changes more occupational opportunities for women were created. In fact, the top three
in-demand occupations from 1995-2005, published by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
were all related to FCS: home health aides, human service workers, and personal and
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
16
home care aides (Olson, 1995). During this same period, there was also a shift from
Vocational Education to Career and Technical Education (CTE). With this shift, schools
began adding more technology courses, along with business, engineering and science
classes to the curriculum. Through CTE courses, including FCS, at the secondary
education level, students are exposed to various career opportunities and learning
experiences regarding occupational preparation.
Value exists between the FCS profession and the need to provide resources to
students who are seeking to build their confidence in their decision-making for their first
destination employment. When students are confident in their decision-making through
knowledge of their strengths and feedback from a career coach, they will ideally be able
to pick an occupation that will allow them to engage in the occupation based on their
individual talent. FCS educators have the potential to play an important role in the career
decision process early on in a student’s life—middle to high school grades—which will
then impact their major selection to determine a career path.
When considering the human condition, most individuals strive to make a better
life for themselves, their families, and their communities. FCS, as a discipline, strives to
provide research, resources, workshops, and other educational opportunities to assist with
this endeavor. On a more practical level, in order to take the guesswork out of career
decision-making, the rationale for this current research is to search out whether or not
career decision-making is correlated with one-on-one person centered career coaching
and individual strengths development in order to make a better life for oneself. The
connection between knowledge of strengths, individual career coaching, and students
making confident decisions on their first destination employment are all interconnected.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
17
Two variables that could influence a student’s decision-making process include, the one-
on-one coaching regarding the job search and the confidence in the use of their individual
strengths to predict higher confidence in the job decision. Therefore, if students are more
confident in their decisions on their first destination employment, ideally this leads to
greater engagement in the job leading to a successful work experience.
The critical science approach applied to career-decision-making. The critical
science approach is used in FCS education to address reoccurring issues or problems, i.e.
perennial in nature, that are faced by individuals and families. Marjorie Brown, a leader
in the use of the critical science approach, believed that FCS professionals should help
students to critically think about past frameworks for decision-making in order to make
informed choices related to future perennial problems. For example making decisions
about employment may be revisited throughout students’ lives, and as such is a perennial
problem (Vincenti & Smith, 2004).
A perennial problem among some of today’s college students is employment upon
graduation. The term problem is often associated with something negative. In this
instance of the job search, the term problem is not negative. A perennial problem in this
case is a difficult situation that requires deep thought and strategy (Vincenti & Smith,
2004). Based on general observations of students who struggle with the job search
decision-making process, they seem to experience higher levels of anxiety and
depression. The utilization of the critical science approach has the potential of being a
positive strategy for students making confident decisions regarding their first destination
employment.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
18
An opportunity exists for the FCS professional to help students critically think
about employment by facilitating the critical science approach. According to poverty
research, unemployment is the root cause of poverty among the workforce age,
(Saunders, 2006). Briefly, the critical science approach consists of three primary critical
thinking actions when it comes to solving perennial problems. First, there are technical
actions, followed by interpretive actions and ending with emancipatory actions (Vincenti
& Smith, 2004). A technical action typically relies on a question with a concrete and
readily available answer. As far as employment is concerned, the technical question
might be, “What actions are necessary to obtain employment”? Once students gather the
appropriate technical information, the interpretive, or communicative action allows them
to communicate their thoughts and feelings through verbal or nonverbal means. For
example, “What is employment and what does it mean to be employed”? The
emancipatory action teaches students how to combine their technical information with
their interpretive information to synthesize the perennial problem and begin setting goals
and justify their decision-making process. An example of an emancipatory question is,
“What are my beliefs about employment and from where did these thoughts come”
(Montgomery, 2008)? A student’s metacognition, or ability to think about thinking, or
know about knowing is measurably valid when the critical science approach is utilized
(Sperling et al., 2012).
The results of this study may have potential implications for FCS education
professionals, in particular classroom teachers and cooperative extension agents, as they
provide aspects of career coaching with their students and clients.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
19
As discussed earlier, Sage and Cooley (1905), posited kids who focused on their
strengths and what they were good at were more productive and were less likely to get in
trouble. Just as in present times, a recent article published by Asplund and Elliot (2015),
states that employees who use their strengths in the workplace are eight percent more
productive and 15 percent less likely to quit. Even though the literature shows that
individuals who focus on their strengths are more productive in the workplace, the
majority of the world is not engaged, or not using their strengths in the workplace,
according to the Gallup organization. For over 100 years, individuals have known that
using one’s strengths in the workplace makes for a more productive and engaged working
environment. However, the Gallup Poll results show that the majority of the world is not
engaged in the workplace. Making a confident decision on one’s first employment is a
sub-concept of the larger perennial problem of employment.
There is a need for career development in today’s collegiate world, and is
arguably the number one reason why students attend college (Esters & Retallick, 2013).
Career development includes a students’ confidence in their career direction, a realistic
approach to examining different career possibilities, and taking a realist view of their
strengths, weaknesses and opportunities (Esters & Retallick, 2013). There are different
types of career development sessions that occur on college campuses. Students may gain
insight into their future career through experiential means such as an internship, job
shadow, or part-time job. On the other hand, they may engage in specific career
counseling by meeting with a licensed professional counselor through a career services
office, or counseling service provided by the university. As the world of work rapidly
changes, the new generations of young professionals constantly have to reinvent their
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
20
work place, work goals, and motivations to work. They will be required to cope with the
complexities of their world around them by focusing on their talents and interests.
Students entering the workforce for their first destination employment will rely more
heavily on career counselors, coaches and mentors than ever before (Herr, 2013).
Definition of Terms
Career Counseling
Since 1913, counselors have characterized themselves as helping people discover
their assets, how those assets can be used, plans for using them and putting those
plans into action (Super, 1993). Typically, a one-on-one interview takes place in
order to establish a personal relationship within career counseling. During the first
session, the career counselor will discuss opportunities, challenges, strengths and
limitations in order to personally get to know their client. Once the relationship is
established, the counselor and client can then proceed to setting and obtaining
career goals.
Coaching
According the International Coaching Federation (ICF) (2010), the definition of
coaching is described as an individual or team who utilizes the support and
direction of a qualified coach in order to achieve goals set forth by the individual
or team. Within this definition, there are sub-levels of coaching which consist of
interpersonal coaching, intrapersonal coaching, and performance based coaching
(McKelley & Rochlen, 2007). With each coaching session, there is no exact
approach necessary for it to be called a coaching session. Different coaches use
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
21
different types of techniques in order to coach. However, the ICF (2010) does
have an outline of the coaching process. Each coaching process begins with a one-
on-one personal interview in order to assess the needs of the individual. During
the initial interview, topics that may be discussed are strengths, challenges,
opportunities and other variables the individual may encounter in order to achieve
the desired outcome. Occasionally, more than one coaching session is necessary
to reach the desired outcomes.
Comprehensive Career Center
Guidelines are provided by the National Association of Colleges and Employers
(NACE) to define a comprehensive Career Center at a college or university.
According to the definition, a comprehensive career center promotes the
advancement of the university, both academically and through co-curricular
experiential learning in order to promote student learning and development.
However, academic and co-curricular experiences do not necessarily have to be
provided through the Career Center office itself, but through academics and other
departments as well. Overall, the primary purpose of the Career Center at a
college or university is to help students in their career decision-making process
through developing, implementing and evaluating career plans (NACE
Professional Standards for Colleges and University Career Services, 2014).
First Destination Employment
First destination employment is defined by NACE as a student who is graduating
from a college or university and is employed for 30 hours per week or more. Sub-
categories of the definition subsequently define employment. Employment could
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
22
mean entrepreneurship, temporary/contract work, freelance, internship, volunteer
work, joining the military or fellowship types of work. The definition also
includes part-time work where a student works less than 30 hours a week, but is
non-the-less employed in any of the categories of employment defined (Standards
and Protocols for the Collection and Dissemination of Graduating Student Initial
Career Outcomes Information for Undergraduates, 2014).
Person Centered Theory
Carl Rogers is the psychologist known for pioneering and developing the person-
centered theory. Person-centered theory is a non-directive approach to therapy,
which empowers the client to become self-aware and build self-efficacy
(Holosko, Skinner & Robinson, 2008). Included in this theory, there are three
factors the counselor, or coach, must possess. These three characteristics include
congruency, empathy, and unconditional positive regard. In order for person-
centered therapy to be effective with a client, it is also believed the client must
also possess the attribute to self-actualize, or gain one’s potentialities (Joseph,
2003).
Positive Psychology
Positive psychology has gained popularity in recent years and is gaining traction
in many areas of counseling. Simply put, positive psychology is defined as the
study of human strengths (Harris, Thoresen & Lopez, 2007). Subjective
experiences such as wellbeing, satisfaction, flow and happiness are all rolled into
the definition of positive psychology. However, positive psychology continues to
be defined as the study of individual traits such as capacity for love, hope,
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
23
courage, patience, gratitude, forgiveness, creativity, wisdom, spirituality, and
humor (Harris et al., 2007).
StrengthsFinder™
StrengthsFinder ™, is and online assessment which identifies a student's top five
talents, which then can be developed into strengths with career coaching and
development through discovery of talent, development of talent and application of
talent (Anderson & Clifton, 2002). The assessment contains 177 items.
StrengthsQuest
StrengthsQuest is the educational program designed by Chip Anderson and Don
Clifton to help students discover, develop and apply their strengths in different
areas of life (Anderson & Clifton, 2002). The primary difference between
StrengthsQuest and StrengthsFinder™ is StrengthsFinder™ is the assessment
itself without the addition of the activities and resources, which StrengthsQuest
provides.
Vocational Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura (1998) takes a broad approach in defining self-efficacy stating
people have a set of beliefs about their abilities to produce effects. In order to
produce these effects, one must process a set of elements including cognitive,
motivational, affective, and selective processes. Self-efficacy is determined by
each individual and determines at what level an individual performs when taking
on a specific task. The definitions of self-efficacy, as listed above, are related in
the fact that each definition breaks down self-efficacy into the ability to perform a
task or duty to produce effects.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
24
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of literature for this study provides the theoretical foundation for
researching confidence in career decision-making regarding first destination employment
upon graduation. The sections of this review include a look into the person-centered
theory developed by Carl Rogers, an understanding of StrengthsFinder™ and self-
efficacy, positive psychology, career counseling and coaching, and vocational self-
efficacy.
Person-centered Theory
First, the person-centered theory, as applied in career counseling will be reviewed.
Carl Rogers was the psychologist known for pioneering and developing the person-
centered theory. This approach to counseling is non-directive and brings out what
motivates individuals and empowers them to become self-actualized in order to reach
their full potential (Holosko et al., 2008). The basic principle behind his theory is that
people have the tendency to grow and function optimally (Patterson & Joseph, 2007).
Included in this approach are three factors the counselor, or coach, must possess:
congruency, empathy, and unconditional positive regard. In order for person-centered
therapy to be effective with a client, the client must also possess the attribute to self-
actualize, or gain one’s potentialities (Joseph, 2003). According to Rogers’s seminal
work on person-centered therapy, the approach was organized by six steps in order for
constructive personality change to occur. The first step begins with two persons in
psychological contact. For the purposes of this study, this example would be the career
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
25
coach and the student. Second, the student is in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable
or anxious. Third, the coach is congruent and integrated into the relationship with the
student. This third condition posits the coach is accurately aware of his/her experiences
and avoids putting up facades either knowingly, or unknowingly. Fourth, the career coach
has unconditional positive regard for the student. Unconditional positive regard can be
described as the coach having an acceptance for the student regardless of the good, or the
bad feelings associated with the student. The coach allows for the student to feel what
they need to feel without judgment (Rogers, 1957). The fifth condition states the career
coach experiences an empathetic understanding of the client’s internal frame of reference
and works to communicate this understanding to the client. In other words, the coach
should feel what the client is feeling and communicate those feelings to the client.
Finally, the student perceives, to a minimal degree, the coaches empathetic understanding
and unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1957).
The impact that Carl Rogers had in the field of psychotherapy is widely known,
however, some may argue whether or not it is still valid today (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan,
2005). In his research, Carl Rogers and his colleagues were the first to record and
transcribe complete, person-centered sessions with their clients (Kirschenbaum &
Jourdan, 2005). This was ground breaking research that provided a foundation for future
therapists in the field. A product of his findings was “Self-Theory” (1959), which focused
primarily on the client, and became a prominent theory utilized by therapists during the
time (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005).
Kirschenbaum and Jourdan (2005) ventured to determine how relevant the
person-centered approach to psychotherapy is today. In order to do so, they studied three
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
26
indicators, which included identifying the number of publications on person-centered
therapy, the proliferation of the approach around the world, and finally the current
research on person-centered therapy and its outcomes. Regarding the number of
publications, Kirschenbaum and Jourdan (2005) found the numbers to be significant.
After Rogers death in 1987, they found a total of 777 publications between 1987 and
2004, including books, book chapters, and journal articles. Previous to his death, there
were a total of 604 publications. In order to find this data, the researchers only used the
PsycINFO database. In comparison with other leading psychotherapists, the 777
publications, between 1987 and 2004, based on Rogers’ research are ranked sixth on the
list of most publications out of 15 popular psychotherapists. Based on this indicator,
person-centered theory is alive and well in today’s therapeutic approach (Kirschenbaum
& Jourdan, 2005). However, after conducting numerous searches using keywords such
as “career assessments,” and “educational assessments,” the results were unsuccessful,
and no specific research could be found connecting Rogers’s person-centered therapeutic
approach with assessments. Here is where this research project differs from existing
research regarding person-centered coaching or StrengthsQuest. From the review of
existing literature, it does not appear that combining the person-centered therapeutic
approach to career coaching while using the assessment StrengthsFinder™ has been
researched.
The second indicator investigated by the researchers involves the proliferation of
the person-centered approach around the world. Currently there are over 200 training
centers and organizations that utilize the theories, research and techniques Carl Rogers
pioneered (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005). Some of the centers are on the smaller end
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
27
with only a couple hundred members. However, on the large end, Germany houses a
training center with over 4,300 members. Currently, Europe is the leading continent to
focus on the person-centered therapy approach (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005). In
addition to providing training to person-centered therapy practitioners, the worldwide list
of organizations also contributes to current periodicals and journals.
The final indicator of Carl Rogers’s person-centered theory appears in the types of
outcomes found in the research. Rogers hypothesized that when a therapist exhibits the
three core conditions, which are unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence,
it is inevitable clients will see a change in themselves (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005).
This hypothesis has spurred three decades of research among therapists. During these
three decades, 14 studies by Truax and Mitchell (1971) assessed 992 participants and
found a significant correlation between positive outcomes on behalf of the client, with the
three core conditions of the therapists. On the other hand, Truax and Mitchell found only
one negative correlation (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005). Hundreds of other studies
over the decades yielded similar results. If a therapist utilizes the core conditions through
Rogers’s theory, there is statistical significance that the client will have a positive
outcome from the session. In contrast, when researchers studied the outcomes of different
types of therapies, the results yielded a fifty-fifty positive outcome rate (Kirschenbaum &
Jourdan, 2005). Keep in mind, the researchers quickly point out person-centered therapy
is not the only therapeutic approach, and that therapy should be individual to the client.
The emphasis of the research is to merely state if a therapist utilizes the core
competencies their approach will be helpful, or quite possibly extremely helpful, to the
client. Yet, not all clients will respond the same way (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005). In
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
28
the attempt to assess the contributions Carl Rogers provided to psychotherapy, there is a
clear indication person-centered therapy is a respected therapeutic approach that is
frequently utilized. Through hundreds of publications after his death, a worldwide
proliferation of organizations and training centers, and empirically validated research
outcomes, Rogers’s theory on the core competencies of person-centered therapy have a
place in today’s approach to working with college students.
Career counseling utilizing person-centered theory. In regard to career
counseling, a person-centered approach has merit. Manuele-Adkins (1992) equates the
two counseling approaches and states that career counseling is personal counseling.
Career counselors often times focus on the rational outcome of helping students find
careers, which includes information sharing and defining occupations. However, it is
important to include the affective side of counseling as well, including developmental
stages, self-efficacy, and concept of self. What are students going through in their lives at
the time they are looking for a job is a question career counselors often fail to
investigate? Many times when students seek out career counseling, it is all too easy for a
counselor to first prescribe a career assessment of some sort and fully rely on the results
to allow the students to make a decision on a career choice (Manuele-Adkins, 1992).
A brief history of the commencement of career counseling. Career counseling
has a thorough history of research, theory, and application providing context to many
career counselors. This research, theory, and application include demonstration of
personality traits, developmental stages, interests, attitudes, and emotions when choosing
a career. The early stages of career counseling began at the turn of the century. Multiple
contributing factors aided in the development of career counseling as a profession, such
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
29
as the industrial growth in the U.S., an influx of people moving from rural to urban areas,
technological advances, and the return of veterans from World War I (Pope, 2000). A
simple career assessment may provide insight into a few of items listed above, but it will
not paint the whole picture of an individual. Included in this rich history of career
counseling is the importance of person-centered counseling and the need for both
cognitive and affective counseling in order to help students with their career choices
(Manuele-Adkins, 1992). According to Manuele-Adkins (1992), unfortunately, career
counseling today consists of primarily information giving rather than a person-centered
approach.
Donald E. Super (1951), argued career counseling needs to have both a rational
and affective approach. However, as of late, career counseling has placed an emphasis on
the rational component of career counseling relying heavily on career assessments and
providing information. An important component of career counseling that includes a
more psychological approach on assisting students with their career decisions is through
person-centered coaching (Manuele-Adkins, 1992). A problem with career counseling is
that it is sometimes viewed as “soft” counseling resulting in students only taking
advantage of the service a limited number of times. In a community, a counselor may see
a client up to four times for their career counseling needs. However, in a school setting, a
career counselor may only see a student one time. That time is primarily dedicated to a
career assessment of some sort (Manuele-Adkins, 1992). Not all trained counselors in
schools focus primarily on career assessments either. Although they may be highly
trained to handle psychological effects of career counseling, often times career
interventions in schools are a one-time appointment for students (Manuele-Adkins,
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
30
1992). When a student sees a career counselor in the school, the counselor tends to take a
myopic approach to the counseling appointment and focus too heavily on simply
providing advice and giving an assessment. The need for an interpersonal relationship
exists between the counselor and the student (Brown, 1985). This gap in student support
is where there are opportunities for more FCS educators to continue the career counseling
process in their courses. Dr. William Symonds with the Global Pathways Institute
provided research in his Pathways to Prosperity publication emphasizing the need for an
update to FCS curriculum to include career guidance beginning at the middle school level
for students (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, (2011). The rationale for support through
FCS teachers will be explored later in this review.
Rarely when growing up do we experience unconditional positive regard from
others. For example, if a child falls down and hurts oneself, and runs crying to someone
only to be scolded, the child learns that he/she must not cry. Similarly, if a child
possesses a great talent for communicating, he will often finds himself in trouble in
elementary school for talking too much. In the person-centered approach, this child is not
judged for talking too much, rather the counselor exhibits unconditional positive regard
for his ability to communicate, and coaches the child how to communicate appropriately
through motivation. To further validate this notion of rarely experiencing unconditional
positive regard, in a poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, the following question
was asked, “Which do you think will help you improve the most? Knowing your
strengths or knowing your weaknesses?” Across six different countries, the majority of
respondents would rather focus on weakness (Hodges & Harter, 2005).
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
31
Even though person-centered therapy lacked empirical research in the beginning,
more and more counselors began studying the theory empirically. Evidence has emerged
through empirical testing that shows people tend to gravitate towards being a fully
functioning individual through intrinsic motivation (Joseph, 2003). Through a series of
repeated measures, research has found that people who have intrinsic goals tend to move
naturally toward those goals in order to improve overall wellbeing (Joseph, 2003). One of
the tools to empirically measure this information is the Barrett-Lennard Relationship
Inventory (BLRI) (Joseph, 2003). The BLRI rates respondents to what extent they feel
empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence. This research provides evidence
consistent with Roger’s hypothesis that a counselor engaged in person-centered therapy
should possess congruence, unconditional positive regard and empathy (Joseph, 2003).
Another empirical study by Sheldon, Arndt and Houser-Marko (2003) found clients who
selected goals based on intrinsic factors, longitudinally sustained their effort to reach the
goals (Patterson & Joseph, 2007).
Person-centered counseling and career-decision self-efficacy. In regard to
person-centered counseling and career-decision self-efficacy, Betz (1992), poses it is the
counselor’s responsibility to ascertain the domain of low confidence with students when
their job search is concerned. Once the domain is identified, it is important for the
counselor to design interventions with the purpose of swaying the inefficacious beliefs to
efficacious beliefs concerning the career decision-making process. According to the
research, the most powerful, and the first domain that should be explored with students is
their performance self-efficacy (Betz, 1992). Examples of this could stem from
coursework where students experienced performance success, or positive performance
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
32
accomplishments in the workplace. There is no need to mention failures, or bring up
weaknesses with students who potentially already possesses low career-decision-making
self-efficacy (Betz, 1992).
When looking at the bigger picture, counselors play a role in helping their clients
obtain a job, however, for many students in the world, it is their teachers, advisors and
staff members who are providing the person-centered coaching to students. Specifically,
FCS educators have a direct connection to students through Career and Technical
Education (CTE) programs. Martins and Carvalho (2014) found that in regard to
vocational education in Portugal, educators who teach courses in vocational education are
the most important people to prepare and assist students in making good life choices and
career decisions. Furthermore, the authors go on to state that one of the biggest problems
in education today is that there are insufficient numbers of vocational education teachers
to assist students in their decision-making process (Martins & Carvalho, 2014). The
feedback students receive about their vocational decisions from their teachers is what is
most vital to students being successful in their future career decisions. Without this
feedback on behalf of the teacher, results show that students fall into a moratorium phase
of career decision-making, meaning they show little or no aptitude for exploration of their
career goals (Martins & Carvalho, 2014).
StrengthsFinder™ & Self-Efficacy
Over the past decade and a half, the emergence of strengths related research has
gained professional attention worldwide. The positive psychology movement has
produced different types of strengths assessments, and strengths interventions. Positive
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
33
psychology intervention can be utilized in many different contexts, but for the purpose of
this research, the focus is on the area of educational career counseling and organizational
strengths. Researchers have discovered that identifying and focusing on a students’
strengths in a counseling session can be beneficial in assisting with the bonding process
between student and counselor (Biswas-Diener, Kashdan, & Minhas, 2011). During these
counseling sessions with students, their symptoms decreased and positive feelings were
reported. Within an organizational construct, recent publications, such as the Oxford
Handbook of Positive Psychology at Work, include three chapters on utilization of
strengths in the workplace (Linley, Harrington, & Garcea, 2009).
StrengthsQuest emerges as a program to identify strengths. Along with
receiving coaching on a career, it is important for students to also think about how their
talents, not weaknesses, could be applied to their future career. The Gallup Organization
leads the research and discussion of these ideas. More than 50 years ago, educational
psychologist, Don Clifton had a vision for psychologists all over the world. His vision
consisted of the question, “What would happen if we studied what is right with people?”
(as cited by Louis, 2012). Clifton’s vision led Gallup to examine the empirical discovery
of human strength. Over the next five decades, the scientists at Gallup interviewed
individuals from virtually everyone profession and field of study. With over two million
empirically developed and rigorously conducted interviews, Gallup conducted
groundbreaking studies on the situational success within people (Louis, 2012). In order to
identify one’s talents, researchers at Gallup utilized the common themes through
interviews to define strengths. Initially, over 400 shared strengths were defined by
Gallup, however, not all of these definitions tested psychometrically as valid and reliable.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
34
Through rigorous testing, the strengths that were retained, and showed validity and
reliability, were the items included on the assessment StrengthsFinder™, and addressed
in the StrengthsQuest program, which was released in 1999 (Louis, 2012).
StrengthsQuest is a program developed by the Gallup Organization that focuses
on student’s strengths rather than their weaknesses (Hodges & Harter, 2005). The
research on behalf of the Gallup Organization includes more than two million qualitative
interviews from virtually every occupation where they discovered one profound finding.
Universally across all occupations, the one profound finding is that people who built their
lives upon their strengths were top achievers in their fields (Wisner, 2011). For more than
50 years, Gallup has spent its time and energy studying human relationships in the
workplace and what makes an individual thrive in the workplace, or oppositely, want to
disengage in the workplace. Gallup has learned that focusing on individual’s talents is the
best way to see growth versus always trying to correct weaknesses (Louis, 2012).
StrengthsQuest is the program offered to college students, which includes
suggestions on career choices and overall learning about strengths. StrengthsQuest is
often confused with StrengthsFinder ™ which is purely the assessment offered by the
Gallup Organization. Both the StrengthsQuest program and the StrengthsFinder ™ will
be referred to in this paper.
Chip Anderson’s contribution to strengths research. While teaching at UCLA in
2001, Chip Anderson, coauthor of the book StrengthsQuest: Discover and Develop Your
Strengths in Academics, Career, and Beyond built a self-reflections questionnaire (SRQ)
and utilized it with four of his classes at the university. The SRQ is designed as a pre-post
questionnaire for students to rate themselves on a Likert-Type scale with items, which
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
35
encompass aliveness, potentiality, altruism and direction. The pre-questionnaire is used at
the beginning of the semester during the first class period and the post-questionnaire is
administered at the end of the semester after students have participated in the
StrengthsQuest program during class. Using factor analysis and Cronbach's Alpha,
Anderson scored the students. Each measureable outcome resulted in a positively
significant change in each student's self-reflection (Anderson, 2001). Specifically
regarding the question, "Did learning about your strengths help you clarify your career
goals?” students reported a positively significant difference on their post-questionnaire
ranging from a mean of 3.74 to a 4.28 in the four areas measured (Anderson, 2001). After
the initial pre-post questionnaires were distributed to the students at UCLA, the same
SRQ was replicated at Triveca, Southern Nazarene University, Azusa University,
Sterling, Kansas, Greenville and Illinois with similar results (Anderson, 2001).
Based on these previous pre-posts questionnaires results on the behalf of
Anderson’s measures, continuing research to validate the StrengthsQuest program
emerged. Schreiner (2006) provided further research on the reliability, validity and
appropriate use of StrengthsQuest with college students. Are the results of the
StrengthsQuest program dependable and consistent with what is being measured?
Secondly, is the assessment valid, measuring what it is supposed to measure? Finally, is
StrengthsQuest being used appropriately for what it is intended?
When measuring the reliability of the instrument, a test-retest experiment over an
eight to twelve week time period was conducted without students knowing their first set
of results. 438 students were tested in the experiment. The mean score resulted in a .70
reliability (Schreiner, 2006). The construct validity was obtained by correlating the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
36
students' scores with two other instruments, the CPI-260 and the 16PF. Each of the 34
themes in StrengthsQuest significantly correlated with the CPI-260 and the 16PF
providing strong evidence for the construct validity of the StrengthsFinder assessment
(Schreiner, 2006). The designed, appropriate use for the StrengthsQuest program targets
college age students for personal development and growth, as the psychometric properties
of the assessment are adequate (Schreiner, 2006). Chara and Eppright (2012) conducted
research to test the validity of the StrengthsFinder assessment. As a forced choice ipsative
scale, StrengthsFinder reportedly contains inter-item ipsativity. In other words, when
taking the StrengthsFinder assessment the user is forced to make choices between or
among alternative options where a lack of interdependence exists between or among
measures (Chara & Eppright, 2012). Chara and Eppright (2012) go on to mention that
ipsative scales are quite weak and more and more research is being published on the topic
each year. Less than 30% of the items are ipsatively scored with StrengthsFinder
according to Asplund, contributing author to the Clifton’s StrengthsFinder Technical
Report (Asplund et al., 2009). In response to findings that certain items are distorted in
StrengthsFinder, the Gallup organization claims their proprietary formula is built to make
up for the imbalanced number of options that causes the inter-item ipsative comparisons
(Asplund et al., 2009).
Further research contributes to the idea that taking StrengthsFinder ™ by itself
does not provide students with all of the answers when choosing a career, or meeting
challenges in life. Lopez (2009) determined that simply taking StrengthsFinder ™ online,
and identifying five strengths is not enough to gain career self-efficacy. There are certain
guidelines Lopez created in order for individuals to truly benefit from taking
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
37
StrengthsFinder™ (Louis, 2012). Some of the suggestions from Lopez follow.
Development in oneself takes tremendous effort. Application of one’s strengths is a daily,
intentional effort. Lopez’s next suggestion helps justify the rationale for this study.
“Strengths grow in the context of relationships, teams and organizations” (as cited in
Louis, 2012).
Before going further with this review, it is important to define the terms, skill,
talent and strength. In layman’s terms, a skill is an ability to do something well after the
ability is gained through experience or knowledge. According to Anderson (2005), talent
is defined as, “a naturally recurring pattern of thought, feeling, and behavior that can be
productively applied.” Although the terms are often interchanged and used
synonymously, talent and strength are very different. According to authors Hodges and
Harter (2005), strength is defined as, “the ability to provide consistent, near perfect
performance in a given activity.” Basically, strength can be thought of as the combination
of knowledge, skill and talent when used intentionally. However, talent always precedes
strength according to Anderson (2005). One must identify talent first and develop that
talent into strength. Top achievers are always looking for ways to accomplish tasks more
efficiently and effectively. Each job comes with its own series of tasks or duties, and
students who can identify occupational knowledge to the job search, along with their
crystallized knowledge of their individual talents and strengths have the potential to take
their job performance to the next level of production (Anderson, 2005). This occurs
through the students’ ability to apply their strengths in the workplace and consistently
reinvent their job duties in order to achieve. Talents are empowering for an individual.
Talents enable those who discover and develop them, to achieve excellence and reach
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
38
one’s full potential (Anderson, 2005). If individuals value their talents, the capacity to put
them to use in the workplace can catapult them to levels of high engagement. Talents are
naturally reoccurring, as defined earlier by Anderson (2005), therefore, they can be
utilized many times in a day in order to achieve.
Students can define strengths in different ways. Students frequently define
their individual strengths in many different ways. However, for the purpose of this
research project, StrengthsFinder ™ will be the assessment used to identify a student’s
strengths. StrengthsFinder™ was introduced to university campuses around the turn of
the millennium in order to allow students to identify their strengths. Texas Tech
University adopted StrengthsFinder™ in 2005 to allow students to discover, develop and
apply their strengths in their lives. Since its introduction to Texas Tech University, the
StrengthsQuest program has been housed in the University Career Center. Over the past
10 years, more than 50,000 students have participated in the StrengthsQuest program at
Texas Tech. However, simply taking StrengthsFinder™ online is not going to make a
difference in students’ lives. When students take StrengthsFinder™, meet with a Career
Counselor and receive one-on-one career coaching, a potential difference is made in the
way they approach their job search.
Measuring employee engagement using Gallup’s Q12. In order to carry out
tasks, or perform specific duties in the workplace, one must know what is expected of
him/herself. To help measure what is expected of an employee at the workplace, John
Thackray developed a survey called the Gallup Q12. The Q12 survey is designed to
measure employee's engagement. The Q12 survey is composed of twelve open ended
qualitative questions derived from hundreds of focus groups and interviews. Over 1.5
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
39
million employees have participated in the instrument (Thackray, 2001). Utilizing the
Q12 survey, Thackray narrowed employees into three categories of engagement:
Engaged, not engaged and actively disengaged. Comparisons in engagement scores for
employees who participate in the Q12 reveal those with higher scores exhibit lower
turnover rates, higher growth in the workplace, more productivity, better customer
service and other areas of excellent performance (Thackray, 2001). The hope is if
students have high self-efficacy in the career decision-making process, they know what
will be expected of them at work in regard to carrying out tasks requested of them. This is
where knowledge and understanding of strengths plays a role in the career decision-
making process. If students identify their strengths during their college career, and
discovers they engage in their classes, extra-curricular activities, and work experiences, it
may possible to predict future work engagement based on the increased confidence levels
of knowing their strengths.
Recent research provides evidence that utilizing one’s strengths in the workplace
leads to higher job satisfaction and engagement (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). A study in
the United Kingdom concluded when managers focused on employees’ strengths on the
job, their performance outcomes increased 36.4%. Adversely, when managers focused on
their employees constantly fixing weaknesses, the employees’ performance outcomes
decreased by 26.8% (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). Researchers Seligman, Steen, Park,
and Peterson (2005), found that individuals who focus on their strengths experience
higher levels of happiness and lower levels of depression. As the different educational
career counseling and organizational strengths domains are analyzed, it can be suggested
that utilization of strengths in the job search and on the job itself is not simply a passing
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
40
fad, but a key component in higher levels of career-decision self-efficacy, as well as on
the job self-efficacy (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). In the recently published 2014 Gallup-
Purdue Index Report (2014), employees were more likely to be engaged on the job if they
were able to do what they do best on a day to day basis, as well as have someone at work
care about their development in the workplace. Being engaged in the workplace is not
merely being satisfied with one’s job. Engagement in the workplace involves emotional
and intellectual attachment to the job performed (Great Jobs Great Lives, 2014).
Combining StrengthsQuest and person-centered counseling. The broader
context of this research question relates directly to the StrengthsQuest program, person
centered one-on-one coaching, and their combined uses at Texas Tech University.
StrengthsQuest is a program rooted in positive psychology and contains three levels of
potential growth. These levels include the identification of talent, integration of talent
into how one views oneself, and finally behavioral change (Lane & Chapman, 2011).
Often times when students come into the University Career Center, they do not have a
clear picture of what they want to do for their career. A common question asked by
counselors in the University Career Center is, “what do you want to do for your career?”
Often times, students answer this question with their major. For example, if a Public
Relations student is asked the question, their response is often times, “Something in PR.”
The same goes for all majors. For example, it is acceptable of the student to not know
what they want to do for a career, but rather it is the career counselor’s responsibility to
hear this response and answer accordingly. Specific, person-centered questions can be
asked at this point about what type of PR?, What work environment do you work best
in?, What are your strengths? As students begin to dig deeper into their own critical
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
41
thinking process, they are able to make more educated decisions on their first destination
employment. One way to accomplish this type of deeper critical thinking is using a
person-centered therapeutic approach with information provided by the StrengthsQuest
program.
As mentioned previously, the StrengthsQuest program is focused on strengths
rather than weakness, as well as, development and growth of students in their education.
The focus on students’ strengths is gaining momentum in education. In regard to strength
development, students must implement a series of actionable processes to develop their
strengths successfully. Students must go from discovering the talent to being competent
with the talent. Once they are competent with the talent, expertise is reached where the
talent becomes a strength (Subotnik, 2015).
Positive Psychology
The current state of the positive psychology intervention is still relatively new
compared with other types of interventions. At this point in time, there are few standards
for practitioners to follow. Most positive psychology interventions are guided at the
discretion of the practitioner (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). Practitioners choosing to
collect data must be careful not to introduce their own bias regarding the outcomes, and
they must be careful and not set out to “prove” anything with their findings. Practitioners
of positive psychology must keep an open mind to all the different outcomes that can
occur from a positive psychological intervention (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011).
In regard to empirical research, many of the “soft” sciences such as positive
psychology are uniquely challenged in the fact that humans are unpredictable. The “hard”
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
42
sciences are much easier to empirically research because of the concrete evidence of the
research. The results of hard sciences are easily replicable, and the data is easily
quantifiable. Conversely, the soft sciences can be viewed, as disadvantaged because of
the same reasons the hard sciences are not disadvantaged. Soft sciences provide data that
is not always easily replicable and the data can be difficult to quantify (Buck et al., 2008).
Author’s Sheldon and King (2001), refer to the dominance of negative bias in psychology
in their article Why Positive Psychology is Necessary. For decades clinical psychologists
have been focusing on pathologies of their clients in search of how to “fix” them.
However, positive psychology tends to embrace one’s natural talents and focus on
building one’s life around strengths, not always trying to fix their weaknesses (Sheldon &
King, 2001). In general, psychologists have been focusing on fixing problems since
WWII. According to the literature, fixing problems was not the focus of psychologists
before WWII. In the decades before WWII, psychology focused on three primary areas,
curing mental illness, helping people develop fulfilling and purposeful lives, and focusing
on unusual talents in order to help those individuals be successful (Shushok & Hulme,
2006). But, keeping in line with other articles, Shushok and Hulme (2006) go on to cite,
after 1970 specifically in higher education, school administrators tend to focus all their
research and attention on students with disciplinary problems in order to reform them, but
rarely knew what made successful students successful.
FCS and positive psychology. Family and consumer sciences education, as a
profession, fits in well with the positive psychology literature. FCS focuses on supporting
and educating individuals in order to live a better life. For example, in their book
Handbook of Positive Psychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi state,
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
43
Psychology should be able to help document what kinds of families result in children who flourish, what work settings support the greatest satisfaction among workers, what policies result in the strongest civic engagement, and how people’s lives can be most worth living (as cited in Snyder & Lopez, 2002).
When reviewing the mission statement of AAFCS, the profession of FCS Education
focuses on helping individuals and families achieve a higher wellbeing through the
workplace, at home and in the community. The AAFCS mission statement is not far off
from Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’s statement above.
In a positive psychology intervention, many practitioners utilize the ‘identify and
use’ approach within the first three sessions in order to create a positive initial interaction
with students (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). This straightforward approach to working
with students has the potential to lead to a positive self-awareness. Often, students will
make a discovery they were not aware of before the intervention in regard to their
strengths. About one-third of the U.S. population has an understanding of their strengths;
therefore the ‘identify and use’ approach has merit to help students identify their
strengths. However, this simple approach leaves room to advance. Developing strengths
over time is likely to produce better long-term results with students (Biswas-Diener et al.,
2011).
Henderson (2005) states positive psychology, in the form of strengths
development, is documented as an individual intentionally focuses on obtaining a
teaching position utilizing her strengths. With this conscious application of strengths to
find a job, the teacher is able to predict confidence on the job. The teaching position
consisted of at-risk students who were in danger of failing. The teacher’s
StrengthsFinder™ strengths include restorative, individualization, futuristic and achiever.
When the teacher saw the position focused on at-risk students, the teacher’s restorative
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
44
strength was immediately tapped. Restorative is a strength defined by being motivated to
restore order where a problem lies. Her individualization strength allowed her to see
students as unique individuals with a specific set of talents in themselves. Utilizing her
futuristic strength, the teacher was able to help the students see the possibilities that could
be if they were to apply themselves and work hard. Finally, having the achiever strength,
the teacher was able to make to-do lists to keep the students on track with their work
(Henderson, 2005). Career success is a subjective term and is defined as an individual’s
internal assessment of his or her career that involves any and every dimension that is
important to that individual (Kidd, 2008). This is one example to provide rationale for
this study.
Therefore, a main justification for this research project is to study students’
confidence levels upon making their decision in taking their first career job after
graduation, and if one-on-one, person-centered counseling and the use of StrengthsQuest
increase those confidence levels. Conducting a survey of students who have either
accepted their first job offer, or who are in the current job search process will be included
in the sample for the study. The students will be stratified into two groups. The control
group will consist of students who did not use a person-centered approach or
StrengthsFinder™ in their job search. The test group will consist of students who used
person-centered coaching along with StrengthsFinder™ before making their decision on
their first job.
Strengths and Flow Theory. According to an article on positive psychology and
student engagement, the authors mention that focusing on “what’s right” with students is
promising for the field of education (Buck et al., 2008). Students need to be challenged
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
45
with their strengths in order for them to find confidence in their discipline. Oftentimes
education focuses on the dissemination of knowledge and the regurgitation of that
knowledge in a test; however, an emphasis on a student’s strengths can provide more
initiative in the learning process (Buck et al., 2008).
Similarly, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) discussed students’ ability to lose track of
time because of their focused interest on a task. Flow theory, as defined by
Csikszentmihalyi (1990), is the optimal state of concentration on a task, which is
intrinsically motivating. Being intrinsically motivated to lose oneself in one’s work is
related to self-efficacious students who utilize their strengths on the job. A major tenant
of flow theory is utilization of one’s strengths to find flow on the job (Buck et al., 2008).
However, just as experienced in the ‘soft’ vs. ‘hard’ sciences debate, flow theory is not
concrete. Since Csikszentmihalyi developed flow theory in 1975, very few researchers
have argued the validation of the theory. The problem lies with the measurement of flow.
Nearly 40 years after flow theory was developed, a valid measurement for flow ceases to
exist (Moneta, 2012). Regardless if a valid measure for flow exists, Seligman (2006)
validates Csikszentmihalyi’s theory through the breakdown of the definition of
happiness.
In order to demystify the relatively unscientific definition of happiness, Seligman
breaks down the term into three management scientific principles. First, in order to define
and measure happiness, Seligman defines positive emotion, then engagement, and finally
meaning of life (Seligman, 2006). The engaged life research focuses primarily on
utilization of one’s strengths in the workplace in order to find happiness. Seligman goes
on to state that this notion of engagement through focusing on one’s strengths has been
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
46
around since the time of Aristotle and has carried through the ages (Seligman, 2006). He
also cites Carl Roger’s research on the positive outcomes of person-centered therapy in
order to help a person achieve their ideal self to be fully functioning (Seligman, 2006).
Career Counseling and Coaching
Throughout this dissertation, different terms are used to describe the way students
receive information to help them in their decision-making process. For example, the
terms career coaching and career counseling may be used synonymously. Thompson and
Richmond (2006), describe coaching as dialogue that is ongoing between the coach and
the coached to discuss opportunities and performance as they apply to the situation.
Coaching is an evaluative process that requires two way communication and feedback.
In comparison, counseling and career counseling are viewed similarly to
coaching. Super described the relationship between career counseling, counseling and
psychotherapy as a, “complex, intertwining, overlapping, interlocking combination that
defies characterization,” (1993, p.132). Career counseling is also described a specific
type of personal counseling similar to marriage counseling, family counseling, and other
specialties (Subich, 1994). As a personal type of counseling, career counseling models,
suggested by Savickas, state a personalized, individualized approach is best (as cited in
Subich, 1994).
When college students are concerned, research has shown they do not distinguish
between the terms coaching and counseling (Shy & Waehler, 2009). The study consisted
of college students’ expectations about receiving psychological services when the
psychological services were presented using different terminology, such as the terms
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
47
coaching and counseling. Of the 192 college age students, the researchers found there
was no difference in students distinguishing between experiences in a coaching condition,
or in a counseling condition. The study supports the claim by Vogel and Wester (2003),
that the terms coaching and counseling can be used interchangeably. The study by Shy &
Waehler (2009) concluded that college age students’ view counseling and coaching as
one in the same.
Career coaching and the critical science approach. According to the research,
the critical science approach has potential to help assist with perennial problem solving.
If employment is considered a perennial problem, the critical science approach can be
utilized to help with the problem. First, the critical science approach can be applied to
three human interests by asking questions that are classified in three actions, technical,
interpretive and emancipatory. “What should be done about employment of today’s
college graduates”? is an example of a perennial problem that can be critically thought
about by using the critical science approach and applying three types of questions. For
example, a technical question in career coaching might be, “What actions are necessary
to obtain employment”? An example of an interpretive question could be, “What is
employment and what does it mean to be employed”? Finally, emancipatory questions
are deeper in nature and seek to examine beliefs. For example, “What are my beliefs
about employment and from where did these thoughts come” (Montgomery, 2008)? In
career coaching, it is important to ask these types of questions to help students critically
think through their decision-making process. Next, the critical science approach contains
communicative action, which goes hand-in-hand with the person-centered counseling.
According to Vincenti and Smith (2004), students in the learning process for their career
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
48
may need the guidance of others with experience to help them think deeply on their own.
The final component to the critical science approach is moral consciousness where
students have greater potential to enhance their human potential if a moral decision is
made (Vincenti & Smith, 2004). For example, a student who lies on his resume in order
to look qualified for employment may suffer long-term consequences. Utilization of the
critical science approach may lead to critical thinking about his career, including the
emancipatory decision to pursue a career, however, if the moral consciousness is not
present when ethically applying to jobs, negative consequences could follow. For
example, if the employer exposes the lie, the student could lose his job. The employer
may also inform similar employers about the lie preventing him from gaining a different
job resulting in unemployment and potential poverty. In addition to consequences for the
individual, a ripple affect of consequences may occur for the family, and possibly others
close to the individual.
Vocational Self-Efficacy
Career coaches, career researchers, career practitioners, and FCS Education
teachers, who focus on occupational preparation, often keep up with the constantly
changing career trends, resources and outcomes. Individuals who will make up the future
of the workforce are constantly needing to reinvent their style of work in order to adapt to
things such as: Globalization, the internet, downsizing, outsourcing and other elements
that are revolutionizing the work force (Herr, 2013). In regard to students transitioning
from school to the workforce, it can be particularly difficult because of the above listed
elements. Taylor (1985) goes on to explain that the transition from school to work can be
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
49
paralyzing to students due to lack of occupational knowledge and vocational
crystallization. Students with high self-esteem tend to make decisions regarding their jobs
based on how their personal characteristics fit with the characteristics of the job
according to vocational research. However, on the flipside, students with low self-esteem
will make decisions on their job that are not consistent with their own perceived
characteristics and the characteristics of the job (Piasentin & Chapman, 2006). In a
related study, Sutton et al. (2011) experienced the same behaviors in students regarding
their self-efficacy. Students, who had higher self-efficacy, when presented with a
challenge, worked harder and put in greater effort to overcome the challenge. Conversely,
students with lower self-efficacy put in less effort to overcome the challenge (Sutton et
al., 2011).
Confidence in the decision-making process involves many different components.
One such component is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy in the career decision-making process
is defined as the belief in one's ability to successfully carry out career related duties
(Taylor & Betz, 1983). If a student goes into a job knowing what is expected of him or
her, the likelihood for engagement is greater (Harter & Rath, 2010). Research conducted
on retired adults who continue to engage in life-long learning point to significant levels of
self-efficacy in their previous employment, therefore influencing their need to continue to
learn post-employment (Salter, 2011). According to Salter (2011), self-efficacy is defined
as an individual’s set of beliefs regarding their ability to perform a task. Albert Bandura
(1998) takes a broad approach in defining self-efficacy stating people have a set of beliefs
about their abilities to produce effects. In order to produce these effects, one must process
a set of elements including cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective processes
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
50
(Bandura, 1998). Self-efficacy is determined by each individual and determines at what
level an individual performs when taking on a specific task. The definitions of self-
efficacy, as listed above, are related in the fact that each definition breaks down self-
efficacy into the ability to perform a task or duty to produce effects.
Students have limitless knowledge at their fingertips, but without actual
experience, they are unable to fully comprehend occupational knowledge. Finding a
quality mentor is one-way students can gain occupational knowledge. According to
Banks (2010), having a mentor is a wonderful way for students to receive enhanced
vocational experience, as well as skill development. Interestingly enough, peer to peer
mentoring is also a valid way for students to receive career coaching (Pickering, 1984).
There are many ways students can be mentored, but students can often times find a
mentor through service learning projects, which may expose them to different
occupations and vocational skills. Service learning can also provide added benefits of
potential college credits, and a deeper appreciation for the work involved (Banks, 2010).
Bandura (1998) provides support for the mentoring philosophy, which would be an
approach to increase beliefs about positive self-efficacy. Social modeling also can
produce higher levels of self-efficacy through connecting to others who have similar
dispositions, personalities and work ethics. In the same token, a mentor who loses
confidence, or fails at their task can also carry over feelings to the mentee who might
develop lower self-efficacy regarding the task. Experience in the workplace, and having
knowledge of an occupation can build confidence levels in students, but the most
effective way to produce high self-efficacy is mastery experience. (Bandura, 1998). In
contrast, without sound knowledge of an occupation in which students search, the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
51
confidence level in finding that specific occupation has the potential to be weakened. Not
only are the students’ confidence levels diminished, but lacking specific knowledge, the
time and efficiency it takes to find an occupation is also elongated (Taylor, 1985).
Similarly, Bandura (1998) states that individuals who possess self-doubt, or low self-
efficacy will often shy away from attempting challenges or tasks. Challenges or tasks in
the workplace may even be viewed as personal threats to people with low self-efficacy.
They have low intrinsic motivation to accomplish tasks, and will often times dwell on
their deficiencies and make excuses as to why the task cannot be completed. For
example, students who have low self-efficacy in their abilities related to their education,
the job search is a daunting task. Their focus on the negative, and dwelling on their
weaknesses can inhibit them from being truly great. Students with low self-efficacy give
up quickly when a task is too difficult or challenging (Bandura, 1998). Interestingly
enough, Bandura (1998) states that students who are highly efficacious, but fail at a task
view their failure as a lack of effort, whereas, students who are inefficacious view their
failures as lacking the ability to get the task completed.
Vocational crystallization, as Taylor (1985) refers to it, can help predict future
success when searching for and obtaining a job. Once students have a sound concept in
their own skills and abilities, the job search can be strengthened. For example, if students
combine their occupational knowledge and their mentoring experience with knowledge of
skills and abilities, they can put this knowledge to use while reading job descriptions and
marketing themselves in job interviews (Taylor, 1985). The end result of occupation
knowledge and vocational crystallization can increase the probability of students
receiving offers after interviewing for a job. Ultimately, the greater the knowledge of the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
52
occupation and the more crystalized students are in themselves, the greater the potential
is for students accepting job offers (Taylor, 1985). To help refine vocational
crystallization, Savickas (2011) writes about students constructing their career path
through the analogy of actors, agents, and authors.
Similar to vocational crystallization, career construction theory can be thought of
as including more than just the student in the career decision-making process, as in the
vocational crystallization process. In career construction theory, the student can be
thought of as the actor and the career coach is thought of as the actor’s agent. The agent
is responsible for listening for a story when the actor is talking about his or her career
decisions. In order to listen for a story, not listen to a story, the agent listens for four
components. First, the agent listens for concern of the job search process and for an
understanding of what needs to be done. Second, is there a sense of control, on behalf of
the actor, on what types of activities need to be performed? Third, the agent listens for
questions of curiosity on behalf of the actor and what needs to be initiated to start the job
search process. Finally, the agent listens for confidence and self-esteem in dealing with
the job search process (Savickas, 2011).
There are many different ways students can gain occupational knowledge and
vocational crystallization. In order to gain occupational knowledge, students have many
resources at their disposal, including, being mentored, internet research, occupational
handbooks, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, observational research, and work
experience to name a few. Vocational crystallization can be strengthened through a few
items listed above, such as work experience, and a mentored opportunity, but can also be
discovered in other ways. There are a multitude of occupational interest inventories on
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
53
the market. Some of the more frequently utilized occupational inventories include the
Strong Interest Inventory and personality assessments, such as the Myers Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) (Tomkovick & Swanson, 2014).
Fundamentally, people need something to do (Harter & Rath, 2010). Even if a
student avoids the career search process, eventually, after graduating college and moving
back home with family, or living at a friend’s house, the job search becomes inevitable.
However, for some students, the job search is underestimated (Harter & Rath, 2010).
Career wellbeing is arguably the most essential part of our lives because of the number of
hours we spend work. Doing something we enjoy can greatly improve other areas of
students’ lives as well, such as fitness, financial stability, community involvement and
social circles (Harter & Rath, 2010). Taking a job for a paycheck for example where a
student's strengths are not involved can greatly diminish the previous stated areas of life
(Harter & Rath, 2010). On the other hand, if a student takes a job based on consistent,
near perfect, everyday performance, (Anderson & Clifton, 2002), the level of engagement
on the job tends to increase, therefore leading to a thriving work environment (Harter &
Rath, 2010).
Richard Bolles, author of What Color is Your Parachute, stated, "Don't go get a
degree because you think that will guarantee you a job" (Bolles, 2007). Often times if
students are in the beginning stages of student development and they do not have a firm
grasp of who they are and what their strengths are, the students may have the tendency
upon graduation to just take jobs based on a degree. For example, a finance student may
graduate with a finance degree, and seek an occupation in finance. The student’s skills
and knowledge may be in finance, but her talents and strengths may be building
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
54
relationships, and if that finance job is crunching numbers all day not relating to anyone,
the student has the potential to be frustrated on the job.
Another scenario seen today among career professionals, in career coaching
sessions are the students who think they are entitled to a job because they have a degree
(Bolles, 2007). If a student takes a job purely based on her degree without taking into
consideration her strengths, eventually, as the student gains experience, knowledge of
strengths, and a sense of purpose, the student will often times change jobs if there is no
utilization of strengths on the job (Bolles, 2007). Most people change careers three to five
times during a lifetime so there are good chances for students to get their career decisions
correct (Bolles, 2007). However, for the purpose of this study, the optimal career
counseling action is intentionally incorporating strengths development, through person-
centered coaching, early in a student's college career to develop confidence in the
decision-making process.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
55
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Overview of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between graduating
seniors and graduate students and their confidence in their first destination career
decision-making process. As federal legislation grows increasingly more specific
towards higher education outcomes, colleges and universities are being held more
accountable in making sure their students are more prepared for making their career
decisions upon graduation. The concern exists regarding confidence levels in students
regarding their first destination employment. According to the National Association of
Colleges and Employers (NACE) First-Destination Survey, with over 200 colleges and
universities participating and over 274,000 bachelor degreed students represented in the
survey, over 60 percent of college graduates were employed at graduation. Nearly 17
percent of 2014 college graduates chose to continue their education by going to graduate
or professional school (Koc, 2015). According to the NACE Outcomes Survey, college
students who chose a specific area of study with a career oriented emphasis were more
likely to find employment upon graduation versus students who chose a major in the
liberal arts and sciences who were more likely to attend graduate or professional school
(Koc, 2015).
Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
Research Question 1 What is the relationship of strengths self-efficacy and confidence in decision-making upon first destination employment?
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
56
Research Question 2 What is the relationship of satisfaction with individual, person-
centered career coaching and confidence in decision-making upon first destination employment?
Research Question 3 Is the combination of strengths self-efficacy and individual,
person-centered career coaching related to five aspects of career planning confidence?
Research Question 4 Is there a significant difference in confidence in decision-making
between those who received individual, person-centered career coaching and those who did not?
Dependent & Independent Variables
The dependent variable in the study was confidence in decision-making upon first
destination employment. Confidence in decision-making, or lack thereof, can be
attributed to many things for a student transitioning from being a student to a full-time
professional. However, for the purposes of this study, two independent variables were
measured to determine if a student’s confidence increases when making decisions on
their first destination employment. The dependent variable, confidence in decision-
making upon first destination employment was measured using the Career Planning
Confidence Scale (CPCS) developed by Pickering, Calliotte, and McAuliffe (1991).
Two independent variables were used in this analysis: the use of
StrengthsFinder™, and person-centered career coaching. Knowledge of strength other
than StrengthsFinder™ and career coaching other than person-centered career coaching
serve as the control variables in the study.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
57
Instruments
For this study, three separate instruments were combined and presented to
subjects as one instrument. The first six questions on the instrument (Appendix G) were
knowledge questions asking the respondents if they have knowledge of taking
StrengthsFinder™, receiving career coaching, a combination of both, a combination of
neither, where they received career coaching, and if they made a career decision.
Measures of the independent variables regarding person-centered coaching were
found in questions seven through 10 using the definition of Carl Roger’s Person-Centered
therapeutic approach, and were measured using a Likert Type scale ranging from 1-5
strongly disagree to strongly agree. Confidence in career decision-making based on
person-centered career coaching was measured using adapted questions from Factors
Involved in the Employment Decision-making Process questionnaire (Batastini, Bolanos,
& Morgan, 2014). These four questions measured to what degree they experienced
person-centered career coaching using a Likert Type scale ranging from 1-5 strongly
disagree to strongly agree.
The next grouping of 16 questions consisted of questions regarding knowledge
and attitudes regarding StrengthsFinder™ and their results. The Strengths Self-Efficacy
Scale (SSES) was utilized to find out an individual’s perceptions of the strengths,
including two subscales measuring application of strengths and building of strengths. The
Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES), developed by Shane Lopez from the Gallup
Organization, measured how individuals perceived their StrengthsFinder™ results.
Researchers and practitioners gauged how individuals perceived their strengths, and how
they use them in everyday life. The scale contained 16 items and two factors. The first 11
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
58
items measured the individual’s perceived application of strength. The next five items
pertained to strengths building. According to the manuscript, the SSES contains high
internal consistency coefficients for both factors and overall scores. Using Cronbach’s alpha
each factor contained high internal coefficient reliability at (α = .97). Factor 1, application
of strength scored (α = .96), and factor 2, strengths building scored (α = .91). The two
factors strongly correlated at a (α = .85) (Lopez, 2009).
The Career Planning Confidence Scale (CPCS) developed by Pickering, Calliotte,
and McAuliffe (1991) was utilized for the research and took less than 10 minutes to
complete. The instrument contained 39 objects and includes six scales. The scales
included readiness to make a career decision, self-assessment, generating options,
information seeking, deciding and implementing a decision. The overall internal
consistency of the instrument’s 39 items, using Cronbach’s Alpha was α= 0.96. The
CPCS showed internal consistency reliability, which ranged from α= 0.81 for Readiness
Confidence to α= 0.92 for Implementation Confidence. The scales of the CPCS have shown
a significant correlation with self-esteem (ranging from r = .33 to r = .47), generalized
indecisiveness (ranging from r = .34 to r = .50), decidedness (ranging from r = .20 to r =
.39), vocational identity (ranging from r =.31 to r = .46), and goal instability (ranging from r
= .20 to r = .38) (Pickering, Calliotte & McAuliffe, 1991).
Utilizing Cronbach’s Alpha, each of the instrument scales was analyzed and
received good to excellent reliabilities. The reliability statistic for Satisfaction with
Career Coaching was .847, and based on standardized items it was .858 at n = 4. The
reliability statistic for the Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale was .957, and based on
standardized items it was .958 at n = 16. In regard to the Career Planning Confidence
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
59
Scale (CPCS) and all of its subscales, the reliability statistic was .960, and with
standardized items it was .962 at n = 36. This reliability score was consistent with the
reliability score in the research conducted by Pickering, Calliotte and McAuliffe (1991).
Subsequently, each of the CPCS subscales were also analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha.
The Readiness to Make a Career Decision scored a .829, with standardized items at .836
at n = 3. The Self-Assessment subscale scored a .836, with standardized items at a .837 at
n = 5. The Information Seeking subscale scored a .915, with standardized items at .916 at
n = 7. The Deciding reliability score was a .908 with standardized items scoring a .910 at
n = 11. Finally, the Implementing Your Decision subscale came in at .916 with
standardized items at .920 at n = 10.
The final four questions of the survey were for demographic purposes only. A
pilot study, including 10 students, provided feedback at separate times. The pilot study
groups consisted of student assistants who worked in the University Career Center at the
time. The two groups of students made suggestions including instrument organization, item
construction, clarity of instructions, and ease of completion and timing. My purpose was to
confirm the items were constructed appropriately for the population taking the instrument,
and to determine the time involved to complete the survey. The students confirmed face
validity after adjustments were made to the directions for how to complete the instrument.
Because of the makeup of these two groups, it was also possible to have face validity of the
items because of their experience in career services.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
60
Participants
Participants for the study included Texas Tech University students specifically,
seniors, and graduate students, as long as they were making decisions for their first
destination employment and had not previously held a professional position after their
undergraduate degree. The research focus was on StrengthsFinder™ and person-centered
career coaching, and included seniors and graduate students who may have participated
in StrengthsFinder™, person-centered coaching, or a combination of the two, or not
participated in either of the two variables. Students who chose to attend graduate school
instead of seeking full-time employment upon graduation were not included in the study.
Seniors and graduate students who graduated in May 2016, August 2016, or who
would graduate in December 2016 were included in the study. Alumni, freshmen,
sophomore, and junior students were automatically eliminated from the analysis of the
data. The demographics of all the respondents are listed below (Table 3.1). The
distribution of gender was fairly equally distributed with 41.8% male and 58.2% female
of the 122 respondents. The majority of the respondents who participated in the study
were Caucasian with 74.6%. The average age of the respondents was 24.06. Of the
respondents, 78.7% were seniors and 11.5% were graduate students. The remaining
percentage of respondents included sophomores and juniors who completed the survey
online. Separate demographics were analyzed to identify just the sample of respondents
used in the canonical correlation analysis (CCA). The percentages between t-test Group
(n = 122) and the CCA Group (n = 78) were consistent with each other resulting in little
variance between the two groups.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
61
Table 3.1 Demographics of participants t-test Group CCA Group (n = 122) (n = 78) n % mean SD n % mean SD Age 24.06 6.03 22.97 3.56 Classification Freshman 0 0 0 0 Sophomore 5 4.1 2 2.6 Junior 7 5.7 5 6.4 Senior 96 78.7 63 80.8 Graduate 14 11.5 9 11.5 Ethnicity White 91 74.6 58 74.4 Hispanic/Latino 20 16.4 14 17.9 Black/African-American 6 4.9 4 5.1 Native American/American Indian 2 1.6 2 2.6 Asian/Pacific Islander 2 1.6 0 0 Other (half White/half Hispanic) 1 0.8 0 0 International 0 0 0 0 Gender Male 51 41.8 38 48.7 Female 71 58.2 40 51.3
Table 3.2 notes the participation by respondents and their respective college they
indicated. The College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources had the largest
participation with 29 students, or 23.8%. Architecture included 11 respondents at 9%.
Arts & Sciences included 25 respondents at 20.5%. Business included 11 respondents at
9%. Education only included one respondent at .8%. Engineering had 13 respondents at
10.7%. The Graduate School included 2 respondents who were eligible for the study at
1.6%. The Honors College had one respondent at .8%. The College of Human Sciences
included 13 respondents at 10.7%. The College of Media and Communication had 9
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
62
respondents at 7.4%. Finally, the College of Visual and Performing Arts included 7
respondents at 5.7%.
Table 3.2 Demographics by College (n = 122) n % Agricultural Sciences 29 23.8 Architecture 11 9 Arts & Sciences 25 20.5 Business 11 9 Education 1 .8 Engineering 13 10.7 Graduate School 2 1.6 Honors 1 .8 Human Sciences 13 10.7 Media and Communication 9 7.4 Visual and Performing Arts 7 5.7
Table 3.3 notes the GPA’s of the respondents. Nine respondents, or 7.4% carried
a 4.0 GPA. The majority of the respondents, 41.8%, had between a 3.5 to 3.99 GPA. The
second largest group carried a 3.0 to 3.49 GPA at 30.3%. Respondents who carried a 2.5
to 2.99 GPA represent 13.9% of the respondents. Rounding out the group with a 2.0 to a
2.4 GPA, eight students, or 6.6% of respondents.
Table 3.3 GPA (n = 122) n % 4.0 9 7.4 3.5 to 3.99 51 41.8 3.0 to 3.49 37 30.3 2.5 to 2.99 17 13.9 2.0 to 2.49 8 6.6
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
63
Data cleaning to determine final sample. In preparing the analysis, a process
was used to clean the data to determine an accurate participation score. During the period
of time data was collected, 184 respondents logged in to the software program, Qualtrics,
to take the online survey. In order to determine whether or not a student was eligible to
participate in the analysis, Q1 was asked as a “yes” “no” question based on full-time
work experience. Not all of the data was used in the analysis due to this question (Table
3.4). If the respondent answered “yes” to having worked full-time in a position that
required a baccalaureate degree, the survey automatically ended. A total of 122
respondents answered “no” to Q1 making them eligible to participate in the research
study. There were 57 respondents who answered “yes” to Q1 deeming them ineligible.
There were also five respondents who did not complete the survey, and therefore their
responses were thrown out of the analysis. A total of 184 respondents took the survey,
with 122 (66.3%) who answered “no” to having worked full-time in a position requiring a
baccalaureate degree, and 57 (31%) who answered “yes” to having worked full-time,
therefore were determined to be ineligible for the study. This left 122 usable cases.
Table 3.4 Results of Q1 to determine eligibility to participate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 122 66.3 68.2 68.2
Yes 57 31.0 31.8 100.0 Total 179 97.3 100.0
Missing System 5 2.7 Total 184 100.0
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
64
Questions eight through 11 regarding satisfaction with career coaching included
“Not Applicable” as an answer choice, which was, coded a zero rather than a six to
determine an accurate satisfaction score for participants. Questions 12-1 through 12-16,
regarding Strengths Self-Efficacy, were added to give each participant a combined
Strengths Self-Efficacy score. For the Career Planning Confidence Scale (CPCS), score
within each subscale were added to give each participant a score for each subscale. These
questions included 13-1 through 13-3, Readiness to Make Career Decision Subscale
(Readiness), Q14-1 through Q14-5, Self-Assessment Subscale (Self-Assessment), Q15-1
through Q15-7, Information Seeking (Info-Seeking), Q16-1 through Q16-11, Deciding
(Deciding), and Q17-1 through Q17-10 Implementing Your Decision (Implement
Decision). Though only 42 participants reported receiving person-centered coaching
(Table 3.5), 78 have a “Satisfaction with Career Coaching” score. Therefore, the
remaining 44 of the 122 were not used for the canonical correlation analysis.
Table 3.5 Discussion of career through person-centered coaching Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid
Yes 42 34.4 34.4 34.4 No 80 65.6 65.6 100.0 Total 122 100.0 100.0
A new data file was formed with the usable cases. Final sample size is n = 78 for
the canonical correlation. This data file will be used for further analysis.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
65
Procedures
Fliers containing a QR code and a tiny URL were distributed to the students,
faculty and advisors to participate in the study (Appendix E). A TechAnnounce message
(Appendix C) was also used to solicit participants for the study. Recruitment fliers were
distributed to each College at Texas Tech University in order to stratify the sample. The
rationale for using a sample of students from every college at Texas Tech University was
because of the overall mission of the FCS Education program, which is to help
individuals and families enhance their wellbeing. Even though seniors and graduate
students were included from every college, the foundation of this research is based out of
the College of Human Sciences in the Family and Consumer Sciences Education
department. If students chose to participate in the online survey, their identity was
confidential and they could choose to stop participation at any time. The online survey,
developed in Qualtrics, took approximately six to 10 minutes to complete.
The original recruitment flier yielded 179 results. In order to recruit more
respondents to the survey, permission was asked and granted through the Provost’s office
to survey graduating students at each of the graduation ceremonies. 2,500 modified fliers
(Appendix F) were printed and 1,100 fliers at a time were placed on the individual chairs
in the auxiliary gym at the United Supermarkets Arena for each of the four graduations.
Unfortunately, the effort to gain additional respondents resulted in an additional five. A
database of over 50,000 students who have accessed a unique ID code for
StrengthsFinder™ exists, but was not used for recruiting respondents to eliminate
researcher influence.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
66
Analysis
Canonical correlation was the preferred method of analysis for this study because
this study measured one single concept, confidence in decision-making, but includes
multidimensional factors. Canonical correlation describes multiple sets of sub-factors,
and how they correlate with each other. When a situation requires simultaneous
assessment of the relationship between two variables, such as this study, canonical
correlation can be described in general as an extension of multivariate analysis
(McLaughlin & Otto, 1981).
To be more precise, canonical correlation stems from the general linear model and
provides more robust detail, and shares many of the same analysis characteristics of other
multivariate statistical techniques, meaning there is an assumption the variables are
measured at the interval level. In addition to measuring the variables at the interval level,
the relationships are linear among the variables. The overall goal is to account for as
much variance in the variables as possible. Another defense in support of canonical
correlation along with other general linear models is that canonical correlation is very
robust in nature and shares many of the same characteristics as multiple correlation,
regression and factor analysis (McLaughlin & Otto, 1981).
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
67
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Overview of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between graduating
seniors and graduate students and their confidence in their first destination career
decision-making process. As federal legislation grows increasingly more specific
towards higher education outcomes, colleges and universities are being held more
accountable in making sure their students are more prepared for making their career
decisions upon graduation. The concern exists regarding confidence levels in students
regarding their first destination employment. According to the National Association of
Colleges and Employers (NACE) First-Destination Survey, with over 200 colleges and
universities participating and over 274,000 bachelor degreed students represented in the
survey, over 60 percent of college graduates were employed at graduation. Nearly 17
percent of 2014 college graduates chose to continue their education by going to graduate
or professional school (Koc, 2015). According to the NACE Outcomes Survey, college
students who chose a specific area of study with a career oriented emphasis were more
likely to find employment upon graduation versus students who chose a major in the
liberal arts and sciences who were more likely to attend graduate or professional school
(Koc, 2015).
Results
Research question one identified the relationship of strengths self-efficacy and
confidence in decision-making upon first destination employment. The correlation (r =
.58, p < .01) was significant and accounted for 33.64% of the variance in decision-
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
68
making. Research question two identified the relationship of satisfaction with individual,
person-centered career coaching and confidence in decision-making upon first destination
employment. Even though a significant correlation existed, the correlation was a weak
one at (r = .05, p > .05), resulting in 0.25% of the variance. During the planning stages of
this research project, the question was asked if the combination of person-centered career
coaching and strengths self-efficacy would be correlated with confidence in career
decision-making. Research question three identified the combination of strengths self-
efficacy and individual, person-centered career coaching related to five aspects of career
planning confidence. Only the strengths self-efficacy variable was significant indicating a
relationship in the variable sets (see Table 4.3). However, the full model explains 59%
(1-.41 = .59) of the variance shared between set 1, which was the strengths self-efficacy
variable, and set 2 which are the five Career Planning Confidence variables, which
include Readiness, Self-Assessment, Information Seeking, Deciding, and Implementing
Decision. Finally, research question four determined if there was a significant difference
in confidence in decision-making between those who received individual, person-
centered career coaching and those who did not. In an independent samples t-test, results
indicated no significant difference in career decision-making existed between the two
groups (t(118) = -.167, p = .867).
Canonical correlation analysis. Bivariate correlations between the independent
variables, satisfaction with career coaching and strengths self-efficacy, and the subscales
of the CPCS are displayed in Table 4.1. A canonical correlation analysis was conducted
to test the multivariate shared relationship between satisfaction with person-centered
career coaching and strengths self-efficacy (set 1) and the five Career Planning
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
69
Confidence variables (set 2) which include Readiness, Self-Assessment, Information
Seeking, Deciding, and Implementing Decision. Two functions were revealed with
respective squared canonical correlations (Rc2) of .56 and .08. Only the first function,
which represents the full model across both functions, was significant (λ = .41, F(10,
142) = 8.01, p = .000), indicating a relationship between the two variable sets. In
utilizing Wilks’ λ as a measure of unexplained variance, 1 – λ gives an r2 type estimation
of the full model effect size. Therefore, in terms of an r2 type of effect size, the full model
explains 59% (1-.41 = .59) of the variance shared between set 1 and set 2 variables.
Table 4.1 Pearson’s r correlations among research variables Independent Variables R SA IS D ID Satisfaction w/Career Coaching -.046 .167 .064 .050 .206 Strengths Self-Efficacy .580** .664** .591** .576** .641** Note: R: Readiness; SA: Self-Assessment; IS: Information Seeking; D: Deciding; ID: Implementing Decision *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
The dimension reduction analysis allows the researcher to test the hierarchal
organization of functions for statistical significance. As noted earlier, the full model
(Functions 1 to 2) was statistically significant. Function 2 was not statistically significant
with a significance value of p = .191 (see Table 4.2). Therefore, it was not necessary to
interpret both functions. Only the first function was interpreted.
Table 4.2 Dimension reductions for the two function hierarchies Function Hierarchies Wilks’s λ F(df1, df2) p 1 to 2 .41 8.01 (10, 142) .000 2 to 2 .92 1.57 (4, 72) .191
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
70
The standardized canonical function coefficients, structure coefficients, and
squared structure coefficients for the first function are presented in Table 4.3. In using the
correlation of .30 as the recommended minimum value for inclusion (Lambert & Durand,
1975) the set 2 variables of Readiness, Information Seeking, and Deciding, due to their
small standardized canonical coefficients, appear to contribute little to the first function.
A strong case could be made for the inclusion of Implementing Decision as this
coefficient approaches .30. However, all of the Career Planning Confidence variables
made relevant contributions to the synthetic Career Planning Confidence variable as
evidenced by their structure coefficients, with Self-Assessment making the largest
contribution. This is further supported by the squared structure coefficients, with all
variables making a decent contribution to the synthetic Career Planning Confidence
variable.
Table 4.3 Canonical solution for Satisfaction and Strengths Self-Efficacy predicting Career Planning Confidence (CPC) for function 1 Set 2 Variables Coef rs rs
rs2 = squared structure coefficient; * = loadings with effect sizes greater than .30
Satisfaction with Career Coaching showed a low standardized canonical
coefficient among the set 1 variables, while Strengths Self-Efficacy carried the majority
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
71
of the load. The variables show consistency in their structure coefficients, with Strengths
Self-Efficacy providing the main contribution to the synthetic set 1 variable. Variables
with low structure coefficients but relatively larger standardized coefficients are said to
be suppressor variables, meaning that they help support the relationship between the two
synthetic variables by way of their correlations with other variables in their own set
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Since Satisfaction with Career Coaching in set 1 shows a
structure coefficient considerably less than .30, but also a negligible standardized
canonical coefficient, this variable does not appear to have served as a suppressor
variable. Further, the squared structure coefficients show that only Strengths Self-
Efficacy contributed significantly to the synthetic set 1 variable, explaining the majority
of the variance.
As a collective whole, the results indicate the presence of a relationship between
the set 1 variables of Satisfaction with Career Coaching and Strengths Self-Efficacy, and
the set 2 variables of Career Planning Confidence. In regard to the other four subscales,
readiness, self-assessment, information seeking and implementing decisions, included in
the CPCS, each one was a statistically significant result.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
72
Tests of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity.
Typically, multivariate statistics require tests of normality, however canonical correlation
analysis (CCA) does not require multivariate normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pg.
570). To assure greater accuracy of the analysis, and because inference of the analysis
relies on normality, multivariate normality testing occurred. In this regard, SPSS does not
support multivariate normality testing; therefore simple tests for normality were
conducted on each variable. Normality tests of skewness and kurtosis revealed that all
variables had acceptable normal distribution, which leads to the likelihood that
multivariate normality also exists (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pg. 571).
Satisfaction -.173
Strengths Self-‐Efficacy
-‐.998*
Readiness -.795*
Implementing Decision -.853*
Self-‐Assessment
-.888*
Info Seeking -.798*
Deciding -.779*
Synthetic Predictor
Synthetic Criterion
(Rc)=.745 Canonical Correlation
Set 2 Criterion Set 1 Predictor
Figure 4.1 Illustrates the synthetic variables of the canonical correlation at (Rc)=.745
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
73
Based on their acceptable levels of skewness, the variables of Satisfaction with
Career Coaching and Strengths Self-Efficacy were the most likely to be deviate. Tests of
linearity and homoscedasticity (bivariate scatterplots obtained through linear regression)
were also conducted. No violations of the assumptions were indicated by the results.
Linearity and homoscedasticity tests were run on these variables first because they were
part of the same variable set resulting in acceptable levels. The second level of linearity
and homoscedasticity tests were run on the CPCS subscales Implementing Decision and
Self-Assessment because of their acceptable levels of slight skewness. The test resulted
in a slight deviation from homoscedasticity but still at acceptable levels. The test of
linearity was also acceptable on each of the variables.
Multicollinearity was a possibility in this analysis; therefore, a separate test for
multicollinearity was run, in addition to tests of linearity and homoscedasticity.
Multicollinearity was assessed using bivariate correlation analysis, resulting in
correlations between variables in the acceptable range (r <.90, T&F, 2007, pg. 89),
indicating no multicollinearity is present. Once all the tests for normality, linearity and
homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity were run with acceptable results, a canonical
correlation was conducted using the variable set of Satisfaction with Career Coaching and
Strengths Self-Efficacy as the predictor set and the CPCS with its five subscales as the
criterion set.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
74
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides discussion of this research study including a summary of
the study, discussion of findings, implications, limitations, and recommendations.
Summary of Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of career decision-
making upon first destination employment specifically in regard to individual, person-
centered career coaching and strength development. According to NACE, approximately
60% of graduating college students report being employed upon graduation as of 2014.
As federal legislation grows increasingly more specific towards higher education
outcomes, colleges and universities are being held more accountable in making sure their
students are more prepared for making their career decisions upon graduation. The
concern exists regarding confidence levels in students regarding their first destination
employment. According to the NACE Outcomes Survey, college students who chose a
specific area of study with a career oriented emphasis were more likely to find
employment upon graduation versus students who chose a major in the liberal arts and
sciences who were more likely to attend graduate or professional school (Koc, 2015).
A major concern among university administrators and faculty, career services
professionals, parents, and graduating seniors is whether or not graduates are finding
gainful employment upon graduation. An area of specific concern is finding gainful
employment in the field of study from which the students are graduating. The U.S.
Department of Education has stated that an area that needs to be addressed is the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
75
regulation within university career education programs to prepare students for gainful
employment. An example could be a particular career certification program, or specific
areas of study within the university (Cooper, 2010).
This study examined the relationships between individual person-centered career
coaching and strengths self-efficacy in regard to confidence in career decision-making.
The study utilized a validated measure developed by Pickering, McAuliffe, and Calliotte
titled the Career Planning Confidence Scale (CPCS). In addition to the CPCS, questions
were adapted from the Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES), and Factors Involved in the
Employment Decision-making Process questionnaire utilized to measure relationships
around career decision-making and person-centered coaching.
In the early 1980’s researchers Taylor and Betz (1983) defined career decision-
making self-efficacy as an individual’s belief that he/she can carry out tasks necessary in
the career decision-making process. Because of its importance to the career decision-
making process, as well as career interventions, career decision-making self-efficacy has
garnered large volumes of research in the area of career in recent decades (Betz &
Paulsen, 2004). Throughout 30 years of career research, Betz (2004, 1992) found a
significant relationship between self-efficacy expectations and the influence that those
self-efficacy expectations play in career choice, performance, and persistence on the job.
In order to assist an individual with their self-efficacy, the Gallup Organization
developed a program to identify a student's strengths called StrengthsQuest. The
StrengthsQuest program is used to help individuals identify their talents and strengths.
Accompanying the online assessment are resources and suggestions to develop individual
strengths. The outcome of StrengthsFinder ™ is a student's top five talents, which then
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
76
can be developed into strengths with career coaching, and development through
discovery of talent, development of talent, and application of talent (Anderson & Clifton,
2002).
In regard to career counseling, a person-centered approach, developed by Carl
Rogers, is an effective technique. Manuele-Adkins (1992) equates career counseling and
person-centered counseling, stating career counseling is person-centered counseling. In
career counseling, it is important to include the affective side of counseling, including
developmental stages, self-efficacy, and concept of self. What are students going through
in their lives at the time they are looking for a job is a question career counselors often
fail to investigate? Rogers’s hypothesis states when a therapist exhibits the three core
conditions, which are unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence, it is likely
the client will see a change in their self-efficacy (Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005).
Career development continues to be an important issue on university campuses.
Aspects of society including technology, a global economy, a changing population and an
evolving workforce makes the challenge of helping students make strategic and confident
career choices more important than ever (Brown & Isaacson, 2000). Career professionals
who work in Career Services offices, or who play a role in career education programs,
face challenges such as, dissemination of information, utilization by students of the career
services, and facilitation of positive career choices among students (Brown & Isaacson,
2000).
Utilizing a University wide email system called TechAnnounce, as well as printed
fliers, (n = 184) students logged in to Qualtrics to take the online survey. Of the 184
students, only a portion provided usable data for the canonical correlation analysis, which
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
77
was the preferred method for analysis. Texas Tech University students (n = 78) were used
for the canonical correlation analysis. Texas Tech University students (n = 122) were
used with a t-test as well in order to examine relationships between the variables that
could not be measured using canonical correlation.
Canonical correlation was the preferred method of analysis for this study because
of the two variables containing multiple sub-factors. Because this study measured one
single concept, confidence in decision-making, but includes multidimensional factors,
canonical correlation was the ideal method of analysis for this study. In order to describe
multiple sets of sub-factors, and how they correlate with each other, canonical correlation
was able to accomplish this description. When a situation requires simultaneous
assessment of the relationship between two variables, such as this study, canonical
correlation can be described in general as an extension of multivariate analysis
(McLaughlin & Otto, 1981).
Canonical correlation is an extension of the general linear model and provides
more robust detail, and shares many of the same analysis characteristics of other
multivariate statistical techniques, meaning there is an assumption the variables are
measured at the interval level, the relationships are linear among the variables, and the
goal is to account for as much variance in the variables as possible. Another defense in
support of canonical correlation along with other general linear models is that canonical
correlation is very robust in nature and shares many of the same characteristics as
multiple correlation, regression and factor analysis (McLaughlin & Otto, 1981).
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
78
Findings and Discussion
Research question one revealed a statistically significant result in the relationship
of strengths self-efficacy and confidence in decision-making upon first destination
employment. Canonical correlation analysis was the preferred method due to the multiple
variables that included the CPCS subscales. Canonical correlation also decreases the risk
of Type I error occurring, or finding a relationship when a relationship does not actually
occur. The correlation (r = .58, p < .01) was significant and accounted for 33.64% of the
variance in decision-making.
Research question two also resulted in a statistically significant relationship with
the satisfaction with individual, person-centered career coaching and confidence in
decision-making upon first destination employment. Although statistically significant, the
relationship was extremely weak. The potential reasons for the weak correlation could be
due to the many options of which a respondent had to choose. The correlation for
research question two (r = .05, p > .05), resulted in 0.25% of the variance.
Research question three is where the full canonical correlation model found
statistically significant results. The variable of strengths self-efficacy was related to the
five aspects of career planning confidence explaining 59% (1-.41 = .59) of the variance
shared between set 1, which was the strengths self-efficacy variable, and set 2 which are
the five Career Planning Confidence variables which include Readiness, Self-
Assessment, Information Seeking, Deciding, and Implementing Decision, of which all
five were statistically significant. As a collective whole, the results indicate the presence
of a relationship between the set 1 variables of Satisfaction with Career Coaching and
Strengths Self-Efficacy, and the set 2 variables of Career Planning Confidence.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
79
Research question four was written to identify if there was a significant difference
in confidence in decision-making between those who received individual, person-
centered career coaching and those who did not. In an independent samples t-test, results
indicate no significant difference in career decision-making existed between the two
groups (t(118) = -.167, p = .867). Based on the results of the study, a pattern surfaced
regarding the combination of person-centered career coaching and strengths self-efficacy
as related to confidence in career decision-making. The next section will address the
implications of what the results mean for different groups.
Implications
Implications for this research exist for FCS teachers, counselors, advisors, faculty,
and others who work with students on a daily basis to be aware of the information that
exists around utilizing one’s strengths to make confident career decisions. Peer-to-peer
training on behalf of teachers, counselors, advisors, faculty and others indicates a positive
impact to decrease isolation of knowledge and to promote a collaborative language base
to assist students with low self-efficacy in making their career decision (Robbins, 1991).
Because adults spend the majority of their lives at work, it makes sense to work in an
occupation that is engaging and provides a positive wellbeing. If individuals are engaged
in their work and satisfied, the chance they have a positive wellbeing is increased. As
evidenced in this study, discovering and applying personal strengths in the career
decision-making process leads to increased engagement at work.
The American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) mission
statement is “To provide leadership and support for professionals whose work assists
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
80
individuals, families, and communities in making informed decisions about their
wellbeing, relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life.” According to
the AAFCS website (www.aafcs.org),
“Family and consumer sciences (FCS) is the comprehensive body of skills, research, and knowledge that helps people make informed decisions about their wellbeing, relationships, and resources to achieve optimal quality of life. The field represents many areas, including human development, personal and family finance, housing and interior design, food science, nutrition, and wellness, textiles and apparel, and consumer issues.”
In regard to making confident decisions, strengths self-efficacy has a significant
relationship. Therefore, in support of the AAFCS mission, in order to have an optimal
quality of life, making confident decisions based on strengths self-efficacy for one’s
occupation, is a determining factor.
What this means for FCS educators is a need for exploration into training on
strengths self-efficacy and how to become certified. The Gallup Organization provides a
Strengths Educator Certificate program through their Strengths School, which trains
educators year round. AAFCS, NCDA, ACTE, and other organizations should explore
partnering with Gallup on providing broader reaching strengths certification programs.
If action is not taken, continued implications for not exploring strengths
development could have potential economic impact as well. For example, if elementary
and middle school students are not exposed to discovering, developing and applying their
strengths at an early age, they could potentially lack strengths self-efficacy. The lack of
strengths self-efficacy could lead to generations of students who lack the confidence to
choose a major in college, and could also lead to “job hopping” after graduation where a
young professional stays in a job for a year or less. This “job hopping” among college
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
81
graduates will cost employers millions in recruiting and training young professionals
(Thompson, 2013).
Another implication for FCS teachers is to take a Career Development course as
part of their college education to gain the skills and knowledge of the importance of
career literacy and career guidance. Dr. Symonds suggests beginning early with students
in their career exploration, and emphasizing the importance often. He also mentioned the
U.S. education system is deficient in emphasizing the importance of career literacy with
our students (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, (2011). As part of a national
recommendation, FCS teachers should explore career development more in-depth as it
pertains to the future of FCS education. The results of this study scratch the surface into
the potential importance of strengths self-efficacy in regard to confidence in career
decision-making, and FCS educators could be the teachers and coaches to become the
epicenter of expertise on the topic.
Further implications resulting out of the research support the national standards
set forth for the profession of Family and Consumer Sciences. In May 1995, the National
Association of State Administrators for Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS)
developed national standards to celebrate state philosophies and blend diverse education
delivery systems (www.nasafacs.org). Complementing the AAFCS mission statement,
the NASAFACS mission statement provides specific career related visions as well.
According to the NASAFACS website (www.nasafacs.org),
“The mission statement for Family and Consumer Sciences Education, is to prepare students for family life, work life and careers in Family and Consumer Sciences by providing opportunities to develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors needed for: • Strengthening the wellbeing of individuals and families across the life span.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
82
• Becoming responsible citizens and leaders in family, community, and work settings.
• Promoting optimal nutrition and wellness across the life span. • Managing resources to meet the material needs of individuals and families. • Balancing personal, home, family, and work lives. • Using critical and creative thinking skills to address problems in diverse
family, community, and work environments. • Successful life management, employment, and careers development. • Functioning effectively as providers and consumers of goods and services. • Appreciating human worth and accepting responsibility for one's actions and
success in family and work life.” This study provides further validation, and strength, to the mission and vision of the
Family and Consumer Sciences profession by providing research to help classroom
teachers support the learning activities of their students as they research and explore
careers. The research and learning activities support individuals in making confident
career decisions, and should be added to the curriculum in FCS classrooms. A method
FCS teachers at the middle school level could incorporate strengths development is
through the instrument, Strengths Explorer ™, which is geared toward younger students
below the age of 15. Strengths Explorer ™ identifies strengths and provides strengths
development for young students between the ages of 10 and 14.
Further implications effect career counselors as well. Knowing that 39 percent of
American’s utilize career counseling to obtain an occupation, it is important that career
counselors be trained in strengths identification and development in order to help their
clients make better informed career decisions (NCDA, 2000). What this means for career
counselors is the potential to enhance counseling techniques to include strengths
development with their clients. As mentioned in the review of literature, it is easy for a
career counselor to provide a career interest inventory to a client and project potential
occupations based on the inventory results. However, based on the results of this study,
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
83
inclusion of strengths identification and development into a counseling appointment has
potential to enhance confidence in career decision-making. Including strengths training
for career counselors has further implications for employers as well. If the career
counselor can help their clients discover their strengths, as related to the job search, the
hope is that employers will hire candidates who are more confident in their strengths.
According to the Gallup engagement research, employees who are knowledgeable of
their strengths have the potential to be more engaged in their work.
As gainful employment placement rates for graduating seniors gain the attention
of college and university officials, career professionals have a responsibility to help
prepare and develop students in their career search and decision-making processes. As
students develop and mature through their own educational and experiential processes,
not all students are on the same level of development upon graduation. In order to build
the necessary growth and development within students, career counselors should utilize a
combination of techniques to help ensure a positive outcome for students when it comes
to their confidence in decision-making upon their first destination employment.
Challenges facing college students today include technology, a global economy,
the ever-changing work force, and their own self-confidence, which all play a large role
in whether or not students are employed upon graduation. Dissemination of information
also plays a large role in whether or not students take advantage of the services offered to
them. In certain cases it is admissible that some students may not wish to develop their
talents, but rather try to improve their weaknesses. However, over time, research shows
that students, who spend time trying to improve upon an area of weakness, tend to
become average at the task. The bigger implication of trying to improve weaknesses is
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
84
the potential lack of engagement in the job. According to the Q12, if an employee does
not know what is expected of them at work, there is a higher likelihood to disengage in
the job. On the other hand, if students are confident and receive positive career coaching
based on the person-centered approach, there is a greater chance of engagement in their
job because what is expected of them at work most likely aligns with their natural talents.
According to the results of this study, the importance of knowing ones strengths
and having self-efficacy in the job search was statistically significant in regard to making
a confident career decision upon graduation. Students, who receive person-centered
coaching along with discovering their StrengthsFinder ™ results, are more confident in
making their decisions regarding their first destination employment according to the
canonical correlation results. In the long term, my hope is that students will find their first
career more rewarding thus increasing their overall wellbeing. It is estimated people
spend two-thirds of their lives at work, therefore, deciding to take a job based on intrinsic
goals and knowledge of strengths, versus a discipline, or a major just might make people
in the workplace more engaged, effective and efficient.
Limitations
Though the current study identified a significant correlation in strengths self-
efficacy and career decision-making, there were limitations to the study. First, the results
can only be generalizable to the university. The study utilized a relatively small sample of
undergraduate and graduate students from a single university of moderate size. The
utilization of non-direct TechAnnounce emails, and the distribution of fliers for
recruitment to each college placed the responsibility to take the voluntary survey on the
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
85
students. The Internal Review Board (IRB) prohibited direct solicitation through email.
During the time the survey was deployed and recruitment commenced, it was the end of
the semester and it is assumed students were tired of filling out voluntary surveys. An
example of this could be the 4,400 fliers, which were distributed during four
commencements yielding five results. Another reason for the low yield during
commencement was the poor Wi-Fi reception. Students may have chose not to use their
data plan on their mobile device to take the survey. Though the sample yielded a fairly
evenly distributed gender makeup, the sample was predominantly Caucasian
undergraduates. A more broad representation of the student body with more diverse
participation from each college would have strengthened the study.
A second limitation involves the lack of control for other confounding variables.
Even though the canonical correlation indicates the relationship between the two
variables and the subscales, other confounding variables could be present which could be
responsible for the relationship. For example, the satisfaction with person-centered career
coaching offered too many options for students to choose which could have influenced
the self-reported results. In order to control for the person-centered variable, one option,
such as career coaching from the University Career Center, should be utilized to measure
the variable more accurately.
Finally, take into consideration that voluntary, self-report survey data regarding
StrengthsFinder ™ might have influenced the relationship based on the students’
opinions of the assessment. The StrengthsQuest Program at the university has been
ongoing for more than 10 years. Familiarity with the program may contribute to lack of
objectivity on behalf of the students.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
86
Recommendations
Upon completion of this study, numerous options for future research exist.
Replication of this study using a larger, more diverse sample would not only benefit the
university where the research originated, but educators, career services professionals, and
others would also benefit from the information discovered. In addition, future research
possibilities exist to see if similar relationships exist in secondary education students.
Additionally, the collective sample in this study could not be separated for individual
analysis by major. Further recommendations for future studies include analyzing a larger
sample that can be separated into individual fields of study. The larger sample should
include targeted diverse groups of students in order to make the results more
generalizable. Groups such as first generation college students, and multi-cultural groups
should be researched to enhance the study. It is recommended that utilization of support
services such as career coaching and strengths development can assist first generation
students in finding the best fit for a major, as well as getting engaged early with part-time
work experiences and internships.
With the concern of finding gainful employment upon graduation from college,
government officials, parents, administrators, faculty, employers, and students are
interested to see a return on investment. In regard to career decision-making, this research
warrants further exploration into the use of StrengthsFinder™ at universities to allow
students to identify their strengths in order to make more confident decisions regarding
their employment. Essentially, knowing one’s strengths minimizes the guessing when
finding an occupation. It is recommended that students utilize their Career Services
offices, faculty resources, or other departmental resources, to begin the process of
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
87
identifying strengths early in their college career in order to sharpen their awareness and
application of strength for future employment.
In addition to discovery of strengths in the career decision-making process, future
research should include interest inventories and their relationships with confidence in
career decision-making. Does a relationship exist between strengths self-efficacy and a
career interest inventory, such as the Strong Interest Inventory, where career decision-
making confidence is concerned? Future research could include the combination of the
two assessments with freshmen that are undecided on their major. The goal of utilizing
both assessments could allow a freshman student to discover his or her strengths while at
the same time, discovering their interests through the occupational information provided
by the Strong Interest Inventory. In doing so, the implication is that freshmen students
can make a more confident decision on major selection early in their college career in
order to gain skills and experience necessary to make confident career decisions upon
graduation.
A further recommendation is the use of Gestalt theory when counseling students
on their strengths. All students have a natural set of talents, which may or may not have
been developed upon graduation. StrengthsQuest is an assessment program to allow
students to discover, develop and apply those talents in the job search and decision
making process. Ultimately the goal, regardless of students’ degrees, is to allow them to
discover their talents and build their job search to include their strengths in their decision
making process. However, it is not always easy for students to simply take the
StrengthsFinder ™ assessment, read the definitions of their strengths and fully
comprehend and apply the results. Mindfulness technique, based on Gestalt theory of
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
88
counseling, utilized in a person-centered coaching session has potential to allow a student
to think about his or her strengths in present time. In doing so, the individual being
present in the moment with his or her strengths gains the opportunity to discover his or
her talent as it is displayed. For example, if a student does not understand his or her
communication talent, the counselor should ask the student to tell a story. To be more
specific, the story could be about a career, or a job. Through effective story telling, the
individual telling the story may come to their own conclusions regarding their
communication talent, but if they do not, it is important for the career coach to dialogue
with the individual about his or her talent to communicate. Utilization of mindfulness on
behalf of the individual is very impactful in their career coaching session if used
effectively (Toman, 2007).
The recommendation exists for students to utilize their university resources to
discover their strengths, however, an additional recommendation is that university
advising offices, faculty, staff all be trained on strengths identification. Strengths training
could be included at New Faculty Orientation, New Staff Orientation and the Council on
Academic Advising and Retention (CAAR) in order to familiarize new faculty, advisors
and staff of the importance of strengths identification and development.
Further recommendations include the NCDA Career Counseling Competencies,
and Code of Ethics includes strengths identification and development in their next
revision due to the current deficiency in this area. In regard to National Standards for
FCS educators, there is ample room to conduct further research across states to analyze
different geographic regions across the U.S. to see if similar relationships exist between
strengths, individual coaching and career decision-making. Further recommendations
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
89
exist for research for FCS curriculum and the inclusion of strengths development
beginning in middle school utilizing Strengths Explorer ™. Strengths Explorer ™ is an
assessment similar to StrengthsFinder ™ but intended for adolescents. Strengths Explorer
™ allows adolescents the opportunity to begin discovering and developing their
strengths. Counselors and FCS teachers at the secondary and middle school level have an
opportunity to utilize this research and begin implementing a strengths self-efficacy
component to their counseling and teaching methods, as well as their curriculum.
As part of the 2015 NCDA conference keynote presentation, Dr. William
Symonds spoke on the critical role of career literacy. His presentation included the goal
of making career coaching and counseling a central focus for education. This study
provides an introductory glimpse into ways FCS educators and college career coaches
could incorporate strengths self-efficacy into career guidance (Symonds, Schwartz, &
Ferguson, (2011). Because the study did not provide generalizable data to a larger
population, but did show statistical significance, organizations like the Global Pathways
Institute and NCDA should research strengths self-efficacy as related to career decision-
making.
In order to build on the existing employment research conducted by the Gallup
Organization, this study is a precursor for Gallup to expand their engagement research by
adding questions regarding career decision-making. Their current research points to
employees who know their strengths are more productive in the workplace. An
interesting addition to their research is to see if a longitudinal relationship exists between
employees who made a more confident career decision based on their strengths versus an
employee who did not. With a database of over 50,000 alumni who have participated in
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
90
StrengthsFinder ™ at Texas Tech University, the recommendation is to utilize this data to
survey this population investigating whether or not they are employed in occupations
where they get to use their strengths in the workplace, and if knowledge of their strengths
contributed to their career decision-making.
Additionally, the analysis indicates a weak relationship with satisfaction with
individual person-centered career coaching. For future studies, the recommendation is to
focus on one area of person-centered career coaching instead of the many options utilized
in this study. With too many options to choose, students were not able to truly articulate
their satisfaction with their career coaching. An example of individual person-centered
coaching should be focused on one area such as a career services office at a university if
the sample is college age students. Future research might also incorporate moral/ego
development to accompany person-centered career coaching.
In addition to the recommendations utilizing the findings of the study, an
additional recommendation is for future education and social science researchers to
utilize canonical correlation analysis when appropriate. CCA is a very robust analysis at
the highest level of the general linear model. There are many advantages to utilizing CCA
for research in the social sciences. When at least two dependent variables exist, CCA
should be considered. The use of CCA is advantageous as a multivariate technique, but it
is also advantageous because its accuracy may best represent social science research
statistics. Risk of committing Type I error is minimized because one test is performed
utilizing the multiple dependent variables with subscales.
In previous decades, utilization of CCA did not occur very often, even though it
has been available to researchers since Hotelling developed the method in 1935 (Sherry
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
91
& Henson, 2005). While conducting a search for CCA, Thompson (1984), scoured 10
volumes of the American Educational Research Journal, including 280 articles,
discovering seven instances of CCA being utilized, versus the 480 other techniques.
Furthermore, out of 18 statistical textbooks, only two of them contained information on
CCA (Thompson, 1984). It is hypothesized that before software packages were refined to
do the work, many social scientists viewed CCA as a difficult analysis. In the present
time, software packages like SPSS make CCA more manageable. As multiple variables
accompanied with multiple dependent variable subsets continue to be researched, there is
a need to report the variable sets in a summary form, for which CCA is suited
(McLaughlin & Otto, 1981). In favor of CCA, future research is recommended for the
other four sub-scales of the CPCS. Because this study focused on the dependent variable,
confidence in career decision-making, the other four sub-scales were not analyzed in the
same fashion in this specific study, but do show promise for future research.
Conclusions
This study analyzed the relationships between confidence in career decision-
making when accompanied with varying combinations of satisfaction with individual
career coaching and strengths self-efficacy. University administrators, faculty, career
services professionals, employment recruiters, parents, and graduating students can
utilize this practical research study and begin preparing current and future students for
their career decision-making process. Even though the results of the analysis suggest
satisfaction with individual career coaching accounts for little of the variance in career
decision-making, analysis of the data indicates a statistically significant relationship
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
92
between strengths self-efficacy and confidence in career decision-making. Researchers
Sage and Cooley (1905) published the importance of focusing on a child’s strength in
order for them to be productive and happy. In 2016, results of this study are congruent
with the statement made over a century ago. Strengths self-efficacy has the potential to
contribute to confidence in career decision-making.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
93
REFERENCES
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.aafcs.org/AboutUs/index.asp
Anderson, E. C. (2001). [Outcomes of strengthsfinders]. Unpublished raw data.
Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-Based Educating : A Concrete Way to Bring Out the
Best in Students — and Yourself. Educational Horizons, 83, 180–189. Retrieved
from http://www.texasffa.org/\docs/Strength-Based+Educating.pdf
Anderson, E., & Clifton, D. O. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your
strengths in academics, career, and beyond. Washington, DC: The Gallup
Organization.
Asplund, J., & Elliot, G. (2015). Employees who use their strengths outperform those
Truax, C. B., & Mitchell, K. M. (1971). Research on certain therapist interpersonal skills
in relation to process and outcome. In A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (Eds.),
Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. (pp. 299-344). New York:
Wiley.
Vincenti, V., & Smith, F. (2004). Critical science: What it could offer all family and
consumer sciences professionals. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 96(1),
63–72.
Vogel, D. L., & Wester, S. R. (2003). To seek help or not to seek help: The risks of
self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 351–361.
Wisner, M. D. (2011). Psychological strengths as predictors of effective student
leadership. Christian Higher Education, 10(3-4), 353–375.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2011.576223
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
105
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL LETTER
Apr 18, 2016 12:04 PM CDT Karen Alexander Fam and Consumer Sci Education Re: IRB2016-231 Confidence in Career Decision-making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students Findings: Approved Dear Dr. Karen Alexander: A Texas Tech University IRB reviewer has approved the proposal referenced above. The approval is effective from Apr 18, 2016 within the exempt category of: Category 2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation. Exempt research is not subject to annual review by the IRB. Any change to your protocol requires a Modification Submission for review and approval prior to implementation. Your study may be selected for a Post-Approval Review (PAR). A PAR investigator may contact you to observe your data collection procedures, including the consent process. You will be notified if your study has been chosen for a PAR. Should a subject be harmed or a deviation occur from either the approved protocol or federal regulations (45 CFR 46), please complete an Incident Submission form. Once your research is completed, please use a Closure Submission to terminate this protocol. Sincerely,
Kelly C. Cukrowicz, Ph.D. Chair, Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board Associate Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
106
APPENDIX B
IRB ADDENDUM APPROVAL
May 12, 2016 8:34 AM CDT Karen Alexander Fam and Consumer Sci Education Re: IRB2016-231 Confidence in Career Decision-making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students Findings: Approved. Good luck with your study. Dear Dr. Karen Alexander: A Texas Tech University IRB reviewer has approved your proposed modification to the protocol referenced above within the exempt category of: Category 2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation. Exempt research is not subject to annual review by the IRB. Any change to your protocol requires a Modification Submission for review and approval prior to implementation. Your study may be selected for a Post-Approval Review (PAR). A PAR investigator may contact you to observe your data collection procedures, including the consent process. You will be notified if your study has been chosen for a PAR. Should a subject be harmed or a deviation occur from either the approved protocol or federal regulations (45 CFR 46), please complete an Incident Submission form. Once your research is complete, please use a Closure Submission to terminate this protocol. Sincerely,
Kelly C. Cukrowicz, Ph.D. Chair, Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board Associate Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
107
APPENDIX C
TECHANNOUNCE EMAIL
Dear Prospective Participant, My name is Jay Killough and I am a doctoral student at Texas Tech University looking for people to participate in a university-approved research study, which examines the employment decision-making process. I am conducting this survey to better understand your career decision-making experiences. To do this, I need your help. How have your strengths shaped your career choices? Your responses are completely optional and there are no consequences if you choose not to respond. I will process all personal data you provide and will use that information for statistical and research purposes. I will protect your confidentiality and will not share your personal identifying information. Your completion of this survey signifies your consent to participant. Once you begin the research study, you are free to withdraw at any time and your data will be destroyed from record. Have any additional questions, comments, or concerns? Please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. This study has been approved by the Protection of Human Subject Committee at Texas Tech University.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
108
APPENDIX D
INFORMATION SHEET
Information Sheet Please share your thoughts in our research project. What is this project studying? The study is called “Confidence in Career Decision-Making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students.” This study will help us learn about the relationship with students’ confidence in career decision-making and career counseling. What we learn may help people, and we hope to publish this study widely to make it as beneficial as possible. What would I do if I participate? In this study, you will be asked to complete a survey. Some questions will be about you. Some questions will be about your thoughts. Some will be about how you feel and what you do. Can I quit if I become uncomfortable? Yes, absolutely. Your participation is completely voluntary. Dr. Alexander and the Institutional Review Board have reviewed the questions and think you can answer them comfortably. You may skip any question you do not feel comfortable answering. You can also stop answering questions at any time. You are free to leave any time you wish. You can keep all the benefits of participating even if you stop. Participating is your choice. However, we do appreciate any help you are able to provide. How long will participation take? We are asking for 6-10 minutes of your time. How are you protecting privacy? The questionnaires will not request any personal information to protect your privacy. How will I benefit from participating? Providing the project with valuable information. I have some questions about this study. Who can I ask? Jay Killough and Dr. Alexander from the Family and Consumer Sciences Program at Texas Tech University is conducting the study. If you have questions, you can call Dr. Alexander at 806-834-2212. TTU also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You can call to ask them questions at 806-742-2064. You can mail your questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, or you can email your questions to [email protected].
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
109
APPENDIX E
RECRUITMENT FLIER
Confidence in Career Decision-Making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students
ARE YOU MAKING CAREER DECISIONS?
ARE YOU A SENIOR OR GRAD STUDENT?
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
• If you are graduating in May, August or December of 2016 • Use your smart device to scan the QR code, or type in the tinyurl to participate in our survey.
http://tinyurl.com/hhnafbw My name is Jay Killough and I am a doctoral student at Texas Tech University looking for people to participate in a university-approved research study, which examines the employment decision-making process. I am conducting this 6-10 minute long survey in order to understand your career decision-making experiences. Your opinions are valuable. Have any additional questions, comments, or concerns? Please feel free to contact us. Contact the research team 806-834-2212 or [email protected] 806-834-1550 or [email protected] This study has been approved by the Protection of Human Subject Committee at Texas Tech University.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
110
APPENDIX F
MODIFIED RECRUITMENT FLIER
Confidence in Career Decision-Making Upon First Destination Employment Post Graduation: A Study of
Texas Tech University Seniors and Graduate Students
ARE YOU MAKING CAREER DECISIONS?
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
• Use your smart device to scan the QR code, or type in the tinyurl to participate in our survey.
http://tinyurl.com/hhnafbw My name is Jay Killough and I am a doctoral student at Texas Tech University looking for people to participate in a university-approved research study, which examines the employment decision-making process. I am conducting this 6-10 minute long survey in order to understand your career decision-making experiences. Your opinions are valuable. Have any additional questions, comments, or concerns? Please feel free to contact us. Contact the research team 806-834-2212 or [email protected] 806-834-1550 or [email protected] This study has been approved by the Protection of Human Subject Committee at Texas Tech University.
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
111
APPENDIX G
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Confidence in Decision-Making Upon First Destination Employment Introduction to Survey Hi my name is Jay Killough, Dr. Karen Alexander and I would like to find out more about confidence levels in decision-making regarding first time professional employment. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, just what you think. This online survey will take about 6-10 minutes of your time, and we will use the results for a research study. We will not be able to identify you individually – please do not put your name on this survey. If you would prefer not to answer a question, please leave it blank. Your participation is voluntary and you can stop at any time. If you have any questions about this study, please call Dr. Alexander at 806-834-2212. Please keep the Information provided. Thank you for helping us with this research. Q1 The first question will determine your eligibility to participate in this research study. Have you been employed full-time in a professional position that required either an Associate Degree or a Bachelor Degree? Part-time jobs, and internships during college are not considered full-time professional positions for this study. Enlistment in the military counts as full-time professional work. m No (1) m Yes (2) If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey The next series of questions are regarding utilization of services at Texas Tech University. Q2 Did you take the StrengthsFinder™ assessment at Texas Tech University to identify your top 5 strengths? (Also known as StrengthsQuest). m Yes (1) m No (2) Q3 Did you receive individual, person-centered coaching to discuss your career? m Yes (1) m No (2)
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
112
Q4 Where did you find career coaching at Texas Tech? Check all that apply q A faculty member (1) q An academic advisor (2) q A pre-health-professions counselor (3) q The job placement department in my department or college (4) q The University Career Center (5) q The Counseling Center (6) q Family/Friends (7) q A mentor (8) q I did not receive career coaching (10) q Other (9) ____________________ Q5 How frequently did you visit the University Career Center located in the Wiggins Complex? m 0 times (1) m 1-3 times (2) m 4-6 times (3) m 7 or more times (4) Q6 Who influenced your career decision? m A faculty member (4) m An academic advisor (5) m A pre-health-professions counselor (6) m The job placement department in my department or college (7) m The University Career Center (8) m The Counseling Center (9) m Parents/Family (10) m A mentor (11) m Friends (3) m None (12) m Other (2) ____________________
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
113
Q7 At what point did you make your career decision? m before high school (15) m In high school (8) m Freshman in College (9) m Sophomore in College (10) m Junior in College (11) m Senior in College (12) m Grad school (13) m Still deciding (14) Q8 The following questions assess your opinion about how satisfied you were with your career coaching experience. I was satisfied with the amount of empathy my career coach (i.e. career center professional, academic advisor, faculty member, mentor etc.) showed me during my coaching session. m Strongly Disagree (1) m Disagree (2) m Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) m Agree (4) m Strongly Agree (5) m Not applicable (6) Q9 I was satisfied with the amount of genuine care, and acceptance, my career coach displayed during my coaching session. In other words, I felt they refrained from passing any judgment on me. m Strongly Disagree (1) m Disagree (2) m Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) m Agree (4) m Strongly Agree (5) m Not applicable (6) Q10 I was satisfied with the amount of truthfulness displayed by my career coach during my coaching session. m Strongly Disagree (1) m Disagree (2) m Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) m Agree (4) m Strongly Agree (5) m Not applicable (6)
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
114
Q11 I was satisfied with my individual, person-centered career coaching at Texas Tech University. m Strongly Disagree (1) m Disagree (2) m Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) m Agree (4) m Strongly Agree (5) m Not applicable (6)
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
115
Q12 The following questions assess your confidence with your knowledge of your strengths. How confident are you in your ability to
Not at all Confident
(1)
Somewhat Confident
(2)
Fairly Confident
(3)
Mostly Confident
(4)
Completely Confident
(5) use your
strengths at work? (1)
m m m m m
identify ways to build on
existing strengths? (2)
m m m m m
use your strengths
without any struggles? (3)
m m m m m
track the growth of
your strengths
overtime? (4)
m m m m m
find ways to apply your strengths in the things
you do every day? (5)
m m m m m
accomplish a lot by using
your strengths? (6)
m m m m m
apply your strengths at
work/school? (7)
m m m m m
use your strengths in
many situations?
(8)
m m m m m
use your strengths to succeed? (9)
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
116
determine how to build
on your current
strengths? (10)
m m m m m
utilize several strategies for
enhancing your
strengths? (11)
m m m m m
identify a strength that you need to
use to accomplish a
task? (12)
m m m m m
find ways to use your
strengths at work/school every day?
(13)
m m m m m
use your strengths at any time?
(14)
m m m m m
use your strengths to
help you achieve your goals in life?
(15)
m m m m m
practice your strengths in areas where you excel?
(16)
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
117
Q13 You’re doing great! The next section asks about your knowledge and attitudes/opinions of your job search. How confident are you that you are:
Not at all Confident
(1)
Somewhat Confident
(2)
Fairly Confident
(3)
Mostly Confident
(4)
Completely Confident
(5) motivated to
make a career
decision? (1)
m m m m m
ready to invest the time and energy
necessary to make a career
decision? (2)
m m m m m
capable of learning the
skills necessary to
make a career
decision? (3)
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
118
Q14 How confident are you that you could: Not at all
Confident (1)
Somewhat Confident
(2)
Fairly Confident
(3)
Mostly Confident
(4)
Completely Confident
(5) list your past work-related
achievements? (1)
m m m m m
list your other achievements?
(2) m m m m m
name your career-related
skills? (3) m m m m m
name several work-related activities in
which you are interested? (4)
m m m m m
list your values (what
is most important to
you) related to work? (5)
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
119
Q15 How confident are you that you could: Not at all
Confident (1)
Somewhat Confident
(2)
Fairly Confident
(3)
Mostly Confident
(4)
Completely Confident
(5) find general
career information
(duties, nature of
work, etc.) about the
occupations in which you
are interested?
(1)
m m m m m
find specific career
information about the
education or training required, salary,
employment trends, etc.
for the occupations in which you
are interested?
(2)
m m m m m
talk informally with people
about occupations in which you
are interested?
(3)
m m m m m
explain how your interests match those of people in
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
120
the occupations
you are considering?
(4) explain how your values match those of people in
the occupations
you are considering?
(5)
m m m m m
interview someone
working in the
occupations in which you
are interested?
(6)
m m m m m
list the benefits and
risks of choosing
each one of these
occupations? (7)
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
121
Q16 How confident are you that you could: Not at all
Confident (1)
Somewhat Confident
(2)
Fairly Confident
(3)
Mostly Confident
(4)
Completely Confident
(5) describe
yourself as a good
decision maker? (1)
m m m m m
see yourself as being ready to make a
commitment to a career choice? (2)
m m m m m
choose one education or
training program
from among several
attractive alternatives?
(3)
m m m m m
choose one occupation
from among several
attractive alternatives?
(4)
m m m m m
choose an occupation
which will fit with your
other preferred life
roles (spouse, parent,
leisure, etc.)? (5)
m m m m m
choose an m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
122
occupation and then not worry about whether or
not it was the right choice?
(6) choose the occupation you want
even though significant others in your life
would not approve of
your choice? (7)
m m m m m
set short-term goals
(covering the next 1 - 3 years)? (8)
m m m m m
set long-term goals
(covering the next 5 - 10 years)? (9)
m m m m m
plan an education or
training program
which will help you to
achieve your goals? (10)
m m m m m
make a timetable for completing
your education or
training program and entering your
m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
123
chosen occupation?
(11)
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
124
Q17 How confident are you that you could: Not at all
Confident (1)
Somewhat Confident
(2)
Fairly Confident
(3)
Mostly Confident
(4)
Completely Confident
(5) successfully
complete your education or
training program? (1)
m m m m m
prepare a good resume? (2) m m m m m
prepare a good letter of
application? (3) m m m m m
get letters of recommendation
from teachers and/or former employers? (4)
m m m m m
apply for a job in your chosen occupation? (5)
m m m m m
interview for a job in your
chosen occupation? (6)
m m m m m
be offered and accept a job in your chosen
occupation? (7)
m m m m m
move to another area to seek
employment in your chosen
occupation? (8)
m m m m m
successfully perform during
your first year in the job and receive a positive
evaluation? (9)
m m m m m
successfully m m m m m
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
125
progress in your career? (10)
Q18 You are almost finished! The following questions will be used for statistical purposes only. What is your gender? m Male (1) m Female (2) m Other (3) Q19 What is your ethnicity? m White (4) m Hispanic or Latino (5) m Black or African American (6) m Native American or American Indian (7) m Asian / Pacific Islander (8) m Other (9) ____________________ Q20 Are you an international student requiring visa status? m Yes (1) m No (3) Q21 What is your age? Q22 What is your classification? q Freshman (2) q Sophomore (4) q Junior (5) q Senior (6) q Graduate Student (3)
Texas Tech University, Jay Killough, December 2016
126
Q23 What College are you enrolled in at Texas Tech University? m Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (1) m Architecture (2) m Arts & Sciences (3) m Business (4) m Education (5) m Engineering (6) m Graduate School (7) m Honors (8) m Human Sciences (9) m Media and Communication (10) m Visual and Performing Arts (11) Q24 What is your GPA? m 4.0 (1) (1) m 3.5 to 3.99 (2) (2) m 3.0 to 3.49 (3) (3) m 2.5 to 2.99 (4) (4) m 2.0 to 2.49 (5) (5) m Below 2.0 (6) (6) You are finished! Thank you for your assistance in completing this survey. Your opinions are very important. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or by calling 806-438-2257. You can also contact the Principle Investigator, Karen Alexander, at 806-834-2212, or [email protected]. Should you have any questions regarding your rights as a subject, contact the TTU Institutional Review Board for Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, TTU, Lubbock, TX, 79409, or by calling 806-742-3884. Again, thank you for your time and your assistance with this research project. Best regards, Jay Killough
